LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 31/16

Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

Bible Quotations For Today

False Teachers
02 Peter 02 /01-22: “False prophets appeared in the past among the people, and in the same way false teachers will appear among you. They will bring in destructive, untrue doctrines, and will deny the Master who redeemed them, and so they will bring upon themselves sudden destruction. Even so, many will follow their immoral ways; and because of what they do, others will speak evil of the Way of truth. In their greed these false teachers will make a profit out of telling you made-up stories. For a long time now their Judge has been ready, and their Destroyer has been wide awake! God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell, where they are kept chained in darkness, waiting for the Day of Judgment. God did not spare the ancient world, but brought the flood on the world of godless people; the only ones he saved were Noah, who preached righteousness, and seven other people. God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying them with fire, and made them an example of what will happen to the godless. He rescued Lot, a good man, who was distressed by the immoral conduct of lawless people. That good man lived among them, and day after day he suffered agony as he saw and heard their evil actions. And so the Lord knows how to rescue godly people from their trials and how to keep the wicked under punishment for the Day of Judgment, especially those who follow their filthy bodily lusts and despise God’s authority. These false teachers are bold and arrogant, and show no respect for the glorious beings above; instead, they insult them. Even the angels, who are so much stronger and mightier than these false teachers, do not accuse them with insults in the presence of the Lord. But these people act by instinct, like wild animals born to be captured and killed; they attack with insults anything they do not understand. They will be destroyed like wild animals, and they will be paid with suffering for the suffering they have caused. Pleasure for them is to do anything in broad daylight that will satisfy their bodily appetites; they are a shame and a disgrace as they join you in your meals, all the while enjoying their deceitful ways! They want to look for nothing but the chance to commit adultery; their appetite for sin is never satisfied. They lead weak people into a trap. Their hearts are trained to be greedy. They are under God’s curse! They have left the straight path and have lost their way; they have followed the path taken by Balaam son of Beor, who loved the money he would get for doing wrong and was rebuked for his sin. His donkey spoke with a human voice and stopped the prophet’s insane action. These people are like dried-up springs, like clouds blown along by a storm; God has reserved a place for them in the deepest darkness. They make proud and stupid statements, and use immoral bodily lusts to trap those who are just beginning to escape from among people who live in error. They promise them freedom while they themselves are slaves of destructive habits—for we are slaves of anything that has conquered us. If people have escaped from the corrupting forces of the world through their knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and then are again caught and conquered by them, such people are in worse condition at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been much better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than to know it and then turn away from the sacred command that was given them. What happened to them shows that the proverbs are true: “A dog goes back to what it has vomited” and “A pig that has been washed goes back to roll in the mud.”

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on january 30-31/16
Hadas Maman/Jerusalem Post: Winds of change are blowing in Lebanon/It is certain if Aoun is elected he will make Lebanon an Iranian satellite/Hadas Maman/J.Post/January 30/16
Junblatt exposes Hezbollah’s convoluted stance on presidential elections/Joseph A. Kechichian/Gulf News/January 30, 2016
Israeli minister interviewed for Saudi website/Liad Osmo and Roi Kais/Ynetnews/January 30/16
The diminished West/Hisham Melhem/Al Arabiya/January 30/16
Syria 2016 is a replay of Syria 1920/Eyad Abu Shakra/Al Arabiya/January 30/16
The other ISIS/Baria Alamuddin/Al Arabiya/January 30/16
The Syrian Crisis; US Disappointment/Salman Aldosary/Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/16
Tycoons and the Temptation of Power/Amir Taher/Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/16
How Obama Ended Up Following Putin’s Syria Script and Giving Assad a Victory/Middle East Briefing/January 30/16
A Contribution to the Debate on President Obama’s Mideast Policies/Middle East Briefing/January 30/16
Egypt: The Storm that Never Happened/Middle East Briefing/January 30/16
President Xi Jinping Balked at Mediating Middle East Crises/Middle East Briefing/January 30/16
European Governments Ignoring Security Warnings/Judith Bergman/Gatestone/January 30/16

Lebanese Related News published on january 30-31/16
Hadas Maman/Jerusalem Post: Winds of change are blowing in Lebanon/It is certain if Aoun is elected he will make Lebanon an Iranian satellite
Junblatt exposes Hezbollah’s convoluted stance on presidential elections
Two Soldiers Drown as Military Boat Capsizes Off Akkar Coast
Police Seize Smuggled Luxurious Goods, Arrest 8 Suspects
Army Arrests Suspects for Terror Links
Report: March 8 'Confusion' on Presidency Led to Nasrallah Speech on Friday
Geagea to Nasrallah: If March 8 Won Nominations Battle, then it Must Attend Feb. 8 Polls
Jumblat to Nasrallah: If Iran isn't Blocking Presidential Polls, Why Hasn't Quorum Been Met at Parliament?
Mashnouq to Prioritize Municipal Elections Funding at Next Cabinet Meeting
Report: Military Downplays Danger of Extremist Clashes near Arsal

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on january 30-31/16
Syria peace talks get off to shaky
Nearly 1,400 civilians killed in Russia’s Syria airstrikes
16 more starve to death in Syria's besieged Madaya: MSF
Merging to build fighting force, Syrian rebels say
Saudi mosque attack draws wide condemnation
Yemen’s Houthis detain activists, journalist in Sanaa
Several killed in suicide attack in Yemen’s Aden
France considers recognition of a Palestinian state
33 Greece-bound migrants drown off Turkish coast
Germany's Merkel says refugees must return home once war over
Biden talks regional security with Israel
VIDEO: Mother convicted of joining ISIS told police she was made to do it

Links From Jihad Watch Site for january 30-31/16
US mosque Obama to visit controlled by Hamas-linked ISNA, former imam was Muslim Brotherhood member
Sweden to deport 80,000 Muslim migrants, Finland 20,000
Australia: Muslim wanted to pack kangaroo with explosives, paint it with Islamic State symbol, set it on cops
Obama to visit US mosque to “celebrate the contributions Muslim Americans make to our nation”
Huffington Post: Christians should accept Muhammad as a prophet
UK: Three Muslims gang-raped non-Muslim teen girl in bathroom of hotel where they were celebrating Eid
Iranian drone flew over US carrier — Navy says it was “abnormal and unprofessional”
Hugh Fitzgerald: No Need To Play The Dhimmi
Alcohol banned in UK government building: under Sharia because of secret deal to finance Islamic bond scheme

Hadas Maman/Jerusalem Post: Winds of change are blowing in Lebanon/It is certain if Aoun is elected he will make Lebanon an Iranian satellite
Hadas Maman/J.Post/January 30/16
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/01/30/hadas-mamanjerusalem-post-winds-of-change-are-blowing-in-lebanonit-is-certain-if-aoun-is-elected-he-will-make-lebanon-an-iranian-satellite/
The latest development in Lebanon’s presidential race came as a shock even to those accustomed to the country’s bizarre political twists. Samir Geagea, the leader of the Lebanese Forces (LF) Party, threw his support last week behind the presidential candidacy of his lifelong rival, the former general Michel Aoun, whose Free Patriotic Movement is Hezbollah’s main Christian ally in parliament. This despite the facts that Geagea’s pro-Western political bloc backs the uprising against Assad and Geagea and his supporters had firmly rejected Aoun until now. It is not yet certain if this alliance between Aoun and Geagea will ultimately lead to Aoun becoming president. It is possible that the move could be an attempt to better position Geagea himself for the presidency. Time will tell if this is more about giving Aoun and Geagea influence over the presidency – and giving Christians a greater say in Lebanese politics – than appointing Aoun as president.What is certain is that if Aoun is elected, he will officially make Lebanon an Iranian satellite.
Since May 2014, when Michel Suleiman’s term ended, Lebanon has been in a state of political deadlock; a candidate could not be found in a system which requires a two-thirds majority in parliament. In the absence of a president, the cabinet has taken over presidential decision-making, but coming to a unanimous decision is difficult with such opposing views within the cabinet. This power vacuum has established a caretaker government that cannot agree on any course of action and does not have the power to reform the electoral system. At the heart of this debacle lies Lebanon’s political system, which associates political representation with sectarian affiliation. While the Lebanese constitution guarantees equality between all citizens, an unwritten national pact forged between the country’s leaders in 1943 divided the key posts in the country among the three key sects.
The president was to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim and the speaker of the parliament a Shi’ite Muslim. A peace deal forged in 1989 in the Saudi city of Taif, during the final stages of Lebanon’s 1975-1990 civil war, was supposed to be the beginning of the end of sectarian quotas. But in fact the Taif Agreement maintained the old arrangement with some adjustments, allowing for an equitable distribution of top-level civil service posts and of parliamentary seats between Christians and Muslims. These were meant to be temporary clauses until a senate of religious leaders could be appointed, as a first move toward the abolishment of Lebanon’s political sectarianism.
This part of the Taif Agreement was never implemented, and a quarter of a century later the quota system remains in effect. Sectarian balance is considered at all levels of government. Even government positions and economic gains from public contracts tend to be distributed on a sectarian basis.
The two leading presidential candidates, former warlords general Michel Aoun and Samir Geagea – both Christians with controversial backgrounds from Lebanon’s civil war – lead the two largest Christian political parties in Lebanon, the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and the Lebanese Forces (LF). The two leaders have been deeply divided and hold the balance of power in Lebanon.
Aoun’s FPM is allied to the Hezbollah- led March 8 camp, while Geagea belongs to the Sunni-dominated March 14 group led by Sunni politician Sa’ad Hariri, who is in turn backed by Saudi Arabia, has been highly critical of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s conduct during Syria’s civil war and views the Syrian government as responsible for the assassination of his father, Rafik, in central Beirut in 2005. The killing sent shockwaves through Lebanon and eventually led to the end of three decades of Syrian occupation. Two months ago Lebanon’s political crisis took a dramatic turn when Hariri nominated Suleiman Franjieh for the presidency in an attempt to break the presidential deadlock and revive the work of parliament and the government. Franjieh is a key member of the March 8 alliance ,a former interior minister with family ties to Assad and his father Hafez dating back to the 1950s.
According to the reports, Franjieh’s nomination had the backing of regional and international actors including Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United States and France, who have long been at odds about who should rule Lebanon. Geagea, who is sensitive to Franjieh due to a long-lasting feud dating back to the civil war (Franjieh’s father, mother and sister were assassinated in 1978 by Christian Phalangists commanded by Geagea) and because they are competing for the same Christian area in Northern Lebanon, did a U-turn and backed his own arch enemy, Aoun. For the time being, it seems that the Aoun-Geagea consensus is inadequate to resolve the presidential issue, with both sides being incapable of persuading their allies of this agreement. Moreover, the ongoing row between Riyadh and Tehran could further complicate the situation. Beirut has long been a traditional battleground in the regional proxy war between Riyadh and Tehran, who invest billions of dollars to support their respective candidates. Although small, Lebanon is considered by both regional powers to be an important jewel in their crowns.
Aoun has supported Iran’s role in the region and his election would mark an extension of Tehran’s influence, just as the ongoing tussle for power and influence has seen Saudi Arabia sever diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic. This flare-up in tensions was precipitated by an attack on the Saudi embassy in Tehran, which in turn had followed the execution of a senior Saudi Shi’ite cleric Baqir Nimr, and led to an exchange of tirades in Lebanon between Saudi Arabia and Iran’s main allies in the country – Al Mustakbal and Hezbollah. Sheikh Nabil Kaouk, the deputy head of Hezbollah’s executive council, stressed Sunday (January 24) that, “Lebanon will never be under Saudi tutelage and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.” He also said, “The Saudi regime is paying money to its tools in Lebanon with the aim of inciting against the resistance [Hezbollah], because it has exposed their crimes and managed to foil the major takfiri schemes in the region.”This statement comes after Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah’s aggressive attack against Saudi Arabia and its allies. Nasrallah, who in the recent past had called for the “death of the house of Saud,” continued his attack by stating: “Is not it high time to say courageously and regardless of all scores that the principle and spirit of the takfiri thought which destroys, murders, commits massacres and threatens the whole world is produced by Al Saud?” In response, Ahmad Fatfat, an official in Lebanon’s mainly Sunni Future movement, called Hezbollah “an Iranian militia” that wanted to “take control of Lebanon.”
Saudi Arabia fears Iran will use some of the windfall from the lifting of international sanctions in the wake of its nuclear deal with the P5+1 nations to shore up its regional proxies, including Hezbollah. If Aoun is elected leader, it would likely damage the March 14 bloc’s status within Lebanon, and possibly be seen as another blow to Sunni standing in the region. In the meantime, the ongoing presidential vacuum continues to impair Lebanon’s ability to address security and socio-economic challenges. The paralysis reached a peak during the summer, when the country was shaken by the largest protests in years over the government’s inability to find a solution to Lebanon’s ongoing trash problem. The demonstrations quickly developed into protests against the entire political establishment. Additionally, the Syrian crisis continues to affect the political, security and humanitarian situations in Lebanon.
Almost five years after the eruption of the Syrian crisis, the country houses more than 1.5 million Syrian registered refugees, which represents close to a quarter of the total population of the country. This is putting an enormous burden on Lebanon’s ability to secure the country and maintain its stability.
The magnitude of the problem is not limited to the economy and service sector, and is becoming more dangerous to Lebanon’s security and stability – it has become a “ticking bomb.” At this critical moment, Lebanon needs responsible leadership that will address the challenges its facing, otherwise, Lebanon will be on the brink of collapse.
**The author is a Middle East and Arab media researcher.

Junblatt exposes Hezbollah’s convoluted stance on presidential elections
Nasrallah on Friday claimed to back Aoun but also refused to reject Franjieh’s nomination
Joseph A. Kechichian/Gulf News/January 30, 2016
Beirut: Lebanese Druze leader Walid Junblatt on Saturday reacted to Hezbollah chief’s speech on Friday night where he praised Iranian democracy and rejected any claims that it was behind Lebanon’s over two-year presidential deadlock. “Iran has stressed that the presidential issue is a domestic affair and that it would support what the Lebanese would agree on.”“As for the issue of Iranian democracy, Iran has organised more than 35 elections in the past 37 years and the polls were never suspended, despite the wars and bombing. But we in Lebanon are searching for any excuse to postpone the elections and we don’t have a constitutional authority to address the differences,” he noted. Nasrallah also claimed his party was “ethically and politically committed” to the nomination of Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun for presidency. Inasmuch as these sharp exchanges highlighted, it was increasingly clear that Lebanese officials were not amused by Hezbollah’s theatrics, and refused to tolerate even the notion that Lebanese democracy—despite its shortcomings—could be or ought to be compared with the Iranian version. For the Hezbollah leader, Aoun’s presidential nomination was a foregone conclusion, though somewhat camouflaged in convoluted prose that raised eyebrows. “If we can guarantee that Aoun will be elected president tomorrow,” concluded Nasrallah, “we would go to parliament and take part in the elections and we would not demand a package settlement, a constituent assembly or constitutional amendments.”
This was a revelation in and of itself since it telegraphed that Hezbollah was not ready to pressure the other March 8 tenor, Marada Movement leader Sulaiman Franjieh, to withdraw, again, for “ethical reasons”. In reality, Nasrallah toyed with both contenders, and even welcomed the presence of Henri Helou, the third candidate nominated by the Progressive Socialist Party’s Walid Junblatt, which meant than none of the three could get the required 65 votes. Worse, Nasrallah criticized Franjieh, who is backed by former Prime Minister Saad Hariri and his moribund March 14 alliance. Observers believe Iran, through its Hezbollah proxy Iran, has no interest in the Lebanese parliament to elect a president. In a surprise move, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, who was the official March 14 movement’s candidate that opposed Aoun, through his backing of his rival on January 18. As Aoun was the official candidate nominated by the March 8 movement, which Hezbollah leads, the move put pressure on the Iranian proxy group to let the elections occur without any hold up. “If Iran was indeed not hindering the elections, as you are claiming,” Junblatt wrote in his weekly editorial in the Progressive Socialist Party-affiliated Al Anba’a website, “then any citizen has the right to ask what are the real reasons for the lack of quorum at electoral sessions?”Junblatt reiterated that the vast majority of Lebanese did not want Lebanese democracy “to transform into the Iranian one” as he rejected Nasrallah’s praise of Iran’s election track record.
Lebanon, wrote Junblatt, did not operate on the premise “that the results of [any] election [ought to] be guaranteed in advance before ensuring quorum.”

Two Soldiers Drown as Military Boat Capsizes Off Akkar Coast
Naharnet/January 30/16/Two soldiers drowned on Saturday morning after a military boat capsized off the northern coast of Akkar, reported Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3). It said that the patrol boat had departed the northern city of Tripoli and headed North when it capsized. Two other soldiers, Shadi al-Zoghby and Rabih Ghandoura, were rescued. The victims were identified as Hassan al-Jamal and Elias Matar. A military helicopter was deployed to locate the vessel, which was found later on Saturday morning. The army later explained that an unforeseen “technical malfunction caused the partial sinking of the vessel.” “Contact was also lost with its crew,” it added.

Police Seize Smuggled Luxurious Goods, Arrest 8 Suspects
Naharnet/January 30/16/Police have arrested several people and seized their trucks for smuggling luxurious goods and brand names in the Beddawi area of the northern city of Tripoli, the Internal Security Forces said on Saturday. Eight Lebanese nationals, most of them hailing from the Jaafar clan, were apprehended and six of their large trucks were seized, police and the state-run National News Agency said. The trucks, which were carrying fake license plates, contained 363 boxes of cigarettes, 280 brand watches, 187 high-quality cigars, cosmetics, lighters, faux bijoux, handbags, shampoo and other goods, they said. The suspects were referred to the judiciary to take the appropriate action against them. Neither police nor the agency specified where the trucks were heading. The ISF communique said the arrests took place on Friday.

Army Arrests Suspects for Terror Links
Naharnet/January 30/16/The army announced on Saturday the arrested a Lebanese national in the northern area of Zgharta on terror charges. It said that Ahmed Ali al-Ghourani was detained in Miryata in Zgharta on suspicion of contacting terrorist groups. In the northern city of Tripoli, Syrian Abdullah Jamal Darwish was arrested for his connections to the Islamic State extremist group.The detainees have been referred to the concerned authorities. The army and security forces have in recent months arrested scores of terror suspects linked to groups involved in the Syrian conflict.

Report: March 8 'Confusion' on Presidency Led to Nasrallah Speech on Friday
Naharnet/January 30/16/The March 14 coalition noted that “confusion” has pervaded the ranks of its rival the March 8 camp in wake of the nomination of MPs Michel Aoun and Suleiman Franjieh as president, reported the daily An Nahar on Saturday. Sources from the coalition told the daily that this confusion prompted Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to make a televised appearance on Friday night. His speech was aimed at “treating” this confusion, they explained, which was demonstrated when he said that the March 8 camp has emerged as victor in the presidential race since both candidates are members of the alliance. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing disputes between the rival March 8 and a14 camps have thwarted the polls. The March 14 camp's candidate Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea withdrew from the race last week to endorse the nomination of Change and Reform bloc head MP Aoun. This move was an attempt to end the presidential impasse and Geagea said that it will “test” Hizbullah's commitment to Aoun's candidacy during the next round of elections, which are scheduled for February 8.

Geagea to Nasrallah: If March 8 Won Nominations Battle, then it Must Attend Feb. 8 Polls
Naharnet/January 30/16/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea urged on Saturday the March 8 camp to head to parliament on February 8 to take part in the presidential elections. He said via Twitter: “If Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah believes that the camp achieved a victory in the presidential nominations, why doesn't his camp head to the polls in February?” Nasrallah had declared on Friday that his party would head to parliament “tomorrow” if it guarantees that Change and Reform bloc chief MP Michel Aoun would be elected president. Addressing Nasrallah's remark that “no one can impose anything on our allies,” Geagea said: “Where was this claim when his non-allies were forced to name Najib Miqati as premier?” The Hizbullah leader also reiterated on Friday his commitment to the election of his ally Aoun as head of state. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of successor. The blocs of Aoun and Hizbullah and some of their allies have been boycotting the electoral sessions. Nasrallah noted Friday that Hizbullah was “pleased” by Geagea's endorsement of Aoun's presidential bid.

Jumblat to Nasrallah: If Iran isn't Blocking Presidential Polls, Why Hasn't Quorum Been Met at Parliament?
Naharnet/January 30/16/Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat questioned on Saturday the criticism that was indirectly addressed to him by Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah for his recent “sarcastic remarks on Iran's democracy,” saying that “based on the several meetings I have held with him, I recall that he has a political sense of humor.”He said in his weekly editorial in the PSP-affiliated al-Anbaa website: “I was therefore suprised at the reactions that were made over marginal comments I made over the Islamic Republic and its role in obstructing Lebanon's presidential elections.”
“If Iran was indeed not hindering the elections, as you are claiming, then any citizen has the right to ask what are the real reasons for the lack of quorum at electoral sessions?” he asked in an indirect reference to Nasrallah. He noted that this question holds more significance now that both presidential candidates are members of the March 8 alliance. Nasrallah deemed on Friday as a political victory the fact that MPs Michel Aoun and Suleiman Franjieh, both members of the alliance, are running for the presidency. “Wasn't it Iranian deputy Foreign Minister Hussein Amir Abdul Lahyan that his country would back any agreement made among the Lebanese over the elections?” Jumblat asked.“Perhaps these sides are seeking to follow the Iranian example and demand that the results of the elections be guaranteed in advance before ensuring quorum at the electoral session,” he continued. “This means determining the results and later holding a symbolic and superficial vote similar to the several democratic councils in Tehran,” he added. “We raised several question marks over the indirect democracy in Iran due to its numerous Shura councils, various regime committees, and its republican guard, of course, because we do not want the Lebanese democracy, despite its weakness, to transform into the Iranian one,” he noted. “Needless to say that Lebanon's political and economic capabilities do not match Iran's, which has seen the West open its doors to it to strike deals worth billions of dollars,” the PSP chief said.
“I'd like to add a reminder that the council of diagnosing the regime – excuse me, I mean national dialogue – was the side that unanimously tasked Prime Minister Tammam Salam and Agriculture Minister Akram Shehayyeb to find a solution to the garbage crisis,” he continued. “Criticizing Iran and some its positions, similar to criticizing the United States, Russia, or Europe at certain times, is not aimed at fueling political spite, as some have said, but it is part of democracy and freedom of expression, which Hizbullah undoubtedly understands and highly values,” Jumblat stressed. Nasrallah said during a speech on Friday: “Iran has stressed that the presidential issue is a domestic affair and that it would support what the Lebanese would agree on.” “As for the issue of Iranian democracy, Iran has organized more than 35 elections in the past 37 years and the polls were never suspended, despite the wars and bombing. But we in Lebanon are searching for any excuse to postpone the elections and we don't have a constitutional authority to address the differences,” he noted. “The Expediency Discernment Council has granted Iran what it was aspiring for at the political, industrial, military and technological levels,” he stated.

Mashnouq to Prioritize Municipal Elections Funding at Next Cabinet Meeting
Naharnet/January 30/16/Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq has voiced his commitment to ensuring that municipal elections are held later this year, reported An Nahar daily on Saturday. He told the daily that he will push for “the funding of the elections to be the first article addressed during Tuesday's cabinet session.” “The elections represent a continuation of the Lebanese people's exercise of democracy,” added Mashnouq. “Elections are the embodiment of democracy,” he stressed. This stance comes in wake of Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah expressing on Friday his commitment to holding the polls, noted An Nahar. Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea had tweeted on Friday his fear that “two major parties” would hinder the elections. He also underlined on Thursday the need to allocate the necessary funds to hold the elections on time. The 20-month vacuum in the presidency has raised questions on whether the polls set for later this year will be held on time.

Report: Military Downplays Danger of Extremist Clashes near Arsal
Naharnet/January 30/16/Clashes had erupted between the extremist al-Nusra Front and Islamic State groups on the outskirts of the northeastern border town of Arsal over the past two days, but a military source downplayed their threat on Lebanon, reported the daily al-Mustaqbal on Saturday. He told the daily that the unrest “is an armed clash over positions in the area.” They are taking place about 5 kilometers from army stations, he added. “The army is continuing on fortifying the border and sweeping the area through shelling any movement or gathering of gunmen,” he stressed. Al-Akhbar newspaper Saturday meanwhile said that the Arsal clashes are an attempt by the IS “to create an emirate that extends from the eastern Bekaa region to the sea.”Al-Mustaqbal later denied claims that Arsal residents had fled the area to escape the clashes. Fierce clashes renewed at noon Friday between the al-Nusra Front and the IS on the outskirts Arsal.  The violent fighting left several militants dead and wounded from both sides. The clashes spread to most areas in Arsal's outskirts and in Syria's Qalamoun where al-Nusra and IS have posts. Media reports said later on Friday that a truce had been reached between the extremist groups. The militants of al-Nusra and the IS clash with the army occasionally, but a major confrontation erupted in August 2014 when the two groups overran Arsal.

Syria peace talks get off to shaky start
The Associated Press, Geneva Saturday, 30 January 2016/Peace talks aimed at ending Syria’s five-year civil war got off to a shaky and chaotic start Friday, with the main opposition group at first boycotting the session, then later agreeing to meet with U.N. officials - while still insisting it would not negotiate. That small commitment by the group known as the Higher Negotiating Committee came just minutes before U.N. special envoy Staffan de Mistura met with a delegation representing the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The developments gave a glimmer of hope that peace efforts in Syria might actually get off the ground for the first time since two earlier rounds of negotiations collapsed in 2014. The conflict has killed at least 250,000 people, forced millions to flee the country, and given an opening to the ISIS militant group to capture territory in Syria and Iraq. It has drawn in U.S. and Russia, as well as regional powers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The HNC, a Saudi-backed bloc, had previously said it would not participate in the U.N.-sponsored talks without an end to the bombardment of civilians by Russian and Syrian forces, a lifting of blockades in rebel-held areas and the release of detainees. An HNC statement said the opposition decided to take part in the talks after receiving assurances from friendly countries about those humanitarian issues, and that a delegation headed by HNC chief Riad Hijab will leave Saudi Arabia for Geneva on Saturday. Only once the conditions are met will the delegation negotiate, the statement added. “We have decided to participate in a political process to test the seriousness of the other side through talks with the United Nations team about the implementation of international and humanitarian commitment as an introduction to the negotiations process and to move toward forming a transitional governing council with full executive powers,” the statement said. De Mistura said he had “good reason to believe” the HNC would join the talks Sunday but refused to react formally until he got an official notice from its leadership. “As you can imagine, I have been hearing rumors and information already,” de Mistura told reporters after meeting with the delegation led by Syria’s U.N. ambassador, Bashar Ja’afari. “What I will react to - that’s why I said I have reasons to believe - I will only react when I get a formal indication of that,” de Mistura said, “But that is a good signal.” Speaking almost simultaneously at a hotel across town, HNC member Farah Atassi told reporters its delegation would arrive Saturday only to talk to U.N. officials about its demands after receiving some reassurances from the U.N., but “not to negotiate.”U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura shakes hands with Syria's Ambassador to the United Nations Bashar al Jaafari (L) during the Syria peace talks in Geneva, Switzerland, January 29, 2016. (Reuters)
Western governments praise HNC action
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington welcomes the HNC’s “important decision ... to attend negotiations hosted by the United Nations in Geneva.” “The United States further expects that both sides in these negotiations will participate in good faith and achieve early, measurable progress in the days ahead,” he said in a statement. French President Francois Hollande’s office called for quick enactment of humanitarian aid measures for Syria under a U.N. Security Council resolution. The decision by the HNC came after many Western powers and Saudi Arabia - a major backer of the group - had pushed hard for it to attend, diplomats said. Disputes have arisen over which opposition parties will attend, with the HNC coming under criticism for including the militant Army of Islam group, which controls wide areas near the capital of Damascus, and is considered a terrorist organization by the Syrian government and Russia. The largest Kurdish group in Syria, the Democratic Union Party or PYD, is not invited to the talks. Turkey considers the PYD to be a terrorist organization. Also not invited are the ISIS group and the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front. Opposition figures from outside the HNC also are in Geneva, but they were invited as advisers. The meetings, billed as multiparty talks, are part of a process outlined in a U.N. resolution last month that envisions an 18-month timetable for a political transition in Syria, including the drafting of a new constitution and elections. De Mistura has decided that these will be “proximity talks,” rather than face-to-face sessions, meaning that he plans to keep the delegations in separate rooms and shuttle in between. He has tamped down expectations by saying he expects talks to last for six months.
U.N. spokesman Ahmad Fawzi reflected the chaos and confusion earlier in the day when he told reporters that “I don’t have a time, I don’t have the exact location, and I can’t tell you anything about the delegation.”The initial refusal of the HNC to attend was slammed by Syria’s official Tishrin newspaper as reflecting “the collective flight of terrorist groups backed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey from the political table, following their collapses on the battlefield.”Ja’afari, the Syrian envoy, declined to speak to reporters as he left the meeting with de Mistura. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the moderate opposition was not attending because Russia continues to bomb rebel-held areas in Syria, and that it is a “betrayal” to the moderates to ask them to attend without a cease-fire. Qadri Jamil, a former Syrian deputy prime minister who has become a leading opposition figure but is not part of the HNC, told The Associated Press that the priority was to allow aid into besieged areas. A Western diplomat in close contact with the opposition said in Geneva that the HNC’s “main message to us has been, ‘while we are under sustained attack by Russia and the regime and other states and militants and other groups, we cannot justify to Syrians why we are going.’” The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters on behalf of the opposition. Reflecting the growing outside military presence in Syria, the Dutch government said Friday it plans to join the U.S.-led coalition targeting the ISIS group in Syria with airstrikes. The Dutch have for months been carrying out airstrikes in neighboring Iraq, but have balked at extending the mission to Syria. But after requests from the U.S. and France, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s two-party coalition government decided to broaden the mandate to eastern Syria.Syrians trapped in the besieged town of Madaya are continuing to die of starvation despite shipments of aid this month, the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders said. The town northeast of Damascus has been blockaded by government and allied militias for months and drew international attention when photos of emaciated children were published. Citing local health workers, the group said 16 people have died there since three aid convoys arrived earlier this month.

Syria Kurds Leave Geneva without Peace Talks Invites
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 30/16/Syrian Kurdish figures hoping to take part in fragile U.N.-brokered peace talks in Geneva have left the Swiss city after not receiving invitations to negotiations, sources told AFP on Saturday. Saleh Muslim, head of the powerful Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), had traveled to Geneva last week in the hopes his movement would have a seat at the table.But he and his advisors left Geneva late Friday, a member of his party's team in Switzerland said. "Yes, we left Geneva because we did not get invitations," the member said, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to speak to the press. "We will not commit to any decision that comes out of Geneva, including a ceasefire agreement," he added. And Ilham Ahmad, the Kurdish co-head of an Arab-Kurdish joint council in Syria, told AFP she had also left the Swiss city on Friday night after not being invited to talks. The participation of Kurdish parties has been one of the sharpest points of contention among warring parties in Syria and their respective backers. Kurdish groups like the PYD and their armed wing, the People's Protection Units, insist that their participation is key to the success of any political process aimed at ending the nearly five-year war rocking Syria. The PYD has been one of the most successful fighting forces against the extremist Islamic State group, clearing jihadists out of swathes of territory in northern Syria. "Without us, this process will have the same fate as the last round of Geneva talks" in 2014, the PYD source told AFP. Russia, which has helped President Bashar Assad's forces regain territory since starting air strikes in late September, also says that the Kurds must take part in any talks. But the mainstream Syrian opposition body the High Negotiations Committee -- and its Turkish and Saudi backers -- have strongly objected to the PYD's participation. Part of the HNC's own delegation to U.N.-administered talks, which includes at least one Kurdish member, is set to arrive in Geneva late Saturday. The talks are the latest attempt at putting an end to Syria's nearly five-year war, which has left more than 260,000 people dead.

Nearly 1,400 civilians killed in Russia’s Syria airstrikes
Reuters, Amman Saturday, 30 January 2016/Russian airstrikes on Syria have killed nearly 1,400 civilians since Moscow started its aerial campaign nearly four months ago, a group monitoring the war said on Saturday. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which collects information from a network of sources on the ground, said the Russian strikes had also killed 965 ISIS fighters as well as 1,233 fighters from various other insurgent groups. The main Syrian opposition group heading to Geneva peace talks on Saturday has demanded a halt to a joint Russian and Syrian bombing campaign they say targets mostly civilians in rebel held areas as a pre-condition for engaging in talks with the Syrian government. Russia began a major aerial campaign on Sept. 30 to help its ally Syrian President Bashar al Assad. The airstrikes tilted the war in Assad’s way after major setbacks earlier in 2015 brought rebel groups close to the coastal heartland of his Alawite sect. Moscow says it is targeting ISIS militants but rebels and residents say the Russian air strikes are causing hundreds of civilian casualties in indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas away from the frontline.

16 more starve to death in Syria's besieged Madaya: MSF
AFP | Beirut Saturday, 30 January 2016/At least 16 more people have died of starvation in the besieged Syrian town of Madaya since an aid convoy entered earlier this month, according to Doctors Without Borders (MSF).Several dozen more residents of the town are in “danger of death” because of severe malnutrition, the humanitarian group warned. The latest deaths bring the number of people reported to have died of starvation in Madaya to 46 since December, according to MSF. But the medical charity said the real toll could be even higher. “MSF has clear medical reporting for 46 starvation deaths since December 1,” the group said in a statement to AFP. “The real number is almost certainly higher, as MSF is aware of reports of people dying of starvation in their homes.” Located in Damascus province, Madaya is under government siege, and its fate has been one of the sticking points for fresh peace talks on the Syrian conflict that opened on Friday after delays. Syria’s opposition wants to see the implementation of U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to sieges in the country before committing to new negotiations. Madaya is one of four towns included in a rare deal last year that was intended to halt fighting and allow the entry of humanitarian aid. (Source: United Nations - Institute for the Study of War, BBC). But despite the deal, the U.N. and other aid groups have had only limited access to Madaya, along with rebel-held Zabadani, and the government-held towns of Fuaa and Kafraya, which are under opposition siege. Conditions in Madaya have reportedly been among the worst, with about 42,000 civilians there surrounded by government troops who have laid mines around the town to prevent people leaving. While the government has some ability to airdrop supplies to Fuaa and Kafraya, the opposition has no similar capacity, and aid groups have regularly urged continuous aid access to all four towns. They have also called for the evacuation of those suffering malnutrition or sick with other illnesses. Citing medics it supports in the town, MSF said there were at least 320 cases of malnutrition in the town, including 33 that were so severe that the individuals could die without prompt treatment. “It is totally unacceptable that people continue to die from starvation, and that critical medical cases remain in the town when they should have been evacuated weeks ago,” said MSF’s director of operations Brice de le Vingne.“The warring parties responsible for these besiegement strategies need to allow unhindered medical and humanitarian access immediately,” he added.

Merging to build fighting force, Syrian rebels say
Reuters, Beirut Saturday, 30 January 2016/A Syrian insurgent group said on Friday it had merged with a number of other rebel groups around Aleppo province to become a stronger fighting force in the country’s five-year-old civil war. The group Failaq al-Sham, or Sham Legion, said on its Twitter feed it had merged with eight other fighting groups to form a new entity called the Northern Brigade. In early January, Failaq al-Sham pulled out of a coalition of Islamist factions operating in the northwest of the country, in order to redeploy around Aleppo where pro-government forces had been intensifying assaults.
Failaq al-Sham withdrew from the Army of Conquest, which includes the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front and powerful Islamist group Ahrar al Sham, and which captured most of neighboring Idlib province in 2015. Since Russia’s intervention in the Syria conflict in September with an air campaign to support President Bashar al-Assad, pro-government forces have stepped up offensives in the west and north of the country. Failaq al-Sham said in its statement that it wanted to unify revolutionary units into one body to be militarily and administratively stronger.

Saudi mosque attack draws wide condemnation
Saudi Gazette, Riyadh Saturday, 30 January 2016/Friday’s terror attack on a mosque in al-Ahsa that killed four people drew widespread condemnation across the world. The attack on Imam Rida Mosque in Mahasen neighborhood in al-Ahsa region of the Eastern Province also injured 18 worshipers. The general secretariat of the Board of Senior Ulema roundly condemned the attack, claiming it as a failed bid to undermine the security of the Saudi Arabia and trigger sedition in the country, the Saudi Press Agency reported. The board said in a press statement that such terror acts would only lead to increase the Saudi people’s faith in Allah Almighty, and close their ranks to rally behind their leaders in safeguarding the nation against the scourge of terrorism. The board urged scholars, intellectuals and thinkers to intensify awareness campaign and fight the dangerous terrorist doctrines and stop silence over acts that threaten the nation’s security and safety of the public. Sheikh Abdurahman bin Abdullah al-Sind, head of the Presidency for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (Haia), said the mosque attack is a blatant aggression that serves only the ulterior motives of the enemies of Islam. It is a grave sin to target mosques and try to create division among the people through such barbaric acts,” he said. German Foreign Minister FrankWalter Steinmeier denounced the al-Ahsa mosque attack, describing it as a cowardice act that is unacceptable in any religion. “The perpetrators of such attacks want to incite hatred among the Saudi people. It is the responsibility of the international community to show solidarity with Saudi Arabia in fighting terror,” he said. The Arab Inter-Parliamentary Union (AIPU) President and Speaker of Kuwait’s National Assembly (Majles Al-Ummah) Marzouq al-Ghanim voiced strong condemnation of the mosque attack in al-Ahsa. “We slam such cowardly and heinous attacks targeting unarmed worshipers, and express our total solidarity with Saudi Arabia in combating these vicious acts that are nothing to do with Islam,” he said while calling for regional and international collaboration and cooperation in stamping out the scourge of terror. While denouncing the al-Ahsa attacks, Bahrain’s ministry of foreign affairs hoped that such terror attacks won’t be successful in undermining the security of Saudi Arabia or creating sedition or friction among members of the Saudi society. The ministry lauded the great efforts being exerted by the Kingdom in strengthening the security and stability of the Arab and Islamic states as well as to ensure the prosperity and welfare of their people and confronting the challenges faced by them, especially fighting terrorism. In a statement, the foreign ministry of Qatar condemned the attack, saying that such criminal acts are contrary to all moral and humanitarian values and fundamental principles of all divine religions. The ministry expressed confidence that the Saudi security authorities are capable of foiling such attacks and bring the perpetrators to justice. Condemning the attack on innocent worshipers, Dr. Mohammad al-Momani, Jordanian government spokesman and minister of state for media affairs and communications, said that this shows that the blind terror wont’ spare anybody and instead targeting all. “Jordan will stand by the Kingdom against all such vicious terror acts,” he said. This article was first published in the Saudi Gazette on Jan. 30, 2016.

Yemen’s Houthis detain activists, journalist in Sanaa
The Associated Press, Yemen/Sanaa Saturday, 30 January 2016/Yemeni security officials say Houthi rebels have detained a number of activists and critics including a local journalist in the capital, Sanaa. Saturday's detentions come shortly after the Houthis released three Al-Jazeera journalists they kidnapped in the western city of Taez. Speaking anonymously in line with regulations, the officials said the detentions are part of a Houthi crackdown on activists and journalists. The officials remain neutral in the conflict that has splintered Yemen. Yemen has been embroiled in fighting since the Houthis allied with a former president captured large swaths of the country, including Sanaa, over a year ago.The U.N. says the war has killed over 5,800 people since March, when a Saudi-led coalition backing the internationally recognized government began launching airstrikes targeting the rebels.

Several killed in suicide attack in Yemen’s Aden
By AFP, Aden Saturday, 30 January 2016/A suicide bombing killed seven people and wounded seven others Friday night in Aden, the second deadly attack in as many days in Yemen’s second city, medics and security sources said. The bombing targeted a police checkpoint not far from Thursday’s suicide attack that killed eight people, including soldiers and civilians, outside the presidential palace in the city, the sources said. A hospital spokesman confirmed that seven people were killed in Friday’s bombing. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack but the ISIS militant group said it was responsible for Thursday’s bombing. Al-Qaeda and the rival ISIS group both have a presence in Aden, where militants occupy government buildings and are seen patrolling several districts and intimidating civilians. They have claimed a string of attacks and assassinations in recent months. President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi was in the palace at the time of Thursday’s attack but unharmed, a government official said. Aden has become the temporary headquarters of Hadi’s government as it battles to retake large parts of Yemen from Houthi militias. Hadi fled to Aden after escaping house arrest in the capital Sanaa, which was overran by the Houthis in September 2014. The rebels then moved south forcing Hadi to flee in March to Riyadh.But Hadi loyalists backed by Saudi-led air strikes recaptured the port city of Aden but they are still battling to retake other provinces and push toward the Houthi-held capital.

France considers recognition of a Palestinian state
The Associated Press, Paris Saturday, 30 January 2016
France will recognize a Palestinian state if its efforts to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at an international conference fail, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Friday. He told French diplomats that the conference will aim to bring together the two parties and their American, European and Arab partners in order “to make happen a two-state solution.” If this attempt faces a deadlock, Fabuis said, France will have to recognize a Palestinian state. France’s Socialist government supports the idea of two states, but had previously argued that it was too early for outright recognition of a Palestinian state. Fabius’ announcement comes as the Palestinians, buoyed by the successful Iran nuclear talks and the start of U.N.-mediated talks on Syria, have been exploring steps that could lead to a two-state solution including an international conference and a Security Council resolution that would demand an end to illegal Israeli settlement building. Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. ambassador, told AP: “The Palestinian leadership do welcome the announcement of foreign minister Fabius today in Paris in connection with the convening of an international conference in the next few weeks, and if things fail the recognition of the state of Palestine by France.” “I think the objective of this conference ... has to be to open the process that would lead to the end of the occupation and the preservation of the two-state solution,” he said. As for recognition, Mansour said, “France promised us some time ago that if there is no opening for a meaningful political process - a collective process that would lead to the end of occupation and independence of the state of Palestine and therefore saving the two-state solution soon - then they will recognize the state of Palestine.” He said the Palestinians wanted recognition from France “some time ago,” noting that the French parliament has unanimously recommended recognizing the state of Palestine. “And we hope that they do that,” Mansour said. “If they are tying it to the political process, that is their thinking. But eventually if you believe in a two-state solution, then recognizing the state of Palestine is an investment.”
Israel’s U.N. Mission did not immediately respond to a request for comment. ‘Palestinians to seek a broader international framework’Earlier on Friday, at U.N. headquarters in New York, Mansour said the nuclear talks on Iran and talks on Syria, Yemen and Libya have spurred the Palestinians to seek a broader international framework to try to settle the decades-old conflict with Israel. “This is a new culture - and why shouldn’t that spread to the Palestinian issue?,” he asked. Mansour said the Palestinians don’t accept that in 2016 “the door is closed” and nothing can be done to make progress toward a two-state solution because of the U.S. presidential election in November. He said that’s why he has been engaging all 15 members of the Security Council, including Israel’s close ally the United States, as well as the U.N. Secretariat and other “friends,” on their readiness to take steps - especially since virtually all members at the last Mideast meeting spoke out against Israeli settlement building. Mansour commended Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon “for characterizing correctly the settlements as illegal, illegitimate and a major obstacle to peace.” Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Ban’s remarks justify terrorism.
Besides a new resolution on settlements and an international conference, Mansour said he has raised the French idea of “a support group” of other countries to promote progress toward peace, an expansion of the Quartet of Mideast mediators - the U.S., U.N., European Union and Russia. He said adoption of a Security Council resolution would be “a signal” that the council and key world powers want to end the conflict and see an independent Palestinian state.

33 Greece-bound migrants drown off Turkish coast
The Associated Press, Ankara Saturday, 30 January 2016/Turkey's state-run news agency says at least 33 people, including five children, have drowned in the Aegean Sea after their Greece-bound boat capsized off the Turkish coast. Anadolu Agency says coast guards rescued 75 others from the sea Saturday near the resort of Ayvacik en route to the Greek island of Lesbos. The agency has identified the survivors as natives of Afghanistan, Syria and Myanmar. The International Organization for Migration says 218 people have died this year while trying to cross by sea from Turkey to Greece.
Turkey is hosting an estimated 2.5 million refugees from Syria. In November, Turkey agreed to fight smuggling networks and stem the flow of migrants into Europe. In return, the EU has pledged 3 billion euros ($3.25 billion) to help improve the refugees' conditions.

Germany's Merkel says refugees must return home once war over
Reuters, Germany Saturday, 30 January 2016/German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday tried to placate the increasingly vocal critics of her open-door policy for refugees, insisting that asylum seekers from Syria and Iraq would go home once the conflicts there had ended. Merkel, despite appearing increasingly isolated over her policy, has resisted pressure from some conservatives to cap the influx of refugees, or to close Germany's borders. A record 1.1 million migrants arrived in Germany last year. But growing concern about the country's ability to cope and worries about crime and security after assaults on women are weighing on support for Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU). Merkel said that despite efforts to integrate refugees and help them, it was important to stress that they had only been given permission to stay for a limited period of time. "We need ... to say to people that this is a temporary residential status and we expect that once there is peace in Syria again, once IS has been defeated in Iraq, that you go back to your home country with the knowledge that you have gained," she said at a meeting of CDU members in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. She said 70 percent of refugees that fled to Germany from the war in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s had returned to their home countries. Her remarks come after Horst Seehofer, leader of the CSU, threatened to take her government to court if his demand to stem the flow of asylum seekers was not met. Support for the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) has edged up into double digits. Its leader said in an interview published on Saturday that border guards should shoot at refugees to prevent them from illegally entering the country if need be. Merkel has tried to convince other European countries to take in quotas of refugees, pushed for reception centres to be built on Europe's external borders, and led an EU campaign to try to convince Turkey to keep refugees from entering the bloc.But progress has been slow. Germany wants to limit migration from North Africa by declaring Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia "safe countries", which would end their citizens' chance of being granted asylum. Merkel said she had spoken to Morocco's king and that Morocco had said it was prepared to take back people from that country.

Biden talks regional security with Israel
The Associated Press, Washington Saturday, 30 January 2016/Vice President Joe Biden is conferring with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about energy in the region and Israel’s relationship with Turkey. Biden spoke with Netanyahu by phone on Friday in what the White House described as a follow-up to their meeting last week during a summit in Switzerland. The call comes the same day that reports emerged citing leaked documents showing the U.S. and British spied on Israeli drones for years. Biden also spoke Friday to Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades. The White House says Biden updated Anastasiades on his talks with Turkish officials about resolving the long-running dispute over Cyprus. The two leaders also discussed a new agreement among Cyprus, Greece and Israel to boost cooperation. The White House calls it a positive step for regional security.

VIDEO: Mother convicted of joining ISIS told police she was made to do it
By Staff writer Al Arabiya English Saturday, 30 January 2016/The 26-year-old British mother convicted of belonging to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group after taking her son to Syria, told police she never intended to join the militant network. Tareena Shakil, who posted pictures of her son next to a weapon, was found guilty at Birmingham Crown Court on Friday of joining ISIS and encouraging terrorism on social media. The 26-year-old had boarded a plane to Turkey in October 2014 with her one-year-old boy, crossed the border into Syria and spent three months there, West Midlands police said in a statement. Shakil denied joining ISIS, claiming that a man she met in Turkey had taken her to one of the group’s strongholds in Syria. But British detectives said Shakil had become a member of the extremist group and was set to become a militant bride. Now the video recordings of the police interview following Shakil’s arrest have been released – in them she can be seen denying the claims against her. “It was never my intention to enter into Syria. Whilst being on holiday I happened to meet a young Turkish man on the beach. He claimed he was working on the beach and I liked him. And we developed somewhat of a relationship,” she claimed during police interviews. She said the man took her to Syria, and described the reaction of other women when she arrived at the ISIS camp. Shakil explained: “The other women were like 'This place, this place is hell, this place is hell'. That place was not a good place, it was a horrible, horrible place.”She said she pleaded with the man to let her leave, but said he would not let her go. “I want to leave this place, I want to leave this place, why have you brought me here, I don't want to be in this place, I want to go back to Antalyah.”She said the man told her it was impossible for him to let her leave because she would alert the police to the location of the camp. Shakil described being driven in a car one kilometer away from the Turkish border and demanding that the driver stop to let her out. She told police: “I just ran, because one kilometer is just nothing. And I just ran, ran, ran. And I can see these ISIS fighters, I don’t think they’ve seen me because nobody tried to come for me or shoot at me. And as I came up to the border there’s a car of Turkish soldiers patrolling the border and they took me and I said to them ‘You need to help me’”A photograph uncovered by police showed her posing in Syria underneath an ISIS flag. She left the country in January 2015, although it is not known why, the statement added. She was arrested by counter-terrorism officers when she returned to Britain on Feb. 18 after landing at Heathrow Airport. The child was taken into care.The police did not believe her claims and on Friday a British court convicted her. “Tareena Shakil had self-radicalized by viewing extremist material on the internet, before leaving the UK,”; said Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale in the statement. “Our assessment is that she was not naïve. She had absolutely clear intentions when she left the UK, sending tweets encouraging the public to commit acts of terrorism here and then taking her young child to join Daesh in Syria,” Beale explained, using an Arabic acronym that is used to describe ISIS. “Photographs seized from her phone showed Ms Shakil posing with a firearm and wearing a Daesh balaclava. Another showed a rucksack with a Daesh logo and person holding a handgun. These were taken while she was in Syria.” Security services estimate some 600 Britons have joined the ranks of ISIS and other militant groups in Syria and Iraq, many of them crossing via Turkey. About half are believed to have returned to Britain. Shakil will be sentenced on Monday, Feb. 1.This video reveals the moment Tareena Shakil told police she was coerced into traveling to Syria (With Reuters)

Israeli minister interviewed for Saudi website
Liad Osmo and Roi Kais/Ynetnews
Published: 01.30.16/ Israel News
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/01/30/ynetnews-israeli-minister-interviewed-for-saudi-website-elaf/
Israeli Minister Ze'ev Elkin talks with Saudi Arabian news website Elaph about the shared threat from Iran. When asked whether there would be negotiations between Israel and Arab countries, he replied: 'Those countries will decide if they want relations.' An Israeli minister gave a rare interview to a Saudi Arabian media outlet recently, in the wake of the shared threat the two countries face following the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal. After Foreign Ministry Director Dore Gold's interview with a Saudi website on Israel's foiling of a weapons transfer to Hezbollah, and following MK Michael Oren's interview with the same website, now Minister of Absorption Ze'ev Elkin has been featured on Saudi site "Elaph" for the first time. Saudi Arabia, as most Arab countries, does not have diplomatic ties with Israel. The website presented Elkin as the Minister for Absorption, the Minister of Jerusalem Affairs, and a member of the cabinet. The site also wrote that he is a senior member of the Likud party and is thought of as a close associate of Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as being close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The interview took place in Elkin's office in Jerusalem. He was asked about possible cooperation between Israel and Arab states, and replied: "I'm a very realistic person, and in the current situation the ground is ready for cooperation around share interests. "Nonetheless, dialogue around a joint alliance is still a long way off," Elkin continued. "We will respect any alliance that is based on partnership and recognition of Israel as a nation-state." Elkin did not respond directly to the question of whether negotiations between Israel and Arab states were in the pipeline, only saying: "It's up to those countries whether they want relations with us to be public or hidden." The ongoing tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran also hung over the interview. Elkin claimed that "the Middle East will not go back to how it was, especially in the wake of Iran's attempts to wrest control over it. "At the same time, there is also rising Islamic extremism as can be seen with Islamic State. It's deepening the rift between Sunnis and Shi'ites and just proves that Israel is not the root of the divisions in the Middle East." Elkin also had a message for Saudi readers, saying that the situation in Jerusalem was relatively calm. "The wave of incitement that intensified last year in Jerusalem has finished and moved into the Judea and Samaria areas. "Whoever visits the Temple Mount will not feel that there is anything wrong. The accusations that Israel is changing the status quo in Jerusalem are incorrect," Elkin continued."The situation on the Temple Mount has not changed, and the incitement against Israel is mistaken. I call on everyone to visit the site and see the proof."

The diminished West
Hisham Melhem/Al Arabiya/January 30/16
I was tempted to pick a more grandiose and exaggerated title like; the decline and fall of Western Civilization, or a more dramatic variation on Oswald Spengler’s book The Decline of the West, but then thought better of it and settled on the less gloomy but still sober; the diminished West.
This week the turbaned president of Iran Hassan Rowhani, a man steeped in Persia’s history and proud of its imperial legacy, visited Rome, Paris and Berlin. He sought new beginnings with the West, now that Iran has come out of the cold following its nuclear agreement with the P5+1 countries.
The man from the East knew that the multicultural and very accommodating West is more than eager to do business with a resurgent Persia, and contracts worth tens of billions of dollars were signed and sealed, but not over toasts at lavish banquets held in opulent halls with their exquisite paintings of voluptuous odalisques and nude statutes of Greek and Roman Goddesses, warriors and Emperors. It was determined by the anxious powers that be in Rome that the immensely rich and beautiful cultural inheritance of the glorious Roman Empire represented by marble statutes of nude Deities and Emperors should be covered up, and that alcohol should not be served in the presence of Rowhani so that not to offend the (“Muslim”?) sensibilities of the visitor from Iran.
The meek Italian behavior symbolizes the diminishing power of the West, particularly western Europe
That brazen act of self-emasculation and obeisance took place at the Capitoline Museum, probably Rome’s richest repository of high art. It was the most abject act of self-negation and cultural surrender in recent times committed by a Western state that has inherited the artistic and cultural heritage of the greatest Empire in human history.The meek Italian behavior symbolizes the diminishing power of the West, particularly western Europe in the face of bold challenges from the marauders of the apocalyptic ISIS, and the practitioners of hard power like Russian President Vladimir Putin whether in the Ukraine or in Syria, and the deferential treatment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the very power behind killer Shiite sectarian organizations in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. But Iran in the last few days gave us more than one jarring example of the weakness of the West, and the readiness of some politicians and those who live in the splendid isolation of academe to engage in appeasement in the name of political correctness, moral equivalence and respecting other’s traditions.
The West is weak, meek and geek
Looking at the statutes of Venus and other naked female figures of antiquity that stood there for centuries as a testimony to the creative genius of Western Civilization, encased in white boxes, hidden as if they are symbols of decadence instead of high culture, one could only conclude that Western appeasement of intolerance, theocracy and oppression, particularly of those who wrap themselves with an ‘Islamic’ garb is the real decadence that needs to be exposed and undermined. I immediately took to social media for a quick fusillade of sharp words, tweeting and posting on Facebook that “This is a new low in appeasement and hypocrisy. Rowhani should be exposed to high Western art. The behavior of the Italian government is pathetic; it shows once again that the West is weak, meek and geek.” Another one followed “And If Rowhani doesn’t drink alcohol (I am sure he knows the origin of alcohol) then serve him water or goat milk, while reminding him of Omar Khayyam’s Rubáiyát, where the great Persian poet wrote about his love of wine and other worldly pleasures”.
The Italian government justified its act of self-loathing by claiming that it shows “respect” for the Iranian visitor. If the social and cultural sensibilities of the Iranian president are to be respected, then what about respecting the sensibilities of millions of peoples in Iran and the world who are appalled by the Iranian regime’s continuing brutal assaults on civil and political liberties of Iranians, the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities in Iran, and more broadly Iran’s involvement in the internal affairs of its neighbors, particularly its crucial role in suppressing the Syrian uprising, which makes Iran morally, not to mention legally an accomplice to the death of 300.000 Syrians. It was reported later that Rowhani did not request the cover-up of the statutes, but members of his delegation made the requests regarding the works of art and banning what those known for their delicate tastes call the “nectar of the Gods” also known in Italian as Vino.
Pray for me
The only hopeful sign in this sordid tale was the outrage it has created among Italians, who took to social media to mock and denounce the bankruptcy of their government. Giuseppe Musmarra, a political analyst, wrote: “Was there really a need for this humiliation?”
He expressed the views of many distressed Italians when he said: “Covering up the statues in the Capitoline Museum is to symbolically renounce our art and our culture and to abdicate every principle of secularism. It is the capitulation of a country. One can dialog, and one must, but it needs to be done with dignity.”Are the principles of secularism and liberalism of western visitors to Iran (and to other very conservative majority Muslim countries) usually respected? Certainly not. That kind of phony Italian “respect” accorded to President Rowhani reminds me of the fake solidarity some naïve western women display when they wear a hijab to symbolize their support and affinity with Muslim women.
Do these western women know that some Muslim women are harshly persecuted in some Muslim countries if they resist wearing hijab or if the way they wear it is not seen by the custodians of religious purity as sufficiently pious. To make matters worse, Pope Francis met with Rowhani for 40 minutes at the Vatican, during which the Iranian President asked the Pontiff to pray for him. It will take more than prayers to cleanse the numerous sins of the President and the state of Iran. The Pope ostensibly wanted to discuss “peace” with Rowhani and the plight of Christian communities in the Levant and Mesopotamia; I wonder if he asked him to what extent Iran’s military intervention is responsible for the death or exodus of Christian Syrians. Luckily, The Iranian President on his way to Paris discovered that French tolerance for multiculturalism has its limits. It stops with le VIN. It was reported that President Francois Hollande decided to cancel a lunch with President Rowhani because he refused Rowhani’s request to remove wine from the menu. After this bit of good news, I tweeted that I was; “Tempted to sing La Marseillaise. Lunch between the French and Iranian leaders is Cancelled over serving Vin, Vino,خمر،شراب”
Are the Dark Ages over?
While President Rowhani was selling Iran’s supposedly moderate, smiley face, his more unsentimental, unsmiling boss Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei questioned the historical authenticity of the holocaust in a video he posted on his official website. That was his way of commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day.
The three-minute video, titled Are the Dark Ages Over?, features rapid images of Palestinian victims of Israeli violence, with Khamenei’s voice over asking who support the Zionists, then he answers himself that the Americans are behind them even when they claim that they are opposed to ISIS, for they are lying.
Then the video moves to another series of fast images in the background of Auschwitz concentration camp, the most infamous of Nazi camps, along with photos of well-known holocaust deniers in handcuffs. Then Khamenei intones “no one in European countries dares to speak about the holocaust while it is not clear whether the core of this matter is reality or not… Even if it is a reality, it is not clear how it happened.”Ayatollah Khamenei wants to correct this state of “ignorance” in the world, saying “we should be awake. You dear brother, dear people of Iran, Muslims in the great Islamic Ummah and officials in different countries, should know that we can stand up against the ignorance.” Clearly, the dark ages are not over Ayatollah Khamenei!! After watching the video and wishing that I did not, I tweeted “where is the outrage among the apologists of the Islamic Republic?” I did not hear or read any condemnations from American officials or for that matter from many scholars and academicians who make their living deciphering what the likes of Ayatollah Khamenei say when they decide to speak.
It is as if the repeated denials of the holocaust by former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has lessened the impact of such an abomination.
Schadenfreude
The last Jarring message from Iran was the humiliating treatment of the captured American sailors who accidentally entered Iran’s waters, something I wrote about last week in this space. Secretary Kerry, was effusive in his gratitude to his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif for helping secure the prompt release of the sailors. It is as if Kerry did not see the video of the sailors on their knees with their hands behind their heads.Unless I missed it, there were no strong protests to the Iranians, except expressions of anger and frustration by both secretaries of state and defense John Kerry and Ashton Carter when answering questions from the American media. It is very hard to get Kerry angry and forceful enough to be convincing as the strong diplomat of a strong nation. Khamenei meanwhile was effusive in his praise of the Revolutionary Guard Corps elements who captured the sailors telling them, “this event should be considered God’s work.” Once again Iran acted like a superpower and the U.S. acted like the regional power. This was one event that was watched with a sense of schadenfreude by those who hate the U.S. in and outside the Middle East.
These examples of appeasements and grudging respect for the Iranian regime do not signal the beginning decline and fall of Western Civilization, but they do signal some serious flaws in Western, mostly European, attitudes toward their potential adversaries or even their enemies. It seems that with the exception of the French not too many Europeans are willing to fight for anything. Pacifism is on the rise in Europe and in the welfare state many are tempted to cut military spending.
It was a wakeup call for American officials when they realized that some European countries continued to decrease their military budgets even after Russia’s land grab in the Ukraine. A 2014 win/Gallup International survey showed shocking statistics about the unwillingness of Europeans to even defend themselves.
Only 29 percent of French citizens polled, 27 percent of British citizens and 18 percent of German citizens said they were willing to fight for their country. However, 68 percent of Italians said they would refuse to fight for their country. This is music President Putin can easily dance to.
Western civilization is not about to fall, and the Barbarians are not about to breach the ramparts, but the Italian government this week reminded us that even the mighty Roman Empire declined for a long time before it collapsed in a whimper.
Europeans don’t want to fight to defend their own countries.

Syria 2016 is a replay of Syria 1920
Eyad Abu Shakra/Al Arabiya/January 30/16
The unfolding Syrian crisis is now looking more and more like a carbon copy of the Palestinian crisis. Almost all the ‘constants’ of world powers towards the near east in the aftermath of the First World War remain unchanged. We are still living the same religious, cultural, interest-based considerations that led to the partitioning and apportionment of the near eastern territories of the Ottoman Empire under the ‘Sykes-Picot’ Agreement’ around 100 years ago. Indeed, one of the parties to the ‘agreement’, Sir Mark Sykes, was not far from the close circle behind the ‘Balfour Declaration’.
The current Syrian uprising, just like the early Palestinian uprisings of the first few decades of the 20th century, started as a spontaneous popular uprising calling for freedom, dignity and the right to self-determination. However, it soon discovered it was being surrounded by the ‘game of nations’ that has no respect for people and no regard for human rights. Gradually, thereafter, the picture was getting ever clearer in parallel with emerging disparity between the fighting forces on the ground.
The regional role of the Al-Assad regime began even before Hafez Al-Assad officially took over the leadership of Syria in late 1970
The regional role of the Al-Assad clan’s regime has been clear for all to see; it began even before Hafez Al-Assad officially took over the leadership of Syria in late 1970. The job of Hafez Al-Assad, very much “the man of the Right” within the Ba’th Arab Socialist Party, was to adopt a “realistic” regional policy willing to co-exist with “the region’s realities”, the most prominent among which were:
1- Respecting Israel’s existence.
2- Confronting all radical groups from the revolutionary extreme Left to the Islamist extreme Right.
3- Penetrating these groups, outbidding them after hijacking their slogans and when the need arises, resorting to murder and purges.
Assad senior’s maneuvers
For eight years Hafez Al-Assad maneuvered his way, implicitly supported by international acquiescence, peddling slogans such as “Arabism”, “Arab unity”, “secularism”, and “corrected socialism” as exportable merchandise.
During those eight years he was entrusted by Henry Kissinger to destroy the Palestinian resistance movement in Lebanon and ‘control’ unruly Lebanon in the turbulent 1970s. This took place despite – or because of – Al-Assad’s participating in the ‘October 1973 War’ (Yom Kippur War) against Israel. Later on, in 1982, world leaders looked the other way as he committed the ‘Hama Massacre’ in which he butchered between 20,000 and 40,000 people in 27 days.
In 1979, when the Revolution led by ayatollah Khomeini succeeded in Iran, the Al-Assad “Arab secular” regime in Damascus was its prime supporter in the Arab world and continued to support it even when it declared its strategy of “exporting the (Shiite) Revolution”. Later on, when Iraq, backed by many Arab countries that were worried by Tehran’s expansionist dreams and actions, fought Iran, the “Ba’thist” regime in Damascus sided with “Khomeinist” Tehran against Baghdad’s brotherly “Ba’thist” regime.
In spite of this stance and thanks to Hafez Al-Assad’s astuteness and skills in providing strategic services to major global players whenever and wherever needed, the regime’s fortunes were not adversely affected.
Things began to change as Al-Assad senior gradually began to loosen his grip on power which was officially transferred to the “second generation” heirs within the clan in the year 2000. The change, however, has been conspicuous in style and approach, without any change in the basic political affinities and alliances.
Out went the days of wise political dealings and finely-tuned balancing acts, and in came the style of brash exclusion and omission through murder, which accumulated mistakes and encouraged Iran to take a greater role in handling political and security matters.
The “series” began with the alleged “suicides” of former prime minister Mahmoud Al-Zu’bi (less than one month before Bashar Al-Assad inherited the presidency). He was later followed by former senior military and intelligence strongman Gen Ghazi Kan’aan and others. Subsequently, opponents were assassinated across the borders in Lebanon, including former Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri; and this policy was expanded to become as strategy within and outside Syria. At this point it became impossible to decide where crucial political decisions were being taken – in Damascus or Tehran?
The situation in Lebanon has been the best marker for what has been going on in Syria. The so called “Syrian-Lebanese security apparatus” which was effectively running Lebanon behind the façade of a president who controlled nothing oversaw the creation of the de facto “state” of Hezbollah which is a branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). Today Hezbollah is the real “state” that is much more powerful than what has become of the Lebanese “statelet”.
Proof, if proof is needed, is Lebanon’s refusal to condemn the attack on Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Tehran at both the Arab Foreign Ministers’ meeting and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Foreign Ministers Council’s meeting that discussed the issue.
Hezbollah preventing the election of a president for more than a year and a half, forcing the Lebanese government to release a former cabinet minister already convicted based on his recorded confession that he was planning a series of murderous explosions to cause sectarian turmoil, and the failure of the government to prevent Hezbollah from engaging in wars outside Lebanon are other forms of proof.
Shifting positions
Pressure exerted on the Syrian opposition, which is already encountering Iranian land occupation, Russian aerial bombardment and ISIS terrorism, gives credence to Seymour Hersh’s report about the joint efforts of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency with Russian, Israeli and German intelligence services to defend the Bashar Al-Assad regime. Today, Washington has fully adopted Moscow’s position towards Syria; in fact some voices from the Israeli intelligence community throughout 2015 have followed the same line.
Furthermore, American active collaboration with secessionist Kurdish groups in northern Syria, along the borders with Turkey, gives the impression that, despite Vice President Joe Biden’s “grey” talk, Washington is truly working for an independent Kurdish state in the near east. An Israeli lawmaker, actually, said the other day “The Kurds deserve a state of their own”!
Back in Lebanon, it is worth recalling that the Maronite Patriarch Bechara Ra’i was the first prominent figure that candidly expressed his reservations about the Syrian uprising by saying several times both in Lebanon and during his visits abroad, beginning with France, what amounts to “Al-Assad may be a bad guy, but what the uprising might give is a worse alternative”. This precisely reflects the climate created by the “alliance of minorities” mentality in the near east. It was in the very heart of the political thinking of those who conjured up the Anglo–French mandates and the “religious homelands” starting with Israel.
Unfortunately, before the partition maps could be enforced, this “alliance of minorities” (i.e. non-Sunni Arabs) was missing nothing but the creation of ISIS and the JCPOA (the American–Iranian nuclear agreement) which makes the Vali-e-Faqih and his Revolutionary Guards the instigators of the grand Muslim–Muslim civil war.

The other ISIS
Baria Alamuddin/Al Arabiya/January 30/16
The unfortunate population of central Iraq is squeezed from two directions. Western media keep us informed in gruesome detail about the atrocities of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but official sources seem far more reluctant to report on the brutality of the “other ISIS,” known as al-Hashd al-Shaabi. It is an umbrella organization of Shiite and pro-Iran militias, ostensibly set up to tackle ISIS, but its real agenda appears to be different and more sinister. The conventional narrative about the emergence of ISIS conveniently ignores the role of Iran and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in nurturing this terrorist entity. In the years after 2003, Assad acted as gatekeeper for the influx of Sunni jihadists into Iraq. The Syrian regime thus had close links with the leadership of these groups, and sought to exploit these ties to further its own aims.
When the population of Syria turned against Assad, the regime released thousands of Sunni extremists from jail, thus nurturing the Islamist bogeyman about which it was warning foreign governments. Assad falsely claimed that his opponents were radical extremists, so in the ultimate Machiavellian move, he created his own enemy.
Attacks on Sunni civilians are not simply misguided revenge attacks for supposed links to ISIS - they are Al-Hashd al-Shaabi’s raison d’etre
In the early months, as ISIS extended its control over parts of eastern and northern Syria, the regime and organization studiously avoided fighting each other. Assad and his Iranian powerbrokers even financed ISIS by buying its oil.
Its takeover of western Iraq presented a golden opportunity for Tehran to extend its stranglehold over the Iraqi state. However, Iran’s extended influence went far beyond this. The consolidation of numerous Iran-sponsored militias into Al-Hashd al-Shaabi gave Tehran direct control over the most effective fighting force in Iraq after the disintegration and humiliation of the national army.
Shiite militias
Al-Hashd al-Shaabi clearly has an interest in beating back ISIS, but its strategic aims go way beyond this. The Shiite militias that constitute it came of age after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, killing Americans and waging a campaign of sectarian cleansing across parts of Baghdad and central Iraq.
During the height of sectarian conflict in 2005-07, militias such as Al-Mahdi Army, the Badr Corps, Kata’ib Hezbollah and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq were instrumental in clearing whole districts of Baghdad of Sunni inhabitants through brutal sectarian killings and terrorism.
For these organizations, the fight against ISIS is an extension of this battle. Attacks on Sunnis in “liberated” areas, and preventing the return of refugees to their homes, are not an incidental byproduct of the conflict, but al-Hashd al-Shaabi’s fundamental rationale for engaging in it.
Washington and its allies willfully misunderstand this reality. Billions of dollars in U.S. arms have been funneled through Iraqi institutions into Al-Hashd al-Shaabi, supplementing the Western hardware already in Iraq that fell into the hands of these militias.
The United States and these militias are old enemies, so it is understandable that we do not see them working together. However, in practice there is close coordination channeled through Iraqi military institutions.
The relationship between ISIS and al-Hashd al-Shaabi is similarly complex. They are mortal enemies, coming from different extremes of the sectarian divide and being pitted against each other, but they are each other’s reason for existing.
There would be no al-Hashd al-Shaabi without ISIS. Similarly, Assad’s only tenuous justifications for his regime’s existence are as a bastion against Sunni extremism. They are necessary enemies in a perfectly symbiotic relationship.
Atrocities
Therefore, when the Western media documents atrocities against the Sunni local population, it makes the fundamental mistake of portraying these as incidental developments in the fog of war. In reality, the Sunni population is al-Hashd al-Shaabi’s real enemy, which is why the former has borne the brunt of the latter’s brutality. Attacks on Sunni civilians are not simply misguided revenge attacks for supposed links to ISIS - they are Al-Hashd al-Shaabi’s raison d’etre.
Human rights groups have documented widespread patterns of abduction and killing of Sunnis. Families have paid thousands of dollars to free their abducted relatives, only to have them turn up in morgues a few weeks later.
These Shiite militias have consolidated their control over the Iraqi state, but have retained their operational and organizational independence, answerable only to Iran. Iraq has all but disintegrated as a coherent state, allowing powerful neighbors and non-state actors to extend de facto control. As with Hezbollah in Lebanon, al-Hashd al-Shaabi effectively acts as a state within a state, and is all the more powerful for being a state within a failed state.
There are many indicators that ISIS’s hold on major Iraqi population centers is weakening. If its threat dissipates, as we are promised, we will be left with the threat of an Iran-sponsored entity that is more powerful than the conventional armed forces and compels Iraq’s institutions to do its bidding.
Is it thus possible that this “other ISIS” represents the greater existential threat to Iraq and the region - an Iranian Trojan horse for which extortion, abduction, sectarian cleansing and mass killing of civilians are legitimate weapons of war? Many believe so.

The Syrian Crisis; US Disappointment
Salman Aldosary/Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/16
May GOD be with the Syrians!
International stances have never been as contradicting before as they’ve been in the Syrian crisis. The world has supported all the Arab revolutions, yet when the Syrians revolted, all balances, equations, and positions have changed. The assassination of hundred thousands of citizens has been disregarded, terrorists have become allowed to deal with, and the militias’ operations have become legislated ; however, the real demonstrator is meant to be killed, bombed, displaced, and starved in the worst crisis in modern history. Of course, nobody asks about human rights that rise whenever the west wants them to and disappear whenever the political interests require it. The great pressure exerted on the Syrian Opposition to accept the formal and non-balanced participation before the Syrian regime delegation in “Geneva 3” Conference is a new sign of the world’s betrayal for the Syrian Revolution.
All the roads to Geneva lead to the interest of the Syrian Regime followed by Russia. Actually, the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 on the political solution in Syria is somehow a retreat from the Geneva document, which stipulates the formation of a transitional ruling body with full powers before the talks distort on a government of national unity.
Even when the opposition, which the west criticized for being “headless” and said that the main issue in Syria is that its opposition is not united, finally met under the banner of the Supreme Commission for negotiation after Riyadh’s conference, efforts to disperse it have emerged as Russia is currently doing with the blessing and alarming pressure from the USA. The United Nations is exerting pressure on the opposition to attend the negotiations in order not to lose the session. However, Mr Staffan de Mistura, USA, and Russia know that once the opposition, which represents the real spirit of the revolution, is excluded or marginalized, any upcoming political solution is nothing but a cinematic trick that will be revealed quickly. Unfortunately, the stubbornness of the Russian stance and the fluctuation of the American one in the Syrian crisis have led to the case where Moscow seeks to implement its plan to receive the keys of the Syrian crisis with Washington’s approval; so that they form a government of national unity with the presence of the Syrian president in order to “fight terrorism”, which is the ultimate objective of the administration of President Obama.
Certainly, no one asked how terrorism is fought and Bashar Al-Assad is still in the power hierarchy? No one asked who will accept this bizarre plan on the remains of 300 thousand dead and 12 million refugees around the globe? In addition, no one asked how the Syrian rebels, who were mocked by Obama as being an army led by peasants and doctors, will accept this government and deal with it in the future? The major node in the Syrian crisis didn’t come from Russia since its stance is known from the beginning, and it has not changed. Nevertheless, the node, sadly, came from the United States, which during these five years has threatened and warned, through its president, from reaching the red lines. When these red lines were violated, USA moved its forces and in the fastest political turning point in the history, it surrendered.
Therefore, the most powerful country in the world accepted to follow the Russian path, which was totally opposing it.
How many more disappointments we should expect from the US administration?!

Tycoons and the Temptation of Power
Amir Taher/Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/16
With the seasons of primaries in the US presidential election starting next week, all attention is on Donald Trump, the front-runner in the Republican Party camp. The real estate tycoon and TV celebrity benefits from the fact that most commentators believe the Democrats have already chosen Hillary Clinton as their standard-bearer in this year’s elections. Thus, the only suspense left is about whom the Republicans might pick. Right now, the answer is: Trump. But is it? The cluster of opinion polls conducted in the past six months shows that Trump enjoys backing from a third of Republican sympathizers. Since Republicans represent around a third of the electorate, we could assume that Trump’s support base is around 10 per cent of the total American electorate. Thus, some 70 per cent of Republicans and 90 per cent of the broader electorate do not support Trump. However, we must admit that he is the most interesting show in time. His often outrageous utterances and his feeling for the dramatic, a result of his years as a TV show host, mark him out as a colorful man compared to his largely grey rivals.
Yet, it is not at all certain that Trump will be the Republican candidate and that even if he does secure that position, he will be able to win the presidency in November. This is because, compared to older nations, Americans have a short memory and many regard Trump as a bolt out of the blue.
However, without wanting to type-cast him, we could regard Trump as the latest in a series of American tycoons who nursed political ambitions and, in some cases, even managed to have an impact on the outcome of a major election. Admiring businessmen has always been part of the American folklore which values free enterprise and financial success in a capitalist market economy. Due to recent mass immigration from all over the world, the average American today is more envious of the wealthy than his counterpart was 30 or 40 years ago. But even then a majority of Americans still regard success in business as honorable, unlike many Europeans who hold businessmen in low esteem as selfish “money-makers.”
Last week, Michael Bloomberg, a former Mayor of New York and another billionaire, announced that he, too, might throw his hat into the presidential ring to oppose Trump and/or Bernie Sanders, the socialist who seeks the Democrat Party’s nomination.
The question is whether the business of the nation can be entrusted to a successful tycoon? In the first century of America as a nation the answer was an emphatic no. Because of the War of Independence and then the War of Secession, not to mention the new nation’s armed expansion in all directions, men with military backgrounds were often favored as leaders.
Next to them, professional lawyers turned politicians were entrusted with high office as the new nation built legal structures inspired by the Constitution. From the late 19th century when the US emerged as the world’s biggest economic power, a new generation of businessmen started to make a place for itself alongside generals and big-shot lawyers. The first tycoon to be tempted by power at the top was William Randolph Hearst who created America’s largest press empire around the San Francisco Examiner which he inherited from his father.
By 1902, Hearst had become a key shaper of American opinion and started discreet canvassing about chances of running for President of the United States. However, due to a mixture of personal problems and the fact that he lacked the political skills needed in a western democracy, the tycoon had grudgingly retreated to his niche by 1904.
Decades later he was to be the inspiration for Orson Wells’ film “Citizen Cane”, depicting the tragedy of frustrated obsession with power. Two decades after Hearst’s abortive entry into politics, another tycoon, Henry Ford, was tempted by the prospect of seeking the presidency. Despite an unsuccessful attempt at winning a Senate seat from Michigan, Ford sought the Republican nomination in 1923 which in the end went to Calvin Coolidge, a “mere lawyer-politician.”
Hearst’s lesson was confirmed: Americans liked to toy with the idea of a tycoon as president but changed their minds once they had a closer look at the choices available. Unlike Hearst, Ford did not become the subject of a film but he, too, had a dark side, including his obsessive anti-Semitism, which, exposed over the decades, marked him out as unfit for political leadership. In the 1930s it was the turn of Charles Lindbergh, the aviator turned businessman, to be tempted by the prospect of entering the White House. Lindbergh had it all, being an all-American hero with good looks and a wife from the nation’s top banking family. He also had something that neither Hearst nor Ford had had: a political organization in the shape of the German-American Bund (Federation) run by Nazi agents with unlimited funds at their disposal. More importantly, Lindbergh could play on pacifist sentiments at a time when most Americans were anxious to stay out of another big war in Europe. This was similar to the anti-war sentiment of 2008 that helped to propel Barack Obama into the White House. Lindbergh’s ambitions evaporated when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, forcing the US to enter the Second World War with the aim of total victory against the Axis led by Germany. American presidential elections remained tycoon-free until 1992 when Ross Perot, a man who had made his fortune selling business machines to Iran, ran for president. Taking votes from the incumbent President George W H Bush, Perot ensured the victory of Democrat candidate Bill Clinton with one of the narrowest margins in US history.
Perot was not as wealthy as the tycoons who preceded him but had more stamina. In 1996 he ran again, ensuring another defeat for the Republicans. Hearst, Ford, Lindbergh and Perot all marketed a cocktail of populism with talk of “the American dream” being threatened by “others” ranging from Jews, in the case of Ford and Lindbergh, to Italians and East Europeans in the case of Hearst, to Latinos in Perot’s case. They all claimed that the government in Washington had become too big and that the average citizen was no longer master of his destiny. In addition to this, they all adopted an anti-war posture at a time that the mood in the US was pacifist. Trump is following in their footsteps by singling out Latinos and Muslims as the threatening “other”, and attacking Washington and the political elite. He has a problem that his predecessors didn’t have. He wants to appear anti-war, claiming that, like Obama, he had opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but promises war against the Islamic State and other unspecified “Muslim enemies.”
Will Trump end up like the tycoons that preceded him? The first answer comes next week in Iowa.

How Obama Ended Up Following Putin’s Syria Script and Giving Assad a Victory?
Middle East Briefing/January 30/16
The meeting between Secretary John Kerry and the head of Syrian opposition’s delegation in the transitional talks Dr. Riyad Hijab January 23 in Riyadh stirred a very negative reaction in many opposition circles. Kerry tried to convey a message that lowers opposition’s expectations and packs their goals into the practical frame of the talks drawn with the Russians. But the Secretary’s language threatened the prospects of constructive engagement by the groups which are proposed to participate in the talks.
Mr. Kerry had the difficult task of incorporating Russian-Assad positions and parameters within a plan that addresses as well the goals of the opposition. It is the usual intrinsic challenge of trying to reach a framework for negotiating an end to a tough conflict like the one in Syria. The result was a clear tilt to Moscow’s position. The question now is: Will these talks succeed?
Kerry’s message confused Hijab and the opposition groups alike. It is still not clear if this was done intentionally by the Secretary of State. He made it clear that there will be no preconditions set for the talks, not even a commitment to the departure of Assad at any point in the future. He also oscillated between describing Geneva-1 and Vienna communiques as “references” of the negotiations. And he used the term “unity government” side by side with the term “transitional government” which caused additional confusion.
Furthermore, Kerry’s proposed “confidence building” measures did not include exchange of prisoners or a halt of air raids or barrel bombs targeting civilian areas during talks. The secretary also said other opposition representatives, proposed by Moscow and considered by the rest of the opposition as too close to the Assad regime, will also be present in the talks. Faced with solid rejection by the opposition, those Assad-friendly groups would be labeled “consultants” to the UN envoy Staphan de Mistura and not a parallel opposition delegation.
After Turkey’s threats to end its cooperation in the process if the PKK linked Syria’s Kurdish Democratic Union is invited, de Mistura decided to avoid inviting the group. The Russian selected “opposition” delegation will be stationed in Lausanne while the talks would be in Geneva. The letter of invitation failed to mention the Geneva-1 communique even after President Obama and Secretary Kerry hailed the Geneva-1 communique as the “foundation” of the solution since it was signed in 2012.
The difference between the two communiques, the Geneva-1 and Vienna’s, is that the former emphasizes the importance of the transitional phase towards a solution while the later failed to mention distinctively this phase, and emphasized instead the need to fight terrorism. This applies as well to the UNSC Resolution 2254. This difference expressed a retreat from the previous position of insisting on excluding Assad’s effective governance during the transition phase. The Geneva-1 pointed out to “a transitional body that enjoys all executive powers”. Russia accepted the Geneva-1 communique before having its military “surge” in Syria. It de facto withdrew its support of the communique at the beginning of its military operations there.
This shift in emphasis gained a central place in the preparatory talks of the last few weeks, particularly with Kerry’s ambiguous language on the issue of Geneva-1. An opposition leader told MEB that basing the talks on the Vienna communique “will lead nowhere”. “The Vienna process gives prominence to the regional dynamics of the crisis and almost neglects its domestic Syria dimension. It presupposes the willingness of Assad to reach a deal with his opponents. This presupposition reflects that the two powers, Russia and the US, reached a joint understanding and took it to the region to include the regional powers. The question remains: Where would the Syrians fit here? I do not think that the Syrian crisis was merely a regional or global issue. No solution will be sustainable without a genuine and full inclusion of the opposition”, he said.
It is possible that Kerry overplayed his hand under the impact of freshly reached understanding with Lavrov and Saudi Arabia. It cannot be dismissed neither that the approach of the Secretary may work in starting a partial ceasefire. Yet, it is almost certain that this approach, and regardless of any argument that it was the only possible one, may not be sustainable and will not represent a real “solution” to the crisis.
The State Department rushed to contain the negative impact of Kerry-Hijab meeting. Michael Ratney, the administration’s point man for Syria, spent hours with opposition leaders on the phone following the meeting. Ratney tried to play down the points that caused concern among opposition groups all the while keeping the main lines of the US-Russian understanding intact. But Kerry’s warning that if the opposition refused to go to the talks, the negotiation will start anyway, was echoing loudly among the opposition groups and splitting them further.
The talks, if they start, which is still a big “if”, are slated to go on for 10 days. The “Syria Friends” group of nation will then meet in February 11 to evaluate the results of the talks and prepare the following round. The main focus of the first round will be the ceasefire and providing humanitarian aid to Syria’s civilians. Issues related to transition and the future of the country will not be discussed.
However, the invitation issued by de Mistura emphasized the need to form a transitional government to set a time table for the transitional process. This process would result in elections supervised by the UN and to form a non-sectarian, inclusive and credible government and start the process of writing a new Constitution” (No word about a transitional government with full powers). Theoretically, Assad would be able to run again in the elections. Kerry hinted to GCC foreign ministers during their meeting in Riyadh that Assad will not run “if everything goes according to plan”. Those were almost word by word what Putin told his interlocutors since last fall.
The whole picture reflects a shift in the previous US approach to Syria. The illicit logic of that shift gives priority to counterterrorism over looking at Syria within the boundaries of its overall political conflict, which gave rise to terrorism. The nature of the new approach gives precedence to working with Russia and regional powers. In other words, Mr. Putin succeeded in causing a deeper effect than expected on the US approach to the Syrian conflict.
On the ground, however, it is difficult to see how this approach would achieve the required effects, either in fighting terrorism or in solving the political crisis, even if regional powers decided, under pressure, to stop their assistance to the opposition. The weak point of this “Russian” approach –now adopted now by Washington- lies in its crudeness.
For if a deal is reached on the bases of considering most opposition groups terrorists, as seems to be the essence of this approach, a wider war will be in our hands in a matter of few months. This will buy the Obama administration a cheap and superficial “accomplishment” for a short time, while failing to end the crisis on any sustainable way. The bottom line of this approach is exactly what Putin wanted all along. All what happened is that the US delivered its allies to the Kremlin.
The reason behind this conclusion stems from the fact that the approach has the following underlying aspects:
* It places the emphasis on immediate goals at the expense of the overall objectives. This is clear in giving priority to ceasefire and humanitarian aid, and in neglecting to frame these objectives in a process that promises the non-terrorist opposition leaders a possible solution which enables them to restrain their members.
* It is based on duel “references”, that of Geneva-1 which is acceptable by the mainstream opposition groups, and that of Vienna and the UN SCR 2254, which were promoted as the only acceptable references by the regime and the Russians, and which drop the need for Assad to leave or commit to departure after a successful transition.
* It enables terrorist groups like ISIL and Nusra to ask the others: What have you really achieved after five years of fighting? The question would turn into a major factor in pulling members of other groups, who saw their families and friends killed by the regime, to join those who refuse this kind of solution which effectively means that Assad won. In other words, there is nothing for the leaders of the invited groups to show their members in terms of justification for their participation in the talks.
* There are enough arms in Syria to make dependence on either regional powers or the US minimal.
* It cannot be certain that what Kerry hears wherever he goes is true or will indeed happen. Pressure may bring about a superficial consent while the real calculations may be carefully hidden and acted upon.
The process which has just started risks to end with a buildup of opposition forces which are immune to external powers, hence less controllable. Worse, it may result in expanding ISIL and Al Qaeda, both have an impressive inventory of weapons obtained from the Syrian and Iraqi regular armies.
But is there any chance it could work?
Yes. This is possible if the end of the road is shown to Syrians. If they are told clearly that they will have their country back without the dictatorship of Assad and his police state, free of terrorists and busy in a national healing process, where people exercise their human rights unpunished and where everyone is safe regardless of his sect or religion.
Washington has given up a lot of grounds in Syria to Moscow’s views. The initial position of Washington, that the Assad regime can never return Syria to stability, was the right one. There will be no stability in Syria for years to come if Russia’s crude and militarized “Grozny” approach carry the transitional process to where Mr. Putin wants it to go.
But any “success” of the current process will be short-lived. The way it is approached may, at best, bring some temporary results only for few months, if at all. The administration will take the opportunity to brag about its achievement in Syria, all the while denying that its solution is as superficial as is it reality. We feel we should alert all concerned parties to that early on. Dropping the internal Syrian dimension from the calculations of the peace effort will prove to be its Achill’s heel.
Assad won the diplomatic round after the unexpected change of mind of the Obama administration. But winning the war on the ground is a completely different matter. As the fight will re-erupt quickly, if it ever stopped, the real losers will be Syria’s civilians and ultimately the Assad regime. Is not it shameful enough that even stopping the barrel bombing of civilians was not considered part of the “human help” under the terms of the talks? No tyrant can remain in power by barrel bombs even if he is helped by the US and Russia together. Those kinds of crude bombs cannot tell who the children are and who the terrorists are. They cannot be claimed to select only the terrorists to kill.
Secretary Kerry ended up following Putin’s Syria script. No surprise. As this administration proved over and over again that it does not have a strategy, it was to be expected that it will follow those who do.

A Contribution to the Debate on President Obama’s Mideast Policies
Middle East Briefing/January 30/16
Did President Obama’s policy to refrain from plunging the US into the swamp of Syria’s civil war proved to be the right choice?
The problem with this question is that it focuses the attention on only one part of the issue. The issue here is the general strategy of the Obama administration in Syria. US military role, promoted or rejected, should only be one potential choice in the proposed components of any strategy. Discussing the prudence of policies related to one single part of an approach, torn out of its whole, is misleading and reveals a deep misconception about the role of military power.
Somehow, the concepts which emerged during the administration of President George W. Bush are still haunting us all and represent an unintentional standard that is illicitly shaping our critic of Obama’s Middle East policies. We asses success or failure based on using or resisting the use of military power, as if a policy is equivalent only to how we deal with this one single part of what should be otherwise a comprehensive approach. The success of a policy, or in other words the policy itself, should be judged on how effective it is as a whole, not by only if it used or avoided the use of the military.
If Obama’s Middle East policies are a failure, as we frankly think they are, it is not due to his reluctance to use military force in that region. In fact, we oppose the easiness by which US foreign policy has become kind of “militarized”. But while we agree with the President that the US should not use its military force in Syria’s civil war, we still think that his overall approach to this difficult crisis was an utter failure.
Both the critics and supporters of Mr. Obama mention his reluctance to use military force in Syria as the central point in explaining their positions either of criticism or support. But again, we cannot say that the President got 10 on the score of refraining from putting America’s military on harm’s way but got zero on his general concept. For there are no two separate scores. There is but one: How to influence the course of a crisis in a way that serves general interests and values all the while refraining from any quick rush to use the military.
The President should not be blamed for the Syrian civil war. He did not cause it. He just stood almost paralyzed when it was sliding from bad to worse. And this was not because he wanted it to slide. This was because he lacked the proper concept to deal with it and remained always a prisoner of his own belief that things should “start” from a rejection of using military force as a cardinal principle, not from approaching the crisis, methodologically speaking, as a whole, hence shaping his policy on it as a whole. Avoiding military involvement replaced approaching the crisis in a way that includes reducing the prospects of using military forces.
We have the luxury of criticizing the president in hindsight. And in hindsight, all are philosophers. Yet, the President was informed at each moment, and not retrospectively, that he had a different choice. However, he chose to go on partial approaches and refused to grasp the crisis as a whole. The reason that made him unable to see all sides of the issue was that he was single-mindedly focused on avoiding the use of the military, he made this, not asserting and preserving US influence, the only job that occupies his screen. In all the moments when the President was told of choices, he immediately thought of one thing: not to use military force, while he was supposed to think differently: how to solve the problem in a way that does not invite, now or later, the use of this force in any reckless manner as was done before him.
It is a perfect historical example of times when tactics grow in mind and swallow their own strategies. In all the moments of his two terms, when the Middle East was bursting in flames, President Obama showed us silently the extent to which George W Bush still defines US foreign policy. The President was acting under the shadows of Bush’s tragic failures, and was possessed with avoiding his predecessor’s choices, even if this would lead to similar failures, but from the opposite path.
Why are these reflections mentioned here? Because we see Syria’s transitional negotiations emerging slowly but on very shaky grounds, and based on abandoning what the President himself committed the US to, like “Assad has to leave”. Brush aside for a moment what we all know of worrying trends among some Syrian opposition groups. Leave aside as well what we all know of the cruel dictatorial nature of Assad. The strategy is to pacify Syria under a pluralist system that guarantees the right to live in dignity to all Syrians, minorities and majority.
This process is starting amidst a regional conflict, international intervention, continuing mutual killings and an overwhelming presence of religious radicalism and sectarian hatred. In a sense, this is not a particular feature to this particular civil war. Any civil war has more or less similar elements. We have gone down this road In Yugoslavia and Africa. Yet, in both cases a limited use of military force was introduced to the admix of methods applied, through UN, NATO or the AUO to reach successful solutions.
ISIL should not be looked at as the crux of the crisis. It is but a byproduct. Yet, the assumption that ISIL will defeat itself is as risky as other assumptions echoing recently in the current debate about the US policy on the Middle East. We will here provide the reader with some examples of views that sound very convincing at the surface but reflect a strategic myopia and a serious flaws in the methodology of looking at the US foreign policy. The following statements were published recently by a much respected US academic specialized in foreign policy and national security issues in the US:
* “As long as they (regional powers) believe that the United States will take care of the Islamic State, the regional powers have every incentive to free ride and minimize their own commitments, costs, and risks, and to pursue their own agendas rather than focusing on ISIS”.
* “Washington needs to convince them that the U.S. is going to do less. When they realize that America is not going to ride to their rescue, the regional powers will have to take the lead in tackling ISIS because their own survival and security will be on the line”.
*“Instead of fearing Russian or Iranian involvement in this conflict, American policymakers should welcome it. Far better for them, rather than the United States, to pay the price in blood and treasure of battling the Islamic State”.
* “Russia and China fear a northward Islamist extremist thrust that will menace their interests in Central Asia. But the American and NATO military presence there means that Moscow and Beijing are able to stand back while the U.S. shields them from the danger”.
All this ultimately amounts to a contemporary phrasing of the old times isolationism. What makes it unrealistic is that it is echoing in a moment when the world grows smaller. Furthermore, it represents US actions as actions done to serve others in the world who better serve themselves, or as filling vacuum which could benignly be filled by others.
The “impressive” part comes when the writer, with all due respect, compares the US with Britain. “Obama placed America’s Middle East conflicts in a wider strategic perspective. Against the background of China’s rapid rise and America’s own fiscal and economic crisis, he rightly asked what sense there is in borrowing money from China to fight in the Middle East at a time when U.S. power is in relative decline. He understood that America’s wars in the Islamic world would have the same effect of weakening U.S. power that the Boer War had for Britain at the beginning of the 20th century—or that intervention in Afghanistan had for the Soviet Union”, he wrote.
In other words, President Obama was right to place his Middle East policy in the context of confronting China’s rise and this is why he should reduce the US role in the region in favor of a Chinese and a Russian role there. It is peculiar to see the way to avoid Britain weakened power example by voluntarily weakening US power.
The fact that regional powers will move when the US tells them it would not is exactly what happened already. We saw it in Yemen, we saw it in Syria and we will continue to see it so long as the US is resigning its leadership role under any context. So why blame the Arabs or the Iranians because they are fighting their differences out? What is forgotten here is that this very fight is the problem. ISIL is but a byproduct. How can we solve the problem of two camps fighting each other? By convincing them that the US will do nothing so that they can take care of their problems by themselves? But that is what they do. That is the problem, not its solution.
As usual, President Obama says many things some of them are right and some are wrong. One of the right things he recently talked about is the importance of US global leadership. The question in the case of the Middle East is: How to play a leadership role without adventurism, excesses or total withdrawal?
The President failed to answer this question. He does not possess a concept that provides the right way forward. Let us see if the next administration will be able to.

Egypt: The Storm that Never Happened
Middle East Briefing/January 30/16
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) promised it backers, the Egyptians, and the world that Egypt will witness a storm on January 25th which may topple President Abdel Fatah Al Sissi. The date came and passed and almost nothing happened. Few demonstrations here and there took place however, but with no response from the general public.
Two factors played a role in making the day a storm that never happened: The wave of threats by security authorities that force will be used against protestors and the isolation of the MB. The failed attempt by the group reflects as well the degree of Egyptians’ uncertainty of what will follow Sissi if he is to go.
The MB recently suffered one of its biggest ever organizational cracks. Its traditional leadership staged an internal counter offensive against the block of its members which called for an overall “renewal” of the group. The rebel block criticized the leadership of the Guidance Office (Maktab Al Irshad) mercilessly during almost a year in which it controlled some organizational bodies in Egypt and outside. The critics blamed the Office for the tragic end of former President Mohamad Morsi and the isolation of the organization. The traditional leadership fired the rebels and regained control over the organizational forums they used.
One of the prominent leaders of the MB, Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi, tried few months ago to intermediate between the two factions inside the organization. He proposed then that internal elections be conducted with the two sides refraining from running. The old guards considered the Sheikh’s proposal ill-willed and rejected it.
They also rejected the mediation effort of Khaled Mesh’al, the leader of Hamas which is an organization of MB in Gaza. The old guards carried on with the plan to assert the traditional leadership control. The acting Murshed (Leader) Mahmoud Ezzat fired all the rebels. There was little organizational backlash after the decision which ended a protracted period of internal disputes and reinstated the full control of Maktab Al Irshad. Yet, this did not reflect in any noticeable way on the continuation of the organization popular isolation in Egypt.
However, this isolation should not be mistakenly taken as support to the current regime. What is clear now is that Egypt is going down the same road of former President Hosni Mubarak. This risks to lead to domestic troubles yet again. If the MB are to make a comeback as they did after their prosecution under Gamal Abdel Nasser, they will face no resistance from any real political force. Currently there is none in Egypt, hence no power to confront the MB other than the government’s security agencies. If the government is to collapse again, as it did five years ago, the MB would be the only organized force using the vacuum to grab the political power.
Urban youth are considered by the Mubarak State, which rules now after regaining power, as a source of troubles and are denied any political rights. They are needlessly looked at as a threat, hence turned into enemies, and no serious attempt to gain their support was ever done.
On the other hand, the regime is still unable to forge a proper social coalition to base its diminishing, yet still real, popularity. The reason is simple: Sissi is either unable or hesitant to use his personal weight in the street to lineup the wings of the state in one cohesive whole. The level of internal fighting inside the State machine is indeed alarming. The components of the State did not yet strike any internal modus operandi if they ever will.
In previous cases, like that of May 15, 1971 “political massacre” run by former President Anwar Al Sadat, the Presidential Palace staged an internal coup designed by the former President himself to get rid of the Nasserists who were then controlling almost all of the State machine. Sissi had an opportunity to do the same when his popularity among the Egyptians was enough to make him almost untouchable. He squandered the opportunity or he may have been over cautious of the threat of the MBs.
It is obvious that Sissi is not a gambler. But trying to straighten up the State machine in one coup is better than losing his political fight by points. And it is certainly better than resorting to crude police tactics as the ones currently used. The President seemed to have taken the responsibility of rebuilding the State without considering the misdeeds of this very machine once it is reinstated. Now, it is this machine that represents the most serious threat to the whole regime, the same way it did in the countdown to the 2011 revolt. The problems facing the regime are seen from the narrow perspective of the security agencies and not in any profound political evaluation.
Sissi seems to be fighting on several fronts at the same time. His bid is that economic improvements will improve the general conditions in which the regime finds itself faced with. Yet, so long as he refrains from playing the role of the Maestro with an orchestra which plays in harmony, it is almost impossible to reach the safety shores. In Egypt, there is now neither a Maestro nor an orchestra. The maestro is absorbed by the huge economic challenges while members of the orchestra are either fighting each other or each playing according to his own notes.
The MB tried to portray the few unnoticed protests and bombings last January 25th as a storm. But it was a windless storm. The MB still has a long way before it finds another opportunity similar to the one given to them by President Sadat. The organization is not the same. Egypt is not the same. And the regime is aware of their existential threat to the State in Egypt.
As we said before, the MB before the Arab Spring is not the same organization as it was after that storm. The Islamist organization looks at terms like the people, public revolt, revolution, control of the State, popular political activism and political mass organizing in a different way. One of the major effects of the Arab Spring is that it settled the historical caution of the organization towards the masses and the idea of a political popular revolt.
The impact of this transformation ended once and for all the gulf that existed between the organization and direct political activism amongst the public.
And Egypt is indeed not the same. Regime’s security agencies seem to mistakenly equate the potentials of public revolt with a group of activists. Reality goes exactly the opposite way. Activists on their own cannot create a revolt. But a public revolt creates thousands of them. This is why the question that should face this security machine is not “who?”. It should be “Why”?
And to answer this second question, they will find one of the keys if they look at any close by mirror.

President Xi Jinping Balked at Mediating Middle East Crises
Middle East Briefing/January 30/16
While some Western media have characterized Chinese President Xi Jinping’s just-concluded Middle East visit, his first since becoming President, as a “tilt” towards Iran, the reality is that President Xi Jinping decided that this was not the right moment to wade into the middle of the Middle East conflict by attempting to assert a Chinese role as “honest broker.” Last week, MEB reported that this was the critical question, going in to the Chinese leader’s visits to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran.
For the moment, China decided to maintain its historic posture of non-interference, choosing instead to sign economic deals in all three countries, while arguing in general terms that “rapid economic development is the key to defeating jihadists.” While this formulation, which dominated Xi Jinping’s speech before the Arab League in Cairo, is obviously true, President Xi Jinping made no direct pitch, either in his public statements or in his closed door meetings with Saudi, Egyptian or Iranian leaders, suggesting that China was offering to mediate any of the multiple conflicts threatening the region.
The key features of Xi Jinping’s three visits were: emphasis on the long continuity of friendly Chinese relations with each country; the expansion of bilateral economic cooperation; and specific offers of sales of nuclear power technology and Chinese weaponry.
By staying away from the regional conflicts, and generally avoiding taking sides, Xi Jinping was able to successfully deepen economic ties in all three countries. Saudi Arabia was not principally interested in the kind of Chinese investments and aid that were top priorities for both Egypt and Iran. For Saudi Arabia, the number one objective of the Xi visit was to secure Saudi Arabia’s market share of oil exports. This is something that the Saudis were not taking for granted. In the first 11 months of 2015, Saudi oil sales to China, by volume, only increased by two percent, while Russia’s sales increased by 30 percent. It will be several years, at least, before Iran poses any kind of direct challenge to Saudi Arabia’s supremacy over Gulf oil production. Iran plans to boost oil exports by 500,000 barrels per day in the next year, but that will only bring Iran’s export totals to 1.5 million barrels per day. Given the dismal state of the Iranian economy, Iran needs 1 million barrels a day for bare-bone domestic energy consumption.
While Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei tried to hype Iranian-Chinese relations, telling Xi Jinping that “Iranians never trusted the West… and that is why Tehran seeks cooperation with more independent countries,” the Iranian leadership was clearly unhappy that, during his Riyadh meetings, President Xi gave his support to the Yemeni government, which is backed by the Saudis. The announcement at the end of the Tehran visit that China and Iran intend to boost trade tenfold in the next decade to $600 billion a year, is a generality that will take much work to come close to realizing. Furthermore, China did express an interest in expanding weapons sales to Saudi Arabia.
China has strong and growing interests in the Middle East, and it was demonstrated by President Xi Jinping’s decision to make his first international trip of 2016 to the region. The Chinese government is truly committed to its One Belt, One Road (otherwise known as the New Silk Road and Maritime Silk Road) program, and all three countries where Xi visited are pivotal to that program’s success. Egypt is vital to the Maritime Silk Road routes, which run from the South China Sea into the Indian Ocean, along the Horn of Africa and up through the New Suez Canal into the Mediterranean.
Iran is a key bridge to Central Asia, bordering on Afghanistan. To make the Silk Road project succeed, China must have cooperation in bringing stability to Central Asia. During his Tehran visit, Xi made clear that China is prepared to accelerate Iran’s membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). With both India and Pakistan recently admitted as full members, the SCO states encircle Afghanistan. Some leading US military strategists have proposed handing over the security of Afghanistan to the SCO, as the US and NATO continue the draw-down of military forces there.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia is another key player in the Central Asia/South Asia picture, given the Kingdom’s long-standing special relationship with Pakistan, something that China also enjoys.
The Xi visit was received positively in all three stops, where economic cooperation was upfront, and where the Chinese leader refrained from over-asserting China’s commitment to actually make the region more stable, through direct intervention into the complex crisis spots.
For the time being, the United States and Russia are the two “great states” that are attempting to manage the Middle East mess, starting with the Geneva/Vienna process. It remains to be seen whether the US and Russia can become sustained partners in that effort—or will remain geopolitical rivals. If there is any measurable success in ending the Syria war through some combination of combat and diplomacy, and if the Islamic States is seriously crushed, or at least crippled and contained, China will be there to put substantial resources into the region’s reconstruction. That was Xi’s message to the Arab League.
It remains to be seen whether the Chinese decision to maintain a status quo foreign policy towards the Middle East was a wise conclusion or a badly missed opportunity.

European Governments Ignoring Security Warnings?
Judith Bergman/Gatestone/January 30/16
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7309/europe-security-warnings
"We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law." — From a leaked German intelligence document.
The mayor of Molenbeek, Belgium ignored a list she received, one month prior to the Paris attacks, "with the names and addresses of more than 80 people suspected as Islamic militants living in her area," according to the New York Times. "What was I supposed to do about them? It is not my job to track possible terrorists," Mayor Schepmans said.
In October 2015, Andrew Parker, director general of Britain's Security Service, said that the "scale and tempo" of the danger to the UK is now at a level he has not seen in his 32-year career. British police are monitoring over 3,000 homegrown Islamist extremists willing to carry out attacks on the UK.
The head of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), Benedicte Bjørnland, was recently a participating guest at a security conference in Sweden, where she warned against further Muslim immigration.
One cannot," she said, "assume that new arrivals will automatically adapt to the norms and rules of Norwegian society. Furthermore, new arrivals are not homogenous and can bring ethnic and religious strife with them... If parallel societies, radicalization and extremist environments emerge in the long run," she added, "We will have challenges as a security service."
The changes Bjørnland speaks of -- parallel societies, radicalization and extremist environments -- are nothing new; they have been proliferating throughout Western Europe for years. The Brussels suburb of Molenbeek, which was home to two of the perpetrators of November's terror attacks in Paris, is known as a "terrorist den." Yet the mayor of Molenbeek ignored a list she received, one month prior to the Paris attacks, "with the names and addresses of more than 80 people suspected as Islamic militants living in her area," according to the New York Times. "What was I supposed to do about them? It is not my job to track possible terrorists," Mayor Schepmans said. "That is the responsibility of the federal police."
This statement is, in many ways, symptomatic of the European failure to deal with the security problems that Europe faces. The problem is always supposed to be somebody else's.
Anders Thornberg, the head of the Swedish Security Service (SÄPO), literally begged Swedish society for help: "The Islamist environments have grown considerably in the past five years," he said "and tensions are growing between various population groups. We need all of society to help fight the radicalization, there are limits to how much faster a security service can run."
Swedish Security Service chief Anders Thornberg recently said: "The Islamist environments have grown considerably in the past five years and tensions are growing between various population groups. We need all of society to help fight the radicalization, there are limits to how much faster a security service can run."These are sentiments that are rarely, if ever, voiced by official Norway or Sweden. Apparently, the fear of offending Muslim sensitivities has thus far overridden security concerns. But even Sweden, which sees itself as a "humanitarian superpower," and up until recently had sworn to keep its doors open to all migrants and refugees, has had to reassess its policy. At the end of November 2015, Sweden's Deputy-Prime Minister Asa Romson, reluctantly and in tears, said that the government had been "forced to take reality into account," given the huge number of migrants that entering the country. Sweden (and Denmark) tightened their border controls a few weeks ago.
It is questionable, however, whether the warning cries of the Scandinavian security services will have any noticeable impact on the fundamental political course of their political leaders, especially if the latest statements by Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven are anything to take into account.
In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21, Löfven declared that it was "wrong" to mix up either sexual assaults on European women or the threat of ISIS with the mass migration into Europe: "Sexual harassment is not automatically binding to migration and immigration. We have had sexual harassment in Sweden for many, many years, unfortunately," Löfven told CNBC, thus pretending that the imported Middle Eastern pastime of Taharrush [collective sexual harassment] of thousands of women in Cologne and other European cities on New Year's Eve had nothing to do with migrants.
"What it now takes is to be very clear that this is not appropriate, it is absolutely out of line and we need to take a very clear message now to show to these young girls and women they are of course entitled to walk in the city... without sexual harassment," Löfven added.
No, the girls and the women are not the ones in need of a "clear message." The men harassing and raping them are -- especially in a country now known as the rape capital of the West.
The Swedish prime minister's refusal to "deal with reality" -- including that ISIS terrorists enter Europe together with the migrants -- is disturbing and should be of immense concern to Swedish citizens. It also displays the huge gap in perception of the current situation between the Swedish Security Service and the Swedish government. The head of the Swedish Security Service has every reason, it turns out, to beg Swedish society to help fight the security challenges Sweden is facing. Considering the current Swedish government, he is going to need all the help he can get.
The additional gap between the genuine concerns of various countries' intelligence and security services on one hand, and governments' fear of offending Muslim sensibilities and venturing beyond the politically correct "narratives" on the other hand, is not confined to Sweden, but evident across Western Europe.
European intelligence and security services have warned for a long time that -- given the increase of mainly Muslim migration and the ensuing growth of parallel societies and extremist environments -- they cannot keep up with the ever-increasing threats of jihadist terrorism, which in the past decade have grown exponentially. In the Netherlands, the Dutch jihadist movement began a far-reaching process of becoming more professional in late 2010, and adopted propaganda methods developed by British jihadists. "The increasing momentum of Dutch jihadism poses an unprecedented threat to the democratic legal order of the Netherlands," stated the Dutch intelligence service, AIVD, in the autumn of 2014.
In Germany, the intelligence agencies warned in the early fall of 2015 that, "We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law."
Four major German security agencies made it clear that "German security agencies... will not be in the position to solve these imported security problems and thereby the arising reactions from Germany's population." Still, this dire warning, which was leaked to the German press, did not cause Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to change her open-door policy. While Germany has introduced border controls, 2000 asylum claims are still processed there every day.
In Britain, the MI5 has openly declared that it cannot stop all terrorist attacks on English soil. In October 2015, Andrew Parker, director general of the Security Service, said that the "scale and tempo" of the danger to the UK is now at a level he has not seen in his 32-year career. He warned that while the threat to the UK from ISIS is on the rise, MI5 can "never" be confident in stopping all terror plots. Little wonder. British police are monitoring over 3,000 homegrown Islamist extremists who are willing to carry out attacks on the UK, British security sources have warned. That is a 50% increase in less than a decade. Already in November 2014, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, told an international terrorism conference that 25% of the population growth in the UK had arrived in London in the last 10 years, and poses big challenges for the police force, who could not keep up with the pace of immigration. The difficulties in properly monitoring so many extremists and effectively preventing them from committing acts of terror has also become a tremendous challenge, compounded by the sheer volume of extremists. Dame Stella Rimington, former head of the MI5, estimated in June 2013 that it would take around 50,000 full-time MI5 spies to monitor 2,000 extremists or potential terrorists 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That would be more than 10 times the number of people currently employed by MI5.
The situation is not much different in many other European countries. In Germany, Hans-Georg Maassen, head of Germany's BfV domestic security agency, claimed that his office was aware of almost 8,000 Islamic radicals in Germany. He said that all of these extremists advocate violence to advance their goals, with some trying to win over migrants, and that his office receives one or two 'fairly concrete tips' of planned terrorist activity each week. Most European countries, such as Germany, Britain and France, are operating at their highest terror alert ever. The intelligence services are trying to cope with a situation beyond anything one could have imagined a decade ago. The fight against the terrorist threat is never going to be won, however, only by pouring more financial resources and manpower into the counter-terrorism effort, although that is of course a necessary first step. As long as the national political leaders who give orders to the security and intelligence services refuse to openly address the threat without shrouding the issue in politically correct language, they will never be able to reduce it, let alone eliminate it.
**Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.