New Page 5

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

Bible Quotation For Today/You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water?
Luke 13/10-17: "Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years. She was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight. When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, ‘Woman, you are set free from your ailment.’ When he laid his hands on her, immediately she stood up straight and began praising God. But the leader of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had cured on the sabbath, kept saying to the crowd, ‘There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured, and not on the sabbath day.’ But the Lord answered him and said, ‘You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water?
And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the sabbath day?’When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing."

Bible Quotation For Today/On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage.
Acts of the Apostles 28/11-15: "Three months later we set sail on a ship that had wintered at the island, an Alexandrian ship with the Twin Brothers as its figurehead. We put in at Syracuse and stayed there for three days; then we weighed anchor and came to Rhegium. After one day there a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli. There we found believers and were invited to stay with them for seven days. And so we came to Rome. The believers from there, when they heard of us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage."

LCCC Latest analysis, editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 12-13/15
Micheal Aoun, Is not qualified For Lebanon's Presidency Post/Elias Bejjani/August 12/15
Netanyahu emulates Churchill in Trying to Influence US Policy to Protect His People/By ALAN DERSHOWITZ/J.Post/August 12/15
The theory of terrorism and restraining moderates/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al ArabiyaAugust 12/15
ISIS wages cultural warfare on Syria’s heritage/Dr. Halla Diyab/Al Arabiya/August 12/15
The Political Nature of Today's Middle East Studies/Andrew C. McCarthy/National Review Online/August 12/15
The New Syrian Force: Down but Not Necessarily Out/Jeffrey White/Washington Institute/August 12/15
Clarifying a 'No' Vote on the Iran Nuclear Agreement/Robert Satloff/Washington Institute/August 12/15
The Saudi-UAE War Effort in Yemen (Part 2): The Air Campaign/Michael Knights and Alexandre Mello/August 12/15
Will Britain Pass the Choudary Test?/Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/August 12/15
How Elections Messed Up Turkey's Plans/Burak Bekdil/Gateston Institute/August 12/15
Why Canada's Left Has Lost My Vote/Tarek Fatah/The Toronto Sun/August 12/15

Micheal Aoun, Is not qualified For Lebanon's Presidency Post
Elias Bejjani/August 12/15
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2015/08/12/elias-bejjanimicheal-aoun-is-is-not-qualified-for-lebanons-presidency-post/
Micheal Aoun's sickening obsession, crazy fantasy, day dreaming, and grandiose delusion with the Lebanese presidency post will never be fulfilled, no matter what. The man is not fit at all for the presidency position for thousands and thousands of tangible and well known reasons.
His frightening and derailed approaches, impulsiveness, demagogue, irresponsible and psychopathic on going conduct, instability, tantrums of anger, affiliations, detachment from reality, tones of deeply rooted complexes, and rhetoric tells the whole story.
In reality not even one Lebanese political faction in Lebanon wants him in this influential post including his fake and Trojan, pro Axis of evil allies who merely use him as a cheap tool to serve their anti Lebanese schemes and to divide the Christian community.
Hezbollah, Nabieh Berri, and Slieman Frangea in particular hate Aoun, never respected or trusted him, and will never do, and definitely are not willing under any given circumstances to see him as a president.
We are more than sure that all sane Lebanese citizens from all religious denominations, who fear Almighty God and His Day Of Judgment, count for the consequences, have taste, can differentiate between a narcissist and a genuine politician, adopt a set of normal ethical and patriotic codes, love their country and respect themselves would like in any way to see the unpredictable Michael Aoun as a president, or even as a practising politician.
This man has belittled, degraded, prostituted and humiliated every thing that is good in the Lebanese political life.
We strongly believe, that the majority of the sane Lebanese people from all walks of life who are not sheep in their thinking , or puppets in their political affiliations, and do really know and understand who and what is Michael Aoun would even dare to see or envisage him as a president, even their dreams.
The idea of seeing Aoun as a president is an actual nightmare, a horrible and scary one.
Definitely Aoun will never ever be Lebanon's president, and in case, and against all the human logic and heavenly odds he assumes the post, than it will be a devastating disaster by all means and on all levels, inflicted on all the Lebanese and on Lebanon.
In conclusion, Micheal Aoun is not a normal or mentally balanced individual, he needs an urgent psychiatric assessment as soon as possible in accordance with Mental Health Act.
By the end, this self-centred man is an actual and imminent threat to himself, his sheep like followers and the country. The Psychiatric assessment is more an emergency.

Elias Bejjani
Canadian-Lebanese Human Rights activist, journalist and political commentator
Web sites http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com & http://www.10452lccc.com & http://www.clhrf.com
Tweets on https://twitter.com/phoeniciaelias
Face Book https://www.facebook.com/groups/128479277182033 & https://www.facebook.com/elias.y.bejjani

Lebanon`s Presidential Elections Adjourned Again
Naharnet/August 12/15/Speaker Nabih Berri postponed on Wednesday the presidential elections to next month following a lack of quorum at parliament, a sign that politicians were far from filling the prolonged vacuum in the country's top Christian post. Berri postponed the session to September 2 after only 34 MPs from the March 14 alliance and his Development and Liberation bloc attended. Baabda Palace has fallen victim to the political deadlock rooted in the rivalry of politicians on the presidential post. There are several candidates but neither of them is willing to make compromises that would allow lawmakers to attend a session aimed at electing a head of state. The presidential seat, which became vacant after the term of President Michel Suleiman ended in May last year, has hindered the government's ability to tackle growing security, economic and social problems.

Salam in Amman for Improved Relations
Naharnet/August 12/15/Prime Minister Tammam Salam was in Jordan on Wednesday on a one-day official visit at a head of a large delegation that will attend the meetings of the joint Lebanese-Jordanian Higher Committee. Jordan's Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour and Salam jointly chaired the meetings. Salam said in his opening statement that both countries are suffering from the Syrian crisis and terrorism. He also hoped that his visit would set the stage for a new phase of cooperation between Lebanon and Jordan. The prime minister is accompanied by Ministers Akram Shehayyeb, Ramzi Jreij, Michel Pharaon, Rashid Derbas, Abdul Motleb Hennawi, Nabil de Freij and Alain Hakim. The committee is scheduled to discuss ways to consolidate bilateral ties and improve cooperation mainly in trade. The conferees will also discuss the Syrian crisis that had a devastating effect on Lebanon and Jordan, which together host more than 2 million refugees. Salam is expected to hold talks with King Abdullah II and other top Jordanian officials during his visit.

Zarif Concludes Beirut Visit: Iran Does not Meddle in Lebanon's Internal Affairs
Naharnet/August 12/15/Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif highlighted on Wednesday the importance of dialogue in overcoming crises, stressing that Tehran is prepared for “all forms of cooperation” with Lebanon to help it achieve growth. He declared during the second day of his trip to Beirut: “We do not meddle in internal Lebanese affairs and neither should other countries.”He made his remarks during a press conference with Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil at the end of his two-day trip to the country. “Iran extends its hands to neighboring countries for cooperation,” added Zarif. He stated that the nuclear deal that Tehran had signed with major powers in July underlines the importance of dialogue in ending disputes. “We demonstrated that the use of force and sanctions cannot resolve regional conflicts,” he remarked, while noting that countries in the region now have the opportunity to adopt such an approach. “Lebanon is a symbol of dialogue and constructive cooperation among its diverse people,” said Zarif. For his part, Bassil stressed that Zarif brings with him three victories during his Beirut trip, the first being “the victory of Lebanon's resistance against Israel” during the July 2006 war. “He also brings with him the victory of dialogue against international isolation,” he noted in reference to the nuclear deal. “We have long spoken of the importance of dialogue in bolstering openness,” he continued. “He brings with him the victory against the takfiri threat,” he stated, while stressing that “we stand in a single trench with Iran in confronting this challenge.”Earlier, Zarif had held talks with Speaker Nabih Berri and Defense Minister Samir Moqbel. He had arrived in Lebanon on Tuesday as part of a tour of the region. He kicked off his talks by meeting Prime Minister Tammam Salam and later Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Discussions focused on bilateral relations, latest local and regional developments, and cooperation between Lebanon and Iran. Zarif is scheduled to travel to Syria on Wednesday after concluding his trip to Beirut.

FPM Supporters Stage Motorized Protests, Hold Central Sit-in at Martyrs Square
Naharnet/August 12/15/Free Patriotic Movement supporters staged motorized protests on Wednesday and organized a central sit-in at Beirut's Martyrs Square, following a call by MP Michel Aoun to demonstrate against the extension of the mandate of top military officers in an attempt to put pressure on the government of Prime Minister Tammam Salam. “More than 200 cars from the FPM's youth department took off in a convoy from the Mirna Chalouhi highway (in Sin el-Fil) towards Martyrs Square in central Beirut,” state-run National News Agency reported Wednesday evening. An FPM official on the ground stressed that “the protests will be peaceful.”“No roads will be blocked,” the official told the reporter of a TV network. Other starting points for the motorized protests included Nahr el-Mot, Jounieh, Baabda, Batroun, Ashrafieh's Sassine Square, Nahr Ibrahim and Koura. The protesters had started gathering at 4:00 pm and were expected to tour various areas by car ahead of heading to Martyrs Square. Demonstrators at the square were joined by Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil and Education Minister Elias Bou Saab. “We call for accepting each other and achieving true partnership,” said Bou Saab from Martyrs Square. “We are convinced of our demands and this government cannot function without real partnership,” he added. Some reports said that the demonstrators would later march towards the Grand Serail where they will stay there throughout the night. But an FPM official denied such a plan in remarks to Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3). Aoun on Tuesday urged his supporters to take to the streets following the weekly meeting of his Change and Reform bloc. He said “there is a campaign to push the Lebanese to despair and the issue is not personal, but rather the cause of all Lebanese.” His supporters held a similar protest last month to call for the restoration of Christian rights, claiming that the prime minister was infringing on the authorities of the Christian president in his absence. A recent decision by Defense Minister Samir Moqbel to extend the terms of three top military officials angered Aoun, who has been for months campaigning for the appointment of new army and security chiefs. Aoun wants his son-in-law Commando Regiment commander Chamel Roukoz to become army commander. Wednesday's protests will come a day before a session for the cabinet, which has been marred by disputes over its working mechanism, the extensions and the waste problem.

Mashnouq on FPM Protests: Any Democratic Action is Acceptable as Long as it Remains Peaceful
Naharnet/August 12/15/Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq stressed that demonstrations and other forms of democratic expression are a right reserved by the constitution, reported As Safir newspaper on Wednesday in anticipation of scheduled protests by the supporters of the Free Patriotic Movement later in the day. The minister told the daily: “Any lawful democratic action is allowed as long as it does not cause any problem or security unrest.” FPM chief MP Michel Aoun announced on Tuesday that his supporters will be holding protests against the extension of the terms of top military officers. Security and military forces have since reinforced their measures in downtown Beirut and at other state institutions ahead of the demonstrations, reported al-Joumhouria newspaper on Wednesday. Internal Security Forces chief Major General Ibrahim Basbous told the daily: “The measures are very normal and they are the same ones taken during any extraordinary development.”“They aim to preserve the institutions,” he added. “Our measures are primarily aimed at protecting the demonstrators and we therefore cannot separate our presence from that of the army,” he continued. Military sources meanwhile told the daily that the army “will not stand as an obstacle against any peaceful and democratic movement.”“It will not be lured into a confrontation, but it will protect the protestors,” they emphasized. “It is its duty to protect the demonstrators despite the assaults against it,” they said in reference to scuffles that broke out between the army and FPM protestors the last time they held a rally. They had rallied on July 9 demanding the “restoration of Christian rights.” The demonstration was staged at the same time as a cabinet session at the Grand Serail in downtown Beirut and the protesters had scuffled with the soldiers protecting the building as they attempted to approach it. On Thursday, Defense Minister Samir Moqbel extended the the terms of the army commander, chief of staff and the head of the Higher Defense Council despite months of objections by the FPM, which rejects the extension of the tenures of high-ranking military and security officials. Wednesday's demonstrations are expected to be held in the afternoon with motorized protests reportedly kicking off at the Mirna Chalouhi Center on the Sin el-Fil-Jdeideh boulevard, the public garden in Jbeil, La Cite in Jounieh, the FPM offices in Baabda, Sassine Square in Ashrafieh, Batrouniyat restaurant in Batroun and the North Metn bureau of the FPM in Nahr al-Mot.

Syria Rebels, Hizbullah Observe 72-Hour Truce in Flashpoint Towns
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 12/15/A 72-hour ceasefire came into effect Wednesday between Islamist groups and pro-regime forces, including Hizbullah, in flashpoint towns in northwest Syria and along the border with Lebanon, a resident and monitoring group said. "We really noticed that it was relatively calm this morning," Mohammad, a resident of the flashpoint town of Zabadani near Lebanon's border, told AFP. "We didn't hear sounds of shelling or clashes, and we hope the situation stays like this."Pro-regime forces, including Hizbullah, had been fighting rebel groups in a bid to seize the town since early July. Late Tuesday, the two sides agreed to implement simultaneous 48-hour ceasefires in Zabadani and two regime-controlled villages in northwest Syria, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. It was extended Wednesday afternoon for another 24 hours, Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman said. "No shots have been fired since 6:00 am" local time (0300 GMT) in Zabadani as well as Fuaa and Kafraya, said Abdel Rahman. Fuaa and Kafraya in northwest Idlib province are under siege by a rebel alliance including al-Qaida affiliate al-Nusra Front, which regularly fires rockets into the two Shiite towns. Mohammed Abu Qassem, secretary general of Syria's Tadamun (Solidarity) Party, told AFP he had negotiated the ceasefire on behalf of fighting groups inside Zabadani. "Tadamun was authorized to negotiate with the government to reach a new agreement, Abu Qassem said. "Since the beginning of the military operation, we have been trying to find a solution to the crisis in Zabadani," he said, adding that a local administrative council, rebel groups and regime forces had signed off on the ceasefire. He said intensifying rebel attacks on Fuaa and Kafraya had expedited the agreement. "We accepted the ceasefire because we wanted to end the battle with as few losses as possible," a security source told AFP. "But we won't accept that the armed groups stay in Zabadani after today," he said. According to the Observatory, negotiations are ongoing regarding the safe exit of rebel fighters from Zabadani, as well as the provision of food and medical aid to residents of Fuaa and Kafraya. Local ceasefires have been implemented intermittently in parts of Syria, often to bring in humanitarian aid to besieged populations. At least 240,000 people have been killed since Syria's bloody conflict erupted in March 2011.

Syrian Girl Dead in Nabaa Fire
Naharnet/August 12/15/A Syrian girl died on Wednesday after a fire engulfed an apartment in the area of al-Nabaa in the Metn district, the state-run National News Agency reported. NNA said Civil Defense firefighters doused the blaze and rescued five other Syrians. In June, a major fire broke at a Syrian refugee encampment in the al-Jrahiyeh area near the Bekaa town of al-Marj, killing a baby and injuring several people. The incident was not the first time that fires have ripped through the often overcrowded and poorly constructed informal housing in which many Syrian refugees in Lebanon live. Lebanon is hosting around 1.5 million registered Syrian refugees, though the total number in the country may be even higher.

Wahhab's Bodyguards Scuffle with General Security at al-Arida
Naharnet/August 12/15/A scuffle erupted Tuesday between bodyguards of Arab Tawhid Party chief ex-minister Wiam Wahhab and Lebanese General Security agents at the al-Arida border crossing between Lebanon and Syria, state-run National News Agency reported. “As Wahhab's convoy was entering Lebanon from Syria through the al-Arida border crossing, a dispute and a scuffle broke out between the guards who were in his convoy and members of the General Security,” NNA said. It added that the convoy continued its journey after the border post's chief “intervened and resolved the dispute.”Meanwhile, Wahhab's Arab Tawhid Party issued a statement downplaying the incident as a “personal misunderstanding between a General Security agent and a car that was leading the convoy.” “The guards who were in the car made their identity clear to the General Security member but he insisted on searching the car, which sparked a minor clash that was addressed on the spot,” it said. The party noted that the officer in charge and the other agents behaved in a “courteous manner.”“General Security members at all border crossings act in line with what their duty obliges them to do and according to the instructions of General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim, whom we admire, appreciate and respect,” it added.

Fugitive Held Trying to Smuggle 'Chemical Substances' to Arsal Outskirts
Naharnet/August 12/15/A Lebanese fugitive was arrested Wednesday as he was trying to smuggle “chemical substances that could be used in bomb-making” to the outskirts of the northeastern border town of Arsal. “Today, army forces in the Arsal region arrested the fugitive Ahmed Khaled al-Hujeiri as he was trying to smuggle chemical substances that could be used in bomb-making to the town's outskirts,” the Army Command said in a statement. Arsal lies 12 kilometers from the border with Syria and has been used as a conduit for weapons and rebels to enter Syria, while also serving as a refuge for people fleeing the conflict. Jihadists from the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front groups, who are entrenched in the outskirts, stormed the town in August 2014 and engaged in deadly battles with the army following the arrest of a top militant. They withdrew from Arsal at the end of the fighting, but kidnapped a number of troops and policemen. A few have since been released, four were executed, while the rest remain held. Separately, the Army Command said in its statement on Wednesday that Syrian national Abdul Rahman Sheikh Moussa was apprehended in the Bint Jbeil town of Aytaroun on suspicion of belonging to a terrorist group.

Syria Regime Air Raids, Rebel Fire on Damascus Kill 50
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 12/15/At least 37 civilians were killed Wednesday in Syrian government air strikes near Damascus, while at least 13 people died as rebels fired a barrage of rockets into the capital, a monitor said. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least four children were among the dead in regime strikes on the rebel-held Eastern Ghouta region, where some 120 people were also injured. The death toll was likely to rise further, it said. The air raids hit the towns of Douma, Saqba, Kafr Batna and Hammouriyeh in the rebel stronghold region outside the capital. An AFP photographer in Douma saw more than a dozen bodies in makeshift plastic shrouds in a field hospital where medical workers struggled to aid the wounded. Elsewhere, he also saw two plastic shrouds opened at the top to reveal the faces of two children, their skin yellow and blood-speckled. Inside a clinic, a young boy wept and hugged his legs -- one roughly bandaged -- as he sat on a blood-smeared floor next to other injured residents. The strikes came as rebels fired dozens of rockets into Damascus. The Observatory, without specifying whether the raids or attack on Damascus came first, said at least 13 people, among them 10 civilians, were killed as a barrage of more than 50 rockets slammed into Damascus. It said another 60 people were wounded. Syria's state news agency SANA, citing a police source, put the toll at five dead with 55 others injured "most of them children and women."Rebels often fire into the Syrian capital from rear bases on the outskirts of Damascus, including at times barrages of hundreds of missiles. Rights groups have condemned indiscriminate rebel rocket fire into the capital as amounting to war crimes. The government, for its part, regularly carries out air strikes against rebel-held areas on the outskirts of Damascus, particularly Eastern Ghouta which is also under regime siege. On Wednesday, Amnesty International accused the government of war crimes against Eastern Ghouta residents, saying heavy aerial bombardment was compounding misery created by the blockade. More than 240,000 people have been killed in Syria's conflict since it broke out in March 2011, and millions have been forced to flee their homes.

Saudi Executes Syrian for Drug Trafficking
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 12/15/Saudi authorities on Wednesday beheaded a Syrian for drug trafficking in the kingdom's northwestern region of Jawf, the interior ministry announced. Omar al-Nasser was arrested while smuggling a "large amount of amphetamines," the interior ministry said in a statement on the official SPA news agency. His beheading brings to 116 the number of executions this year in the kingdom, compared with 87 for the whole of 2014, according to AFP tallies. Amnesty International says Saudi Arabia is one of the world's most prolific executioners, along with China, Iran, Iraq and the United States. Under the conservative kingdom's strict Islamic sharia legal code, drug trafficking, rape, murder, armed robbery and apostasy are all punishable by death. The interior ministry has cited deterrence as a reason for carrying out the punishments. Rights experts have raised concerns about the fairness of trials in the kingdom.

Iranian military official: 'We laugh' when US threatens to attack
By JPOST.COM STAFF/08/12/2015 /The West's frequent use of military threats and citing of their ability to attack Iran at will has become a joke among Iranian commanders in the military, according to a high ranking military official in the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported on Wednesday. Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Asoudi alluded to the West's hesitancy to use military force and mocked its resolve while speaking to troops in the North. "We should thank Obama for refreshing us by referring to his 'options on the table', including the military one; we just relax and laugh at such ridiculous words," Asoudi said. Other top commanders have also mocked such rhetoric coming from western officials, especially President Barack Obama's use of the common refrain of "all options on the table" while negotiations between world powers and Iran were being discussed. In May, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's top commander, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, dismissed US officials' frequent military threats against Iran as ridiculous remarks, according to Fars. "Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran's pride and might has made the world's biggest materialistic and military powers kneel down before the Islamic Republic's might," Jafari said. "The military option that the westerners speak of constantly is ridiculous and they know that if the military option could have produced any result, they would have already used it many times, and today they have shifted their focus to other types of threats," he added.

We object to Israeli policies, not its existence,' Iranians tell US Jewish journalist
By JPOST.COM STAFF/08/12/2015 /Despite extremist rhetoric by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian government officials and clerics object to Israeli policies rather than its existence, according to an American Jewish journalist who was granted a rare reporting visa to the Islamic Republic.In a special dispatch from Iran, Larry Cohler-Esses, the assistant managing editor for the Jewish Forward weekly newspaper, wrote that Iranians are far more moderate and eager to engage with the world than outsiders think. Cohler-Esses, who is believed to be the first American Jewish journalist from an overtly pro-Israel newspaper to be granted permission to report from Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, authored a 7,000-word article in which he quotes a number of Iranians who aren't shy about expressing critical opinions about their government. "During the course of my conversations with several senior ayatollahs and prominent political and government officials, it became clear that there is high-placed dissent to the official line against Israel," Cohler-Esses wrote. "No one had anything warm to say about the Jewish state." "But pressed as to whether it was Israel’s policies or its very existence to which they objected, several were adamant: It’s Israel’s policies. Others, notwithstanding their ideological objection to a Jewish state, made it clear they would accept a two-state solution to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians if the Palestinians were to negotiate one and approve it in a referendum."The Forward journalist wrote that ordinary Iranians were far more preoccupied with the high unemployment rate in their country and removing the burden of international isolation than any thoughts of eliminating Israel. “The people of Iran want in some way to show the world that what’s going on in the last years is not the will of the Iranian people but of the Iranian government,” the owner of a butcher shop in northern Tehran told Cohler-Esses. “We have no hostility against Israel.” During his stay in Iran, the Forward reporter wrote that young people were curious about the outside world despite efforts by the regime to impose censorship on the Internet. The Forward is America's oldest Jewish newspaper. Founded in 1897 by American Jewish socialists, it became a mass circulation Yiddish-language daily that served the influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe. Journalists at the Forward said that they had been trying to obtain a visa to Iran for two years, according to the New York Times.

ISIS affiliate in Egypt claims to behead Croatian hostage in Sinai
REUTERS/08/12/2015/CAIRO - Islamic State's Egyptian affiliate published a photograph it said was of the beheaded body of a Croatian hostage it had threatened to kill last week, the SITE monitoring service said on Wednesday. Reuters could not independently verify the authenticity of the picture, which carried a caption that said: "killing of the Croatian hostage, due to his country's participation in the war against Islamic State, after the deadline expired ... ". If confirmed, it would be the first beheading of a Western hostage held by Sinai Province, the Egyptian group which changed its name from Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis after it pledged allegiance to Islamic State. A spokesman at the Egyptian Interior Ministry's press office said: "We have seen this news on line but are currently making our own checks. If we confirm that it is indeed true, we will inform the media through a statement." The Croatian embassy said it was not authorized to comment and referred all queries to the Croatian foreign ministry. A spokeswoman for the ministry said she had no information. Croation Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic announced an extraordinary news conference for 5 p.m. (1500 GMT). The photograph, circulating on Twitter accounts of supporters of Sinai Province, shows a man's severed head lying on his body, with a knife driven into sand next to it and the black Islamic State flag in the background. Next to the picture, there are screenshots of Arabic language news articles with headlines saying: "Croatia confirms its support for Egypt in efforts to fight terrorism and extremism" and "Croatia affirms its continued support for the Kurdistan region." Last week, an online video purportedly from Sinai Province showed a man who identified himself as Tomislav Salopek who said the group would kill him in 48 hours if Muslim women in Egyptian jails were not freed. Ardiseis Egypt, a unit of French oil and gas geology company CGG, confirmed that the video showed one of its employees who was kidnapped on July 22 while traveling to Cairo. No immediate comment could be obtained from CGG.

Iran proposes Syrian peace plan/Syria's Aleppo marked as international city under Iran peace plan
Roi Kais/Ynetnews/Published: 08.11.15/Israel News
Iranian foreign minister cancels trip to Turkey to discuss peace initiative to keep Assad in power; Saudi peace plan demands Iranian withdrawal. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif's visit to Turkey was cancelled Tuesday, when he had been expected to present the Islamic Republic's recently developed initiative to reach a peace deal in Syria. According to reports Tuesday in al-Araby al-Jadeed, the Iranian plan would divide control in Syria between the Assad regime and rebel forces, each controlling the territories they currently hold, while Aleppo would fall under international control since it is split between the army and rebel forces.The deal also calls for cooperation between the regime and rebel forces to fight Islamic State forces and other terrorist groups. The
fight against ISIS militants would be used as a tool to unite the the country's warring factions, and the Iranian initiative calls on rebels and regime officials to begin talks meant to result in a national unity government. While the West has often called for the removal of current President Bashar Assad as part of any peace deal, the Iranian initiative would leave the President in place, but possibly vulnerable to elections that would be monitored by international observers. The deal would also require an organized rebel leadership - a characteristic that fractured groups in opposition to Assad have struggled to form throughout the country's four-year Civil War. Another proxy war? But Iran isn't the only regional player that's opened a new diplomatic front in Syria. Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir travelled to Moscow Tuesday to discuss the issues with Russian officials who have been backing the Assad regime financially, strategically and militarily. According to the Saudi peace initiative, a transitional government would be formed in Syria and Assad would be barred from any future involvement in government. Iran and Saudi Arabia are regional rivals and the two plans raise the potential for proxy-style conflict in Syria as both sides deeper their involvement after the resolution of Iran's nuclear deal with the West.
The Saudi plan calls on Iran to remove its forces from Syria, including Hezbollah troops, saying, "Iran can't be part of the solution because they are part of the problem."Reuters contributed to this report.

Jeb Bush: Hillary Clinton shares blame for rise of ISIS
REUTERS/08/12/2015
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Tuesday attacked Democrat Hillary Clinton for her handling of Iraq as secretary of state, saying she must share the blame for the rise of Islamic State militants, in a prelude to a potential general election matchup in 2016. Iraq is a tricky topic for Bush, given the dismay many Americans still feel over the rationale for the US-led invasion of Iraq ordered by his brother, former President George W. Bush, in 2003. Mindful of those concerns, Jeb Bush used the bulk of a speech at the Ronald Reagan presidential library not to dwell on the past but to sketch out a future path for the United States in the region that is more muscular than what he called President Barack Obama's "minimalist approach of incremental escalation." He said he would deploy some US forces in Iraq as forward "spotters" to help identify enemy targets, a step President Barack Obama has resisted out of concern that it could deepen American involvement in Iraq and Syria.
Bush said he would be willing to consider a small increase in US troops beyond those already there and embed some US forces with Iraqi units as Canadian forces are doing. "Right now, we have around 3,500 soldiers and marines in Iraq, and more may well be needed. We do not need, and our friends do not ask for, a major commitment of American combat forces," he said. He would provide more support to anti-Islamic State Kurds, and work with regional allies to declare a no-fly zone in Syria to counter Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces and Iranian influence. Bush's criticism of Clinton's role in the events leading up to the 2011 withdrawal of US forces is in line with what other Republicans have contended, that for all her travels around the world as Obama's first-term secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, she showed a disdain for going to Iraq.
"In all her record-setting travels, she stopped by Iraq exactly once," Bush said. The attack comes after weeks in which the Republican race has been dominated by Donald Trump's antics and taken the spotlight away from the serious policy issues debated by Bush and his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. Bush is attempting to pierce what the Clinton camp feels is a major selling point for her candidacy for the Democratic nomination, that she is a foreign policy heavyweight. In doing so, he seeks to present himself to Republican voters as a sturdy opponent for Clinton in 2016. Bush said a President Bush-ordered US troop surge in 2007 brought stability that would have been extended if Obama had negotiated a US residual force for Iraq. The Obama administration was unable to negotiate a deal with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the last troops were brought home in 2011. "Where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this? Like the president himself, she had opposed the surge, then joined in claiming credit for its success, then stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away," Bush said. In response, the Clinton campaign held a conference call for reporters with her foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan. Sullivan defended Clinton, saying she had accomplished a successful transition from a US military footprint in Iraq to a civilian one. "The key issue is not how many times does the plane touch down at the airport. It's how intensive and effective is the engagement that leads to progress," Sullivan said. He said Jeb Bush was attempting to "rewrite history," and that George W. Bush had set the 2011 date for a US withdrawal.

Netanyahu emulates Churchill in Trying to Influence US Policy to Protect His People
By ALAN DERSHOWITZ/J.Post/08/12/2015
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is acting properly in lobbying against the Iran deal. And President Obama is acting improperly in accusing him of interfering in American foreign policy and suggesting that no other foreign leader has ever tried to do so: “I do not recall a similar example.”President Obama is as wrong about American history as he is about policy. Many foreign leaders have tried to influence US foreign policy when their national interests are involved. Lafayette tried to get the United States involved in the French Revolution, as the early colonists sought support from France in their own revolution. Winston Churchill appeared in front of Congress and lobbied heavily to have America change its isolationist policy during the run up to the Second World War. Nor can President Obama claim ignorance about recent events, when he himself sent David Cameron, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, to lobby Congress in favor of the Iran Deal. Recently, Shinzo Abe, the prime minister of Japan, lobbied us with regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s nation has a far greater stake in the Iran Deal than most of the countries that negotiated it. But Israel was excluded from the negotiations. Any leader of Israel would and should try to exercise whatever influence he might have in the ongoing debate over the deal. There can be no question that Israel is the primary intended target of Iran’s quest for a nuclear arsenal. Recall that Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Prime Minister of Iran, has described Israel as a one bomb state that could be destroyed instantaneously, and that even if Israel retaliated, it would not destroy Iran or Islam. No similar threats have been made against Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia or China. Although the United States is still regarded by Iran as the “Great Satan”, it has less to fear from an Iranian nuclear arsenal than does Israel.
Does President Obama really believe that Israeli leaders are required to remain silent and simply accept the consequences of a deal that puts its population at risk? As Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly said, Israel is not Czechoslovakia, Czechoslovakia too was excluded from the negotiations that led to its dismemberment, but it had no ability to influence the policies of the negotiating nations. Nor did it have the ability to defend itself militarily, as Israel does. The United States would surely not accept a deal negotiated by other nations that put its citizens at risk. No American leader would remain silent in the face of such a deal. Israel has every right to express its concern about a deal that has crossed not only its own red lines but the red lines originally proposed by President Obama.
President Obama’s attack on Prime Minister Netanyahu for doing exactly what he would be doing if the shoe were on the other foot has encouraged Israel bashers to accuse opponents of the deal of dual loyalty. Nothing could be further from the truth. I and the deal’s other opponents are as loyal to our country as is President Obama and the supporters of the deal. I am a liberal Democrat who opposed the invasion of Iraq and who twice supported President Obama when he ran for president. Many of the deal’s strongest opponents also cannot be accused of being warmongers because we believe that the deal actually increases the likelihood of war.
The President should stop attacking both the domestic and international critics of the deal and engage us on the merits. That is why I have issued a challenge to the Obama Administration to debate its critics on national television. This is a wonderful occasion for Lincoln-Douglas type debates over this important foreign policy issue. At this point in time the majority of Americans are against the deal, as are the majority of both Houses of Congress. The President has the burden of changing the public’s mind. This is, after all, a democracy. And the President should not be empowered to impose his will on the American public based on one-third plus one of one house of Congress, when a majority of Americans have expressed opposition. So let the name calling stop and let the debates begin.
**Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer, constitutional scholar, commentator and author. His new book is The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran From Getting Nukes? (Rosetta Books, August 11, 2015).

The theory of terrorism and restraining moderates
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/Wednesday, 12 August 2015
Those affiliated with religious groups have for long reiterated that the emergence of extremist Islamic groups is due to the restraining of “moderate” Islamic ones. Western governments were convinced of this for a while and thus began to urge Arab governments to allow religious groups in politics and include them in governance, either democratically or through partnership and quotas. It may seem reasonable that including moderates leads to the expelling of extremists, but this theory is not supported with evidence - at least in our Arab arena. These concept of participation for these groups means a monopolizing of authority. They are not like Turkey and Indonesia’s Islamic groups who work and govern under a secular system and whose “Islamic liberalism” looks nothing like the extremism of Islamist Arabs. The aim of politicized religious groups is to attain power regardless of the rhetoric adopted and the means used in order to later create a dominating regime and eliminate others! Based on experience, it’s been proven that most Arab religious parties are exclusionary despite all their talk about moderation and co-existence. There are many examples on the case from our modern history and I will resort to four of them to elaborate my point. The first experience was Iran. The masses who protested in the streets of Tehran and called for toppling the Shah and received Ayatollah Khomeini at the airport were a mixture of political parties who agreed on establishing a regime that allows pluralism.
Brutal party
After the Islamists seized power, they issued laws which eliminated all parties but themselves. Then, they got rid of their rivals through means more brutal than the Shah’s regime had resorted to. Tens of thousands of supporters of parties like the communist Tudeh party and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran were murdered. Based on experience, it’s been proven that most Arab religious parties are exclusionary despite all their talk about moderation and co-existence The second experience was in Sudan. After toppling President Gaafar Nimeiry, the Sudanese accepted a pluralistic political system and held elections in which the Umma party won and the Democratic Unionist Party came in second. However since the Islamic party came in third, its leader Hassan al-Turabi conspired with Omar al-Bashir and staged a coup to assume power. For the past 26 years, they have governed Sudan with an iron fist. The third experience was in the Gaza Strip where the Palestinian Liberation Organization accepted to hold parliamentary elections in 2006 – within the boundaries of the Oslo Agreement. On the basis of the theory that including Islamists will make them friendly, the Americans pressured the PLO to allow the Hamas Movement to participate in these elections. The result was that Hamas won 76 seats out of 132, formed a government and a year later eliminated its partner Fatah, took over Gaza and got rid of its rivals - either by murdering them or expelling them. The most exciting experience was the Brotherhood’s rule in Egypt. Although their brief time controlling the presidency may have not long been enough to judge their intentions, many of their practices violated their authority and the constitution - as they controlled the judiciary and assigned a new attorney general. Such violations are capable of toppling any government within a democratic system.
Therefore, in the past half century we cannot find a single Arab case that shows the eligibility of religious parties in co-existence and democracy. Tunisia’s Ennahda Movement, who is referred to as a model of moderation, did not really become moderate until the Brotherhood were toppled in Egypt by force. When Ennahda participated in elections after the revolution and won 89 seats out of 217 and headed a government for two years, it actually tried to amend the constitution to restrain its rivals; however it failed.
What’s worse than the immaturity of religious groups is that their seizure of power did not prevent extremism at all. The Gaza Strip for example suffers from extremist groups who accuse Hamas of infidelity and call for fighting it. Hamas destroyed these groups’ mosque and killed some of their members. In Sudan, similar takfirist groups emerged and Bashir’s government is still fighting them until this day. Even during the one year when the Brotherhood governed Egypt, extremist groups carried out attacks against the army in Sinai. Extremist groups also surfaced during Ennahda’s term of governance, who assassinated two opposition leaders and slaughtered soldiers on the borders. This leads us to two results: religious groups are not less dictatorial and their presence in government does not prevent the emergence of extremist groups. Therefore, the statement that restraining “moderates” is a reason for the emergence of extremists is a mere myth – that is if we accept the term “moderates!” What’s certain is that the region suffers from a dangerous ideological disease that is spreading but with very little done to confront it. However we must not reward religious parties with governance in order to get rid of extremism.

ISIS wages cultural warfare on Syria’s heritage
Dr. Halla Diyab/Al Arabiya/Wednesday, 12 August 2015
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is not only achieving territorial gains in Syria. The militants are also succeeding in obliterating the country’s cultural existence - and replacing it with a new culture that serves their extreme narrative. The culture being constructed by ISIS is an effort to “revive,” or more appropriately, manufacture, a culture to which their fighters can belong despite their distance and alienation from home. Most of these jihadists have difficulty feeling a sense of belonging to or identifying with the European culture of their home countries. ISIS offers them a new territorial space in Syria to construct and participate in a new culture and society, one to which they can easily belong. In order to create this society, ISIS are strategically preying on the natural human inclination to belong. In the case of the British jihadists, for example, some second-generation Muslims feel they are “inbetweeners,” unable to fully relate to either their parents’ culture or British culture. The evident danger is the appeal that ISIS’s culture, as promoted in their propaganda, requires impressionable young people seeking a wider sense of belonging. With ISIS allowing jihadism to transcend martyrdom, it is now a different kind of destructive jihadist culture emerging that predominantly thrives on the tactic of demolishing Syria’s heritage and cultural sites, in order to author a new historical legacy in 40 to 50 years’ time from now.
Culture catastrophe
As the bearers and transmitters of Syrian cultural heritage, the dispersal of Syrians across the world, far from their homeland and their material cultural and historical heritage, is a profound cultural catastrophe. Not only because the displaced Syrians who unwillingly left their homeland suffer the loss of cultural memory - to compound the humanitarian and psychological disasters have they suffered - but also because their departure leaves a vacuum of culture in Syria. The evident danger is the appeal that ISIS’s culture, as promoted in their propaganda, requires impressionable young people seeking a wider sense of belonging. As ISIS have demonstrated by their actions, they are intent on demolishing Syrian cultural memory, wiping the slate clean and rewriting history to support their extreme narrative of terror.
With this, ISIS are seeking to establish themselves, not only as the colonizers of Syria, but as the “new Syrians.” ISIS recognises that it must exterminate all symbols of the existing Syrian culture manifested by its heritage (e.g. artefacts, historical sites and monuments), rip out the roots of the country’s cultural memory leaving nothing left, in order for the new, forcibly-planted culture to grow successfully. To justify these acts, the organization claims that it is getting rid of all icons of heritage and religious monuments to leave an unobstructed path to Islam. However, this pretence conceals the real reasons behind ISIS’s policy of destruction. In the first place, this is the removal of any and all any obstructions to their own control and narrative in order to gradually become the living God.
Erased memories
By erasing the cultural memory of the Syrian people, demolishing moral codes and severing cultural ties, they can create their own legacy as living icons for the next generation in Syria.
ISIS are keenly aware of the danger of memories, civilizations and achievements in art and beauty that existed in Syria that give Syrians their pride and identity.
With Syrians deprived of historical memory and cultural expressions such as art (apart from ISIS’s own art which promotes violence and their own narratives) or self-expression to promote critical thinking, the militants are ultimately creating a society of people who will be easily controlled and susceptible to the narrative and ideology of their colonizers. Alongside this overarching aim, the destruction of the cultural heritage of Syria is a policy that serves a number of purposes for ISIS and these illustrate the group’s political and mercenary cynicism rather than any true religious motivation. The publicity their cultural destruction gains fuels their war of propaganda.
ISIS are aware of the power that their displays of brute vandalism exert through the media attention they garner. They have realised that western countries are more likely to pay attention to cultural heritage destruction, as after a certain point people are unable to stomach images of human torture and humanitarian disaster but will continue to look at media showing heritage destruction, this plays into the ISIS propaganda machine and the expansion of their psychological warfare. Parallel to this, the organization is generating considerable income from illicit trade in looted artefacts (the majority of which they do not actually destroy, but sell) which is in turn fuelling their war of violent conquest. ISIS’ war is not only colonizing Syrian lands and territories. It is also appropriating and distorting the Syrian existence by erasing the land of indigenous Syrians. At the moment, this very real danger is obscured by the fog of war, but it will have a considerable impact on Syrian generations for decades to come. ISIS is conducting a mental and psychological war of conquest to justify their war of extermination, classifying who is religious and who is less religious, who is Muslim and who is not, who is Syrian and who is not, who deserves to belong to Syria and who does not, and who deserves to live and who does not.

The Political Nature of Today's Middle East Studies
Andrew C. McCarthy/National Review Online/August 11, 2015
http://www.meforum.org/5433/middle-east-studies-political-nature
This article was commissioned by Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. Originally published under the title, "Modern Middle East Studies vs. Scholarship."
Edward Said's lifelong journey from boarding school in Mount Hermon, Massachusetts, to Columbia University takes about three-and-a-half hours, depending on traffic. It would be a mistake to say Middle East studies have been corrupted. For the program's very purpose has been to serve as a corrupting agent. Specifically, it puts the essence of study — the objective pursuit of knowledge — in disrepute.
Here, of course, I am referring to the modern incarnation of Middle East studies: an amalgam of leftist and Islamist political dogma that masquerades as an academic discipline. By contrast, the actual study of Middle Eastern history, like the intimately related study of Islamic civilization, is a venerable and vital pursuit — and is still pursued as such by, to take the best example, ASMEA, the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa. Alas, in our hyper-politicized society, the traditional notion of study seems quaint: a vestige of a bygone time when the designations "Orientalist" and "Islamist" referred to subject-matter expertise, not political activism, much less radicalism.
Caricature of real study as engine of colonialism paved the way for a reconstruction of "study" as agitation to empower have-nots. Yet, for Edward Said, the seminal figure in modern Middle East studies, the object of the game was to slander knowledge itself. Joshua Muravchik nailed it in a 2013 profile of the renowned academic. Said's animating theory held that "knowledge" was the key that enabled the West to dominate Orientals: The point of pursuing knowledge about "the languages, culture, history, and sociology of societies of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent," Said elaborated, was to gain more control over the "subject races" by making "their management easy and profitable." With real study caricatured as the engine of colonial exploitation, the way was paved for a competing construction of "study" — political agitation to empower the have-nots in the struggle against the haves.
Said was a fitting pioneer for such a fraud. To begin with, he was a professor not of Middle East studies but of comparative literature. Moreover, the personal history he touted to paper over his want of credentials was sheer fiction: Far from what he purported to be (a Palestinian victim exiled by Jews from his Jerusalem home at age twelve), Said was actually a child of privilege, raised in Cairo and educated in top British and American schools. His Palestinian tie of note was membership in the PLO's governing council. Like Rashid Khalidi — his protégé, who was later awarded the chair in Modern Arab Studies that Columbia University named in Said's honor — Said was long a reliable apologist of Yassir Arafat, the indefatigable terrorist who infused Palestinian identity with a Soviet-backed Arab nationalism.
To thrive in an Islamic culture, it was not only useful but necessary for Palestinian militancy to accommodate the Islamist sense of divine injunction to wage jihad. From its roots, then, modern Middle East studies is a political movement aligning leftism and Islamism under the guise of an academic discipline. It is not an objective quest for learning guided by a rich corpus of history and culture; it is a project to impose its pieties as incontestable truth — and to discredit dispassionate analysis in order to achieve that end.
Where the leftist frames Western reverence for reason as imperialism, the Islamist attacks it on theological grounds. The embrace of Islamism usefully advances this project because Islamist ideology similarly stigmatizes the pursuit of knowledge. Where the leftist frames the West's reverence for reason as imperialism, the Islamist attacks it on theological grounds.
Sharia, they maintain, is the complete and perfect societal framework and legal code, the path to human life lived in conformity with Allah's design. Thus, what the West calls "reason" or "the objective pursuit of knowledge" is merely a rationalization for supplanting Allah's design with the corrupting preferences of Western civilization.
We see how this teaching plays out in practice. Muslim countries that supplement sharia with other legislation add the caveat that no man-made law may contradict Islamic principles. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation — a group of Islamic governments that form a large bloc in the United Nations — even found it necessary in 1990 to promulgate a Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, because Islamists could not accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights spearheaded by non-Muslim governments after World War II.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the world's most influential Islamist organization, refers to this enterprise as "the Islamicization of knowledge," the weaving of historical events and cultural developments into Islamist narratives that confirm sharia-supremacist tenets. The "Islamicization of knowledge" is the express and unapologetic mandate of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the Virginia-based think tank established by the Brotherhood in 1981.
There are two pertinent observations to be made about the IIIT. First, it has provided an enthusiastic endorsement of Reliance of the Traveller, the English translation of Umdat al-Salik, a classic Arabic sharia manual. The publisher found this seal of approval sufficiently significant to be included in the manual's preface, along with an endorsement from scholars at the ancient al-Azhar University in Cairo.
The manual is an eye-opener. In addition to detailing sharia's gruesome hudud penalties (e.g., scourging and death for such offenses as extramarital or homosexual relations), it provides instruction on Islam's brutally enforced proscriptions against blasphemy and apostasy. These are salient to our consideration: They include prohibitions not only against renunciation and ridicule of Islam but even against objectively true statements that contradict sharia, promote other belief systems, or might otherwise sow discord in the Islamic community.
The Islamicization of knowledge is possible only if the objective pursuit of knowledge is not permitted to compete. Obviously, the animating purpose of these principles is to discourage severely the robust exchange of ideas, and even more the scholarly examination of Islamic doctrine and culture. The Islamicization of knowledge is possible only if the objective pursuit of knowledge is not permitted to compete.
That brings us to the second noteworthy observation about the IIIT: It has longstanding ties to the Middle East Studies Association (MESA). Several of these were traced by Cinnamon Stillwell in a 2014 American Thinker essay.
This alliance, the sponsorship by the IIIT of Middle East studies programs throughout North America, the collaborations between the IIIT and MESA scholars — these are easy to understand. Modern Middle East studies is a counter-scholarship enterprise that subverts truth to the ends of leftist and Islamist politics. To be clear, it is not an alternative interpretation of reality competing in the marketplace of ideas; it is an anti-Western program that is oblivious to reality and seeks to shut down the marketplace.
We do ourselves and the search for truth great harm by indulging the fiction that anti-American power politics is credible American scholarship.
** Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

The New Syrian Force: Down but Not Necessarily Out
Jeffrey White/Washington Institute/August 11, 2015
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-new-syrian-force-down-but-not-necessarily-out
After the recent defeat, key questions must be addressed regarding the size of U.S.-supported units deployed, the thoroughness of battlefield knowledge, and the broader program's overall direction. In mid-July, small elements of the New Syrian Force (NSF), the product of the U.S. train-and-equip program, were deployed into Syria from Turkey. They quickly came to grief in combat, not against their putative enemy, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), but against Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), an al-Qaeda affiliate.The July 31 clash and follow-on events were a complex affair, shedding light on the train-and-equip program for the NSF. Whereas the outcome is not necessarily a final verdict on the NSF or the program, it raises questions once again about the program's purpose and viability on Syria's dangerous battlefields. Namely, while one defeat does not mean the program should be ended, it does mean the serious challenge of fighting in Syria must be recognized and the program's scope and purpose reexamined.
Key Questions About the Program
Even before the initial deployment of the NSF, major questions existed on matters such as the feasibility and logic of the force's mission; its combat capabilities; its size relative to the scope of its mission; its concept of operations; and how it would be directed and supported in combat. (For an assessment of these early concerns, see the Institute PolicyWatch "Train and Equip Not Enough for U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebels.") These issues had not been resolved prior to July, and they remain largely unresolved in the debacle's wake.
What Happened
Clear portents of trouble for the NSF were visible well before the actual clash. In late 2014, JN had already attacked and essentially defeated two U.S.-backed groups, the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF) and Harakat Hazm, active within JN's area of operation in northern Syria. These groups, which had received significant U.S. support but were not part of the train-and-equip program, were thus effectively removed from the military equation.Beginning in September 2014, the United States had also carried out airstrikes on JN-associated elements in the so-called Khorasan group. Most recently, on July 8, strikes reportedly killed a senior Khorasan leader, stirring animosity toward both the U.S. air operations and what JN regarded as antagonistic U.S. surrogates and collaborators.
Additionally, signs of problems within the train-and-equip program itself included slow progress in recruiting and vetting personnel, a correspondingly small number of actual program graduates, and departures due to various forms of disillusionment. The rigorous vetting process and the requirement to formally commit to fight only ISIS, also known as the Islamic State, appear to have been the biggest reasons for the low personnel tally.
The Action and Its Outcome
The full details of the late July action are not yet known, and uncertainties remain, but the basic elements appear clear. On July 12, a small NSF force, variously reported as having fifty-four or sixty men, was sent into the operational area of "Division 30," a U.S.-supported unit in northern Aleppo. On July 30, JN moved against Division 30, capturing some of its leaders and then attacking its forces on July 31, compelling the division's withdrawal from its headquarters near Azaz, in northern Aleppo province. During the fighting, the United States provided air support, striking JN forces and apparently preventing what would have been a greater defeat for the NSF elements, which were caught up in the action. The grim outcome for the NSF included at least one killed, five or more captured, and the breakup and dispersal of its remaining members -- along with being a major embarrassment for the train-and-equip program. Consequences for Division 30 included prisoners taken, the forced withdrawal from its headquarters, and a humiliating public pledge not to fight JN.
What the Events Say About the U.S. Program
The major program weaknesses exposed by these events include the decision itself to send such a small force into Syria. Given the heavily armed and capable forces that could oppose the deployment, small NSF elements were undoubtedly at high risk of being attacked and defeated. The deployment also suggests a poor understanding of the complex situation on the ground. As for the employment concept, it appears to have been to embed a small NSF element within a rebel unit already supported by the United States. The seeming advantage of such an approach was that the United States would have sufficient understanding of the unit's capabilities, confidence in its leadership, and awareness of the situation on the ground. But the concept held the weakness of depending on some cooperation, or at least the absence of active resistance, from other armed elements in the area. As it turned out, the optimistic scenario failed to play out, revealing the employment concept's fundamental flaws in both design and execution. Since the event, reporting has indicated that control of the NSF group passed from U.S. personnel to Division 30 after the group entered Syria. While integrating certain NSF elements into existing U.S.-supported rebel formations is probably necessary, at least until large NSF units are available, such an approach puts a premium on good knowledge of these existing formations. Such knowledge appears to have been lacking here, given Division 30's easy defeat by JN.
Moreover, some U.S. accounts indicate the NSF fought well, but the extent to which the NSF, as opposed to Division 30, was involved in the actual combat is not clear. And while JN forces reportedly suffered significant casualties, it is unclear to what extent those were inflicted by the NSF as opposed to Division 30 or U.S. airstrikes. JN, for its part, claims most of its casualties were from the U.S. attacks.U.S. air support for the NSF, most likely coordinated by U.S.-trained NSF personnel, appears to have averted a larger disaster. The United States has now stated it will provide defensive air support for the NSF against all threats, in addition to offensive support against ISIS. While this assertion needs to be tested, it does go some way toward resolving a key question about the U.S. program.
Implications
Alongside being an embarrassment, the defeat of the nascent NSF in its first Syrian sortie has practical implications. Indeed, the loss of personnel, the almost certain loss of arms and equipment, and the scattering of the force reflect -- short of outright annihilation or pell-mell flight -- about as bad a military result as one can conceive. Likewise, the profound risks of deploying small NSF forces on uncertain Syrian battlefields were exposed. Consequences will likely include punctured morale for NSF elements in training and a corresponding blow to recruitment. A further question raised by the debacle includes who is responsible for decisionmaking on commitment of the NSF and how this particular decision was made. Related questions involve the relationship and syncing of the reported CIA clandestine-support program for select rebel forces, presumably including Division 30, and the U.S. Department of Defense train-and-equip program. As this episode shows, JN clearly will not accept a significant U.S.-backed force in its area of operations in northern Syria. Its previous actions to eliminate the SRF and Harakat Hazm, and now its strike against Division 30 and collaterally the NSF, must be considered in any future NSF deployments. More broadly, the NSF must be prepared to fight from the moment it enters Syria against a spectrum of highly capable enemies: ISIS, other Islamists, warlords, and regime fighters.
Likewise, establishing a very detailed picture of the situation on the ground is essential before the entry of forces. The United States must have a means of obtaining real-time, accurate information on what is happening to U.S.-supported forces. Beyond receiving reports from U.S.-trained fighters, the United States must develop its own means of collecting data and evaluating battlefield developments, a requirement that likely means U.S. personnel on the ground.The U.S. response to the blunder, unfortunately, appears so far to suggest business as usual: difficulties are to be expected, lessons will be learned, challenges will be met, operations are proceeding as planned. Inexperienced or newly formed military units often do not fare well in their first combat test, so the problems encountered by the NSF are not altogether surprising. Two more groups of fighters are said to be in the pipeline, and they and their trainers should gain from the first group's experience. Furthermore, the combination of the reported JN withdrawal from the Turkish border area north of Aleppo and the potential creation of a border security zone by Turkey and the United States could reduce the immediate threat to NSF forces as they deploy into Syria. It is therefore too early to write the program off as a total failure. Nevertheless, the seriousness of what happened in the closing days of July suggests the program needs to be more fundamentally rethought, repurposed, and reenergized.
*Jeffrey White is a defense fellow at The Washington Institute and a former senior defense intelligence officer.

Clarifying a 'No' Vote on the Iran Nuclear Agreement
Robert Satloff/Washington Institute/August 11, 2015
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/clarifying-a-no-vote-on-the-iran-nuclear-agreement
A congressional vote of disapproval would not necessarily be a deal breaker; in fact, it could give the administration time to improve the agreement or implement other policy measures that more effectively secure U.S. interests.
What are the implications of voting against the Iran nuclear agreement? Considerable hyperbole clouds the issue. Here is a guide for the perplexed.
What is the congressional review of the Iran accord all about?
The Iran nuclear accord -- formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- sounds a lot like a treaty but isn't one. Technically, it's not even an "executive agreement." It has no signatories. It is, rather, a voluntary set of understandings entered into by eight parties: Iran, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, the United States, and the European Union.
Although such an agreement itself has no status in law, Congress decided it wanted to exert review authority over it, similar (though not identical) to the authority the Senate has to "advise and consent" on treaties. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 -- known informally as the Corker-Cardin legislation -- is the statute governing this situation. This compromise bill, signed into law by President Obama, provides for both houses of Congress to vote for resolutions either approving or disapproving the agreement. The president can veto these resolutions, however, and overriding the veto would require a two-thirds vote in both houses.
For comparison purposes, it is important to note that the standard for congressional support of the Iran agreement is much lower than would be the case for a treaty. For the agreement to be considered approved, only one-third of one house of Congress need vote against a resolution of disapproval; by contrast, treaties require the support of two-thirds of the Senate.
What are the implications of a resolution of disapproval?
A resolution to disapprove the Iran agreement may have substantial political reverberations but limited practical impact. It would not override President Obama's authority to enter into the agreement. Nor would it restrict his authority to participate in most aspects of enforcing the agreement. Indeed, the sole practical implication would be to restrict his authority under law to waive nuclear-related sanctions on Iran. And a resolution of disapproval would have no authority to force him to vigorously enforce such sanctions. Were the president to exercise the same "prosecutorial discretion" he has on some other controversial issues where he disagreed with the law, the sanctions could become dramatically less effective.
What would that mean in practice?
Here, it is important to remember the timetable of JCPOA implementation. The first set of responsibilities under the deal are Iran's. Before anything else happens, Iran needs to implement its "core requirements" under the deal. These include satisfying the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the question of "possible military dimensions," mothballing thousands of centrifuges, shrinking its massive stockpile of low-enriched uranium to 300 kilograms, and gutting the core of its Arak plutonium reactor. Most experts believe this process will take between six to nine months. Only once the IAEA certifies that Iran has fulfilled those requirements does U.S. and international sanctions relief become an operative issue.
So a vote of disapproval would have no practical impact until early-to-mid-2016?
Technically, that is correct.
What could happen in the meantime?
This is where analysis meets conjecture and hyperbole. Advocates of the agreement have suggested that a successful congressional resolution of disapproval would kill the deal. They have argued that Iran would lose faith in America's commitment to the agreement, pull out, and ramp up its enrichment program to new levels, and that the Europeans would cry foul at America's lack of fair play and end sanctions of their own accord. Advocates of the accord also suggest that without agreed limits on its nuclear program, Iran would sooner or later trigger either American or Israeli military action, which would unleash regional war.
There are strong arguments why each of these predictions is misplaced. First, Iran is unlikely to respond to congressional disapproval by enriching uranium with reckless abandon and thereby validating the skeptics who never trusted its commitment to a solely peaceful nuclear program. After Tehran has painstakingly worked for two decades both to advance a program that is on the verge of attaining breathtaking international legitimacy and to end nuclear-related sanctions, it would make little sense to chuck those achievements in a state of pique. To the contrary, Iran is far more likely to fulfill its core requirements so as to earn the termination of UN and EU sanctions that would come with IAEA certification. Along the way, Tehran would note that America, not the Islamic Republic, was isolated because of its intransigence.
For its part, Europe is unlikely to respond to a vote of disapproval by unilaterally terminating its sanctions. More likely, it would to want to see its negotiating position validated by following the agreement's terms -- that is, waiting until Iran fulfills its core requirements before rewarding it with sanctions relief.
European leaders -- and certainly European businesses -- would chafe under the continued application of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions. In the 1990s, faced with Iran sanctions that affected European business, EU governments complained about extraterritorial application of U.S. law and successfully pressured the Clinton administration to suspend the application of such sanctions. Soon after President Clinton signed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) into law, his administration reached a formal agreement with the EU not to enforce it against European companies. Over the next decade, much to Congress's frustration, neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration determined that a single EU firm violated ILSA, claiming they had to investigate further on matters openly proclaimed by the companies involved. Despite increasingly tough congressional requirements about reporting on the progress of those investigations, including provisions adopted 100-0 by the Senate, both administrations simply stalled.
Today, the Europeans are likely to pursue a similar approach, so the outcome will rest on the Obama administration's response. If the administration maintains effective enforcement of its nuclear-related sanctions, along with enforcement of the primary and secondary aspects of the nonnuclear sanctions that will be unaffected by the Iran deal, European business leaders are ultimately unlikely to value the Iranian market more than the U.S. market, and much of the existing sanctions regime would stay in place.
In that scenario, the outcome would probably be murky -- the global sanctions regime would be less effective than it is today but would still have significant bite. It would collapse only if the United States failed to enforce its own sanctions. Yet it is difficult to see a scenario in which the threat of war would be substantially higher than it is today.
Is "murky" really the best outcome?
No -- and it isn't necessarily the most likely. There is no reason why a successful vote of disapproval has to end the internal U.S. debate over the Iran deal. There are numerous ways in which the president could improve the deal -- either directly by reopening negotiations with the other parties, or indirectly through unilateral or multilateral action with U.S. allies. (For details, see the extended list of suggestions proposed by members of The Washington Institute's Iran Study Group.) At any point, the president could return to Congress, work out a new formula for review, and seek congressional approval.
There is considerable incentive for the president to complete this process before Iran fulfills its core requirements under the deal. Should that happen, the United States would be on schedule to waive its sanctions, as called for under the agreement, at the same time as the EU and UN terminate theirs.
Could members of Congress condition a "yes" vote on changes in U.S. policy?
Should the administration fear that it may lose an override vote, it may try to turn some nays to yeas with offers to improve the agreement. Its antipathy to reopening the deal to renegotiation means these improvements would likely take the form of either unilateral U.S. policy moves (e.g., declarations of U.S. commitment to use "all necessary means" to prevent Iran's accumulation of high-enriched uranium after limitations on enrichment are lifted fifteen years into the agreement) or U.S.-European coordination on Iran (e.g., defining a matrix of agreed penalties for Iranian infractions of the agreement now so as to limit the potential for allied tensions on the reimposition of sanctions later). Such changes could improve the agreement in many ways.
Most important, the administration could articulate and implement a strategy for deterring the aggressive Iranian behavior that so disturbs Washington's Middle East allies and creates the impression that the United States is retreating from the region. Concrete actions to check Iran would have much greater impact than any declaratory statements, since this administration -- justly or not -- faces a serious credibility deficit in the eyes of its critics at home and in the region.
Yet the Nuclear Review Act itself does not accommodate "conditional yes" votes, only approval or disapproval. Barring new legislation, then, conditionality would be a matter of trust between the administration and Congress.
Does the president have other options?
If Congress disapproved the deal and overrode the president's veto, he could still try to circumvent the legislature. For example, he could reject the disapproval as an unwarranted intrusion into executive authority, proceed with the sanctions waiver, and wait for Congress to bring the question to the Supreme Court. Alternatively, as cited earlier, he could waive sanctions in effect if not in name by invoking his discretion about how much effort to devote to enforcing them.
How does the UN Security Council resolution endorsing the deal change the situation?
This too is murky. The administration's decision to seek Security Council endorsement before Congress completed its review did not violate the letter of the Nuclear Review Act because Resolution 2231 does not come into effect until after the congressional review period concludes. However, there is a strong argument -- made by both Democrats and Republicans -- that it violated the spirit of the legislation. In any case, a vote of disapproval by Congress would neither negate UNSCR 2231 nor compel the president to rescind his support for the resolution. Again, the only operative aspect of congressional disapproval would be to restrict the president's authority to waive unilateral nuclear-related sanctions.
If the United States does not waive those sanctions once the IAEA certifies Iran's completion of its core requirements, the agreement does not automatically collapse. The agreement contains its own mechanism to adjudicate violations -- the eight-member Joint Commission -- and Iran would likely bring the United States before that body to press its case. This, however, would be a political dispute, not a technical matter. At that point, all of the parties would have to weigh their interests -- are they better off or worse off sticking to the agreement? There are simply too many variables at play to make a definitive judgment on what happens next. War, however, is a low probability.
So what's the bottom line?
A vote of disapproval is both more and less than meets the eye. It is, on the one hand, the only way the American system allows for elected representatives to express opposition to the agreement and compel the administration to take those views into account. On the other hand, it would not kill the Iran deal unless the other parties to the agreement wanted it dead.
While a vote of disapproval would restrict the president's authority to fulfill one U.S. obligation under the accord -- waiving sanctions -- this most likely would not become a live issue until early-to-mid-2016. Until then, much could happen to change the situation, ranging from improvements in the deal that merit subsequent congressional support to new revelations of secret Iranian nuclear activity that would validate congressional skepticism.
In other words, a vote of disapproval would not necessarily be a "deal breaker." In fact, under certain circumstances it could pave the way for an improved agreement that more effectively achieves U.S. goals than the current one.
**Robert Satloff is executive director of The Washington Institute.

Iran's media posts names of US Generals who supports the "deal"
US generals, admirals sign letter in support of Iran agreement
Press TV/Tue Aug 11, 2015 1
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/08/11/424329/us-iran-army-jcpoa-nuclear-congress-obama
General James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is one of the signatories of the letter to back Iran agreement.
The United States retired generals and admirals have signed a letter to back a nuclear agreement between Iran and the global powers.
The retired brass said there existed “no better option” than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reached between Tehran and P5+1 and backed by the UN Security Council in July, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
The letter was the latest expression of support to the administration of President Barack Obama, engaged in nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic, amid opposition by the Republican-weighted Congress in the backdrop of a row between US dominant parties.
“And if the deal is rejected by America, the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark,” read the letter.
Iran has time and again said that it pursues solely civilian purposes in its nuclear energy program.
The letter was signed by senior generals and flag officers, including four-star Marine Gens. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Joseph P. Hoar, former head of the US Central Command; and Gens. Merrill McPeak and Lloyd W. Newton of the US Air Force.
Last weekend, 29 leading American scientists wrote a letter to Obama, calling the agreement, reached in Vienna on July 14, “technically sound” and “innovative.”
JCPOA will “provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons,” it read, adding, the historic agreement “will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future non-proliferation agreements.”
The Obama administration has to retain enough Democratic votes in support of the agreement as pro-Israelis are busy campaigning against final approval of any accord with Tehran by the Congress.

The "Iran Deal" is funding a Khomeinist version of a Third Reich, says European NGOs...
After nuke deal, European companies rush into Iran to sell tools of oppression
By Benjamin Weinthal/Published August 11, 2015/FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/08/11/after-nuke-deal-european-companies-rush-into-iran-to-sell-tools-oppression/?intcmp=hpbt2
The lifting of international sanctions on Iran has triggered a stampede of European companies beating a path to Tehran to secure contracts, but some of the equipment being offered has dark, dual purposes in the hands of the Islamic Republic’s oppressive government.
The cranes made by Austrian manufacturer Palfinger could be used to transform Tehran’s skyline, but also have played a starring role in Iran’s infamous public executions, where convicted criminals are often hanged from the giant booms high above public squares. German company Herrenknecht, whose senior officials visited the Iranian capital last month, makes industrial drilling rigs critics say could be used to nestle nuclear facilities deep inside mountains. Other companies lining up to do business with the mullahs make equipment that also could be used against Iran’s enemies – or its populace.
“It reminds me of the economy and the industry of the Third Reich,” said Ariel Muzicant, vice president of Europe’s Jewish Congress.
“I am glad to help you with my tunnel boring machines.”
- Martin Herrenknecht, founder of German company, to Iranian mayor
Palfinger gained widespread notoriety after one of its cranes, identifiable by the company name and logo, was shown in a widely-distributed photo by award-winning photographer Ebrahim Noroozi hoisting the lifeless body of a condemned man. The graphic picture, coupled with company CEO Herbert Ortner’s remark to the Austria Press Agency that Iran is a “promising market,” with strong demand for cranes and no domestic competition, generated debate in Europe.
”Palfinger is one example, which clearly shows, that Austrian companies do not care at all about the disastrous human rights situation when it comes to doing business in Iran,” Stefan Schaden, spokesman for the Vienna-based activist group Stop the Bomb, told FoxNews.com. “In fact they support the regime and its inhuman policies as long as it serves their profit interests.”
Stop the Bomb, an organization devoted to preventing an Iranian nuclear program and improving human rights in its Islamic Sharia law controlled-society, launched a campaign to bar Palfinger from re-entering the market.
Palfinger spokesman Hannes Roither told FoxNews.com that despite Ortner’s comment, the company is not seeking to do business in Iran. He said the crane in the infamous picture was built 27 years ago in Iran under a since-canceled licensing deal.
“We don’t have any plans to sell cranes in Iran,” Roither said, adding, “if the human rights situation changes in Iran, there will be new considerations.”
Even if Palfinger has no interest in tapping the Iranian market, others certainly do. Austrian President Heinz Fischer is slated to visit Iran next month, with a delegation that will include foreign minister Sebastian Kurz, economy minister Reinhold Mitterlehner,and the head of the Austrian chamber of commerce, Christoph Leitl.
Martin Herrenknecht, founder of the German firm which boasts its “state of-the-art deep drilling rigs drill down to a depth of 6,000 meters,” was in Iran last month to generate business.
“I am glad to help you with my tunnel boring machines,” Herrenknecht told the mayor of Isfahan, according to a German news report.
Heavy-earth moving equipment could be used by Iran for nefarious purposes, such as Iran’s infamously hidden illegal nuclear site Fordow, buried deep inside a mountain near the holy city of Qom.
But Iran’s misuse of European technology is not limited to heavy construction machines. In 2008, the then-joint Finnish-Germany venture Nokia-Siemens sold Iran’s regime sophisticated surveillance equipment. After Iranian protesters flooded the streets in the 2009 “Green Revolution” to denounce the country’s fraudulent presidential election, Iran’s regime used the monitoring technology to disrupt Internet, Twitter and mobile communications among demonstrators.
In response to the Nokia-Siemens deal with Iran, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced in 2009 legislation to punish foreign companies that sell high-tech goods to Iran by shutting them out of U.S government contracts. Both senators oppose President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.
Siemens was represented last month during a business delegation trip with Germany’s economic minister and vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel in Tehran. According to a Tuesday Persian-language report in Iran’s state-controlled Mehr news, an Iranian information technology official announced a joint-project with an unnamed “foreign company” to start phase two of a “targeted filtering” program that is designed “towards [censoring] websites and networks that have social harm.”
Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, told FoxNews.com he welcomed the “implications posed by sanctions relief and Iran’s economic reintegration into the global financial system.”
However, he also warned that “the human rights situation in Iran is deeply concerning and it is integral that all stakeholders, including investors and businesses, work to avoid contributing to human rights harm in this difficult context.”
Some European leaders and activists believe companies should self-impose a boycott of deals with the hard line Tehran government.
“Germany should not sell security technology to dictatorships like Iran, Saudi Arabia or Russia,” said Volker Beck, a Green Party leader from Germany. “And goods should not be exported which can be used there for torture or the implementation of the death penalty.”
From the view of Iranian dissidents, the revival of commercial deals with Iran’s regime is a setback for democracy.
"Conducting business with the Iranian regime is a stab in the back of the Iranian opposition,” said Hiwa Bahrami, who represents the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI) in Austria and Germany. “The terror against the Iranian population will not decrease, but increase.”
He noted that hopes the 2013 election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani would usher in a more moderate era than that of his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gone unrealized, as executions have soared in the last two years.
Still, European business and political delegations continue to flock to Iran. Last week, Italy’s foreign minister Paolo Gentiloni was in Tehran on Wednesday. He sai
“In addition to political co-operation, our two countries can work together in the fields of trade, commerce and economy," Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni said last week while in Tehran, where he announced that Italy provided Iran a $3 billion line of credit.
An Iranian regime spokesman, Mohammad-Bagher Nobakht, said a result of French foreign minister Laurent Fabius’ recent visit could lead to France selling French-made Mirage warplanes to Iran. A French business delegation of nearly 100 French company executives will visit Tehran next month.
After robust sanctions were imposed on Iran in 2011-2012, trade plummeted to under $10 billion. Given the European gold rush into Iran, bi-lateral trade between Europe and Iran could rapidly reach levels approaching $30 billion, according to analysts.
Benjamin Weinthal reports on the Middle East and is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Follow Benjamin on Twitter@BenWeinthal
Benjamin Weinthal reports on human rights in the Middle East and is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Follow him on Twitter @BenWeinthal

The Saudi-UAE War Effort in Yemen (Part 2): The Air Campaign
Michael Knights and Alexandre Mello/August 11, 2015
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-saudi-uae-war-effort-in-yemen-part-2-the-air-campaign
Saudi-led air operations in Yemen have badly lost their way, neither achieving their objectives nor respecting international norms.
Part 1 of this PolicyWatch discussed the recapture of Aden, highlighting a key success of the Saudi-led, U.S.-backed coalition against Houthi rebels and armed supporters of former president Ali Saleh. Yet other aspects of the coalition effort have been far less satisfactory, particularly the level of collateral damage being inflicted by the air campaign. If steps are not taken to correct these flaws, many more civilians might be killed, and the Houthis and their patron Iran could reap considerable propaganda benefits.
OPERATION DECISIVE STORM
Saudi-led air operations against the Houthis began after Yemeni president Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi's March 24 request for military intervention "based on the principle of self-defense in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations," as well as "the Charter of the Arab League and the treaty of joint Arab defense." On March 26, the air forces of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar launched Operation Decisive Storm. Since then, around 170 strike aircraft have participated in the campaign, including 100 from Saudi Arabia (mostly F-15S and Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft), 30 from the UAE (F-16s and Mirage 2000s), and several F-16s from Bahrain (15), Jordan (6), and Morocco (6).
This first phase of the operation lasted twenty-nine days and saw coalition air forces work their way through military, political, and infrastructure targets with little apparent connection to an overall war strategy. Air bases and air defense complexes were prioritized to gain air supremacy and freedom to undertake aerial refueling and reconnaissance missions in or near Yemeni airspace. The country's fleet of long-range surface-to-surface missile (SSM) systems were targeted at their bases and known launch sites. Efforts were also made to isolate Houthi-controlled areas from Iranian resupply by disabling airports and Red Sea ports such as Hodeida and Mokha. Other strikes focused on Houthi troop concentrations and leadership locations in the north, close air support along the Saudi-Yemeni border, and Houthi-aligned military camps and arms depots.
By early April, the coalition was trying (and largely failing) to stem the southward flow of Houthi forces by hitting roads, bridges, and gas stations. Fixed targets of real military value were largely exhausted, with new attacks either restriking known targets or hitting suspected gathering places for Houthi and pro-Saleh forces. On April 22, coalition spokesman Brig. Gen. Ahmed Asiri announced the end of Operation Decisive Storm, stating that it "had completed its objectives in Yemen by destroying the ballistic missile capabilities of the Houthi movement and Houthi-allied military units."
FOLLOW-ON AIR OPERATIONS
Despite that pronouncement, the coalition never really ceased air operations. Instead, the campaign escalated and became more brutal from late April onward, becoming a tit-for-tat cycle of retaliation. Aside from border clashes and restrikes on military camps, many of which appeared to be empty, three new themes have become dominant in air targeting:
Coercive strikes. The coalition has struck a range of Saleh-associated leadership and military locations in an effort to pressure the former president's Afaash clan to detach from the Houthis -- a strategy that may be registering partial success. Military bases have often been struck immediately after their personnel defected to the Houthis; for instance, on July 7, al-Abr Base was struck and thirty soldiers from the army's 23rd Brigade were killed as soon as they declared for the Houthis.
Retaliatory operations. One of the more problematic aspects of the air campaign has been apparent targeting of civilian areas and infrastructure in Saada, the Houthi home province. This accelerated in tandem with Houthi attacks on border forts in Saudi Arabia's Jizan and Najran provinces from early May onward. On May 7, the coalition began warning Saada residents by leaflet to leave the area. By May 17, UN satellite analysis indicated that a total of 1,171 structures in Saada city had been damaged or destroyed by airstrikes (for more on the civilian toll, see the next section). The Houthis have matched the coalition blow for blow: their long-range rocket artillery strikes and cross-border raids into Saudi Arabia have grown more powerful since late May, utilizing BM-21 and BM-27 multiple rocket launchers and advanced Iranian-supplied antitank systems such as the Metis-M, Kornet-E, and RPG-29.
Scud hunting. The initial phase of Operation Decisive Storm clearly did not eliminate all Yemeni SSMs. On June 6, at least one Scud C variant (a North-Korean Hwasong-6 delivered to Yemen in 2002) was fired at the Saudi military city in Khamis Mushait. Yemen originally had twenty-five Hwasong-6s and many shorter-range FROG rockets; in all, anywhere from four to twenty of these SSMs have been fired into the kingdom. The Hwasong-6 can reach up to 500 kilometers inside Saudi territory and carry a 770 kg high-explosive warhead; it can also be made mobile via transporter erector launchers (TELs). As the U.S.-led coalition learned in 1991 during its famous Scud hunt in Iraq, mobile TELs are very difficult to find. No Yemeni SSMs have been confirmed destroyed prior to launch; coalition airstrikes have only hit fixed sites associated with these missiles.
HEAVY COLLATERAL DAMAGE
To Western eyes accustomed to modern air campaigns aimed at minimizing civilian deaths, the level of collateral damage in the Yemen campaign is staggering. To date, collated figures from daily press reporting suggest that between 4,200 and 5,500 civilians have been killed by air attacks. And the tallies from generally reputable observers such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the UN suggest an average of forty civilian deaths per day, or around 4,000 total since late April. The highest reported death toll in a single day was 176 on July 6.
Although the coalition has used a large number of precision-guided munitions, a May 3 Human Rights Watch report indicated that it is also using unguided bombs and cluster munitions, even within urban areas. Similarly, Amnesty International has documented the use of 2,000-pound bombs in dense urban areas to strike the unoccupied houses of senior Saleh clan members, causing untold civilian deaths. Other targeting choices have drawn criticism as well. According to Human Rights Watch, sixty-five civilians were killed at worker housing near the Mokha Steam Power Plant on July 24, when a coalition airstrike hit the Red Sea port town with no apparent military rationale -- the monitoring group claimed that no armed forces were present at the plant nor even at an abandoned air defense site 800 meters away. In addition, mounting evidence appears to show that power stations and factories have been deliberately targeted to degrade civilian living standards in Houthi areas.
Yemen's cultural heritage is also under fire as coalition air forces strike at military and civilian targets near historic locations. UNESCO World Heritage sites such as the Old City of Zabid, al-Qahira Castle, and historic central Saada have been hit repeatedly, as have the old quarters of Sana, al-Mukalla, and Taizz. Elsewhere, the National Museum in Dhamar and the Yemen Heritage Centre in Aden have been destroyed, along with large numbers of artifacts from the region.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The coalition air campaign is a disturbing throwback to the types of operations many countries undertook before the more precision-oriented 1991 Gulf War. Some targeting choices are legitimate efforts at coercion, such as striking pro-Houthi units and the property of Saleh-aligned leaders. Yet collective punishment of civilians also seems to be a conscious focus of the campaign, especially in retaliatory operations following cross-border attacks on Saudi Arabia. The lethal targeting of civilians may not be intentional, but it is the inevitable result of using excessively large munitions or indiscriminate weapons in populated areas. The coalition apparently cannot find the critical targets that actually need to be hit -- enemy leaders, missiles, troop convoys, and mobile artillery systems. As a result, the air campaign spends a lot of time hitting what it can find, not finding what it needs to hit.
The United States has been through these issues in its own air operations over the past few years, moving toward more refined targeting and collateral damage mitigation processes. As the closest partner of the coalition air forces operating over Yemen, the U.S. Air Force should give some tough advice to the campaign planners: namely, that the air war is making the coalition look like the bad guys, giving the Houthis and Tehran a propaganda coup and threatening to besmirch any positive precedent that defeating Iranian-backed forces would generate.
Moreover, the "strategic air campaign" against Saada needs to be much more selective, tied to overall war aims rather than tit-for-tat retaliation. Saudi Arabia may not be able to deter the Houthis by establishing escalation dominance via strikes on their home province; it may instead need assistance with counter-infiltration, counter-artillery, and counter-SSM strikes near the border. The United States might also be able to help pro-government Yemeni forces use airstrikes to push elements of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) out of bases they have seized. More broadly, Washington can help the coalition cope with the demanding next phase of the air campaign: providing discriminate, effective air support to mobile offensive columns of Yemeni and UAE forces as they push north.
To be sure, the United States hardly has realtime airstrike adjudicators or surveillance assets to spare -- both are in high demand in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Yet the U.S. Air Force and intelligence community might have U.S.-based target system analysts who could help redesign the joint integrated prioritized target list for the Yemen air war and influence target and weapon selection to minimize collateral damage. Washington will receive at least some of the blame for whatever the Saudi-led coalition does in this war, so the Pentagon may as well be involved in shaping the outcome.
**Michael Knights is a Lafer Fellow with The Washington Institute. Alexandre Mello is lead security analyst at energy advisory service Horizon Client Access.

Will Britain Pass the Choudary Test?
Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/August 12, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6324/anjem-choudary-extremism
The long-term consequences of allowing Choudary to be free constitute a terrible mistake: the main impact of Choudary on the wider public has been colossally to exacerbate suspicions of Muslims as a whole.
Broadcasters have for years introduced him as a "sheikh" or a "cleric," without often casting doubt on his qualifications to such titles, or noting the comparative paucity of his following.
It is perfectly possible that Anjem Choudary will slip between the UK's terrorism laws once again. Or perhaps now it is he that has slipped up, and the most visible chink in the UK's counter-extremism policy has finally resolved itself.
If there was a single flaw in the British Prime Minister's recent speech on countering extremism in the UK, it might be encapsulated in the name "Anjem Choudary." His speech went into terrific detail on the significance of tacking radicalism through the education system, the Charity Commission, the broadcasting license authority and numerous other means. But it failed the Choudary test.
That test is: What do you do about a British-born man who is qualified to work but appears never to have done so, and who instead spends his time taking his "dole" money and using it to fund a lifestyle devoted solely to preaching against the state?
The problem is not quite as straightforward as some commentators make out. The fact that Choudary is British-born and a British citizen makes it legally impossible for Britain to withdraw his citizenship or otherwise render him "stateless." He has a young family who cannot be allowed to starve on the streets, even if he could. These are admittedly late liberalism problems, but they are problems nonetheless.
On the other hand, what the state has allowed from Choudary in recent years looks more like a late Weimar problem. Choudary is not merely a blowhard pseudo-cleric with perhaps never more than a hundred followers at any one time -- although this is certainly the part of his persona that has garnered most attention. Indeed, his attention-seeking is perhaps the only first-rate skill he has. For instance, there was the time he claimed he was planning a "March for Sharia" through the centre of London, culminating at the gates of Buckingham Palace with a demand that the Queen submit to Islam. Having garnered the publicity he desired, Choudary cancelled his march not because there was a fairly measly counter-demo (of which this author was a part) but because his "March for Sharia" would have been unlikely to gather more than a few dozen attendees, and would most likely have descended into a "stroll inviting ridicule," at best.
The reason Choudary is more than just an attention-seeker is that over many years he has been involved with innumerable people who have shown themselves to be more than blowhards. They have attempted to bring serious sectarian conflict -- as well as murder -- to the streets of Britain. A number of Choudary's associates, for instance, were imprisoned a few years back for attempting a Mumbai-style attack on London landmarks, including the London Stock Exchange. Other of his associates have been to prison for incitement and countless terrorist-recruitment offenses; and since the beginning of the Syrian civil war, a number of his followers have gone to Syria and Iraq to join and fight with ISIS.
Choudary himself is a trained lawyer and has a sufficiently adept mind to know on just which side of the law to keep his remarks. The last Labour government's creation of a new offense of "glorifying terror" ought to have caught Choudary within it, but it appeared not to have done. He has remained a frustratingly free man.
That said, there are other possible explanations for this. One theory -- not beyond the realm of possibility -- is that Choudary has been, to some extent (knowingly or unknowingly), used as a "fly-trap" by the police or intelligence services. He is well known enough to have anyone seriously interested in the most radical forms of Islamic extremism come to him. And despite the paranoia of his group, thinking that they are being infiltrated (described not least by the former radical Morten Storm in his excellent memoir, "Agent Storm"), it is possible that this is what has been going on all along. It would mean that there was some agreement to allow Choudary to get away with what he does because it is better for such extremism to have an observable and open meeting-point than to be more clandestine.
There are certainly many defences of such a policy -- if such a policy there has been. In the short term, it might have stopped several significant attacks. But the long-term consequences of allowing Choudary to be free constitute a terrible mistake: the main impact of Choudary on the wider public has been colossally to exacerbate suspicions of Muslims as a whole. Broadcasters have for years introduced him as a "sheikh" or a "cleric," without often casting doubt on his qualifications to such titles, or noting the comparative paucity of his following. The police failure to stop one Choudary demonstration in particular (and indeed to protect his followers) also led to the creation of the English Defence League -- an extraordinary negative double-whammy for one person to achieve.
But last week Anjem Choudary was arrested, detained and charged with terror offenses relating to attempts to persuade Muslims in Britain to join ISIS; he now finally faces trial. So far, there has been a muted response in the British media. Part of that is the simple and rightful caution due to reporting restrictions of an upcoming trial. But part of it may also be an "I'll believe it when I see it" cynicism. It is worth recalling that just last year Choudary was arrested and detained for terror offenses, only to walk free before the bunting was even half up. There are unlikely to be any premature celebrations this time. Perhaps reporters and commentators also have in mind the murky dropping of all terrorism charges before the opening of the trial of former Guantanamo inmate Moazzem Begg last autumn.
It is perfectly possible that Anjem Choudary will slip between the UK's terrorism laws once again. Or perhaps now it is he that has slipped up, and the most visible chink in the UK's counter-extremism policy has finally resolved itself.

How Elections Messed Up Turkey's Plans
Burak Bekdil/Gateston Institute/August 12, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6332/turkey-interim-government
The AKP is going through difficult times. It has been politically weakened, and there are no credible indications that it may comfortably win a majority to form a government in a repeat election any time soon.
Turkey, over the past two months or so, has been run by an interim government. The Turkish voters' decision to deprive the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of its parliamentary majority for the first time since 2002 has not only altered the center of power in Turkish politics, it has also has forced the AKP into a compromised foreign policy.
The AKP's leadership, in theory, is in coalition negotiations with the main opposition. A historic deal is not altogether impossible, but unlikely. In his unconstitutional campaign before the June 7 parliamentary elections, the AKP's unofficial boss, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, asked for "400 deputies" who would amend the constitution to introduce an executive presidential system for him. He did not specify for which party he wanted 400 seats in parliament, but everyone knew he explicitly supported the AKP, which he had founded in 2001. (According to the Turkish constitution, the head of government is the prime minister, not the president. The president has symbolic duties in addition to his powers to appoint high-ranking officials. He must remain non-partisan.)
Instead, Turks gave the AKP 258 seats -- not enough even to form a single-party government, let alone to amend the constitution. Knowing that he has nothing to lose, Erdogan wants repeat elections in autumn.
The prospect of another possibly inconclusive election in the autumn, and two months of interim governance, has been sufficient to prune the AKP's assertive foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.
Boo hoo: Poor results in the June 7 elections have forced Turkey's Islamist AKP party into a compromised foreign policy. Pictured: Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.
After several months of reluctance, Turkey eventually agreed to join a Western coalition, led by the U.S., which fights the radical Islamic State (IS), which controls large swaths of land in Syria and Iraq, both neighboring Turkey. For the first time since the jihadist group's emergence in the Levant, Turkey bombed its strongholds in July and agreed to allow the U.S. military to use the critical Incirlik air base in southern Turkey for strikes against IS. The U.S. has already used the base for strikes with its armed drones, and six U.S. F-16 fighters have been stationed at the Turkish base for further strikes that were expected to start this week.
There are other signs that a weakened AKP may be good news for every other nation in the Middle East. After several years of a cold-to-less-cold war with Israel, the Turks are now keeping back-channels open for a possible normalization of diplomatic relations, which Ankara downgraded in 2010 in the aftermath of the Mavi Marmara crisis. On May 31, the Israeli naval commandos boarded the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara off the Gazan coast, killing nine pro-Palestinian activists aboard. The ship was leading a flotilla, bound for the Gaza coast in order to break the Israeli naval blockade. A U.N. report later found Israel's blockade legal.
Apparently encouraged by the AKP government, the relatives of those killed on the Mavi Marmara launched a criminal case against four high-ranking Israeli officers, whom they accused of planning and carrying out the raid on the Mavi Marmara. On May 26, 2014, a criminal court in Istanbul issued arrest warrants for the Israeli officers. It was clearly a government-orchestrated move to squeeze Israel internationally. But surprisingly, at a court hearing on August 3, 2015, Turks watched the relatives of the victims protesting against the AKP. They accused the government of blocking, "deliberately or not" the arrest warrants from being forwarded to Interpol. They even filed an official complaint against the Turkish foreign and justice ministries for negligence of duty by not having forwarded the warrants to Interpol. Apparently, Ankara does not want to make a move that would kill any potential rapprochement with Jerusalem.
This author's prediction here after the June 7 elections was:
"... When more than 55 million Turks voted on June 7, they did not only vote to deprive President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of the worse-than-Putinesque powers he had long been campaigning for; they also said a democratic "No" to his Islamist foreign policy ambitions ... A weakened Erdogan, [Prime Minister Ahmet] Davutoglu & Co. is bad news for the jihadists fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime. It is bad news for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and their ideological next of kin in neighboring countries. It is, generally speaking, bad news for political Islam and its followers. It is bad news, also, for Hamas."
Yes, Hamas... there are now [unconfirmed] press reports that the weakened AKP may be forced to turn on its Hamas brothers in a diplomatic way. Israeli press has claimed that the Turkish government has ordered Salah Aruri, a top Hamas official it had been hosting, to leave the country. Israel accuses Aruri of organizing terror attacks in the West Bank. He was released from an Israeli prison and was reportedly in charge of rebuilding the Hamas infrastructure in the West Bank. In recent years he was in "exile" in the friendly arms of the AKP government.
The AKP is going through difficult times. It has been politically weakened, and there are no credible indications that it would comfortably win a majority to form a government in repeat elections any time soon. The AKP is fighting an existential war in domestic politics, and a parallel fight to rebuild the Middle East along the lines of a Sunni Turkish leadership would be both a luxury and distraction.
**Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Why Canada's Left Has Lost My Vote
Tarek Fatah/The Toronto Sun/August 12, 2015
http://www.meforum.org/5435/canada-left
Originally published under the title, "Why Mulcair Has Lost My Vote."
New Democratic Party (NDP) Leader Thomas Mulcair says the war against ISIS "is not our fight."
The Western world's flaccid response to threats posed by the forces of Islamism is best described by the British author Theodore Dalrymple in his book, The New Vichy Syndrome: Why European Intellectuals Surrender to Barbarism.
Referring to the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005-2006, Dalrymple writes, we are "virtually giving in to demands that certain important subjects (like Islamism) henceforth be placed, de facto, off limits for discussion." Dalrymple writes it was obvious that for the West, "the quiet life was clearly preferred to the costs of securing a free one; if only we appeased enough, there would be peace in our time."
This political cowardice within the Left, camouflaged in a burka of anti-war rhetoric, is visible right here in Canada as well. Both New Democratic Party (NDP) Leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau have demonstrated the symptoms of appeasement
In an interview with Maclean's, Mulcair recently criticized Canada's role in the coalition now fighting Islamic State (ISIS), claiming, "This is not our fight."
Political cowardice within the Canadian Left is camouflaged in a burka of anti-war rhetoric.
That may be true for Mulcair, but other Canadians have a more global view of our tiny planet. We feel for the families of bloggers beheaded in Bangladesh and the Kurds slaughtered in Kobani. Imagine telling the parents of the girls kidnapped by Nigeria's Boko Haram jihadis that their fight "is not our fight."
For someone like myself who has been on the Left all my life, spent time in prison as a socialist, fought for gay rights in hostile Islamic communities, and who lives under death threats, Mulcair's words were a betrayal.
At one time, internationalism was the hallmark of democratic socialists. Today, many on the Left have become Sharia Bolsheviks.
It wasn't just Mulcair's Maclean's remark that was offensive to many of us who have suffered the indignities of Islamism.
During the leaders' debate, the NDP leader quipped, "(W)e know that a lot of the horrors that we are seeing are the direct result of the last misguided war (U.S invasion of Iraq)."
Mulcair thinks it is America's fault that ISIS beheads fellow Muslims, pushes homosexuals off roofs, and enslaves women.
I was stunned. Here was a man vying to be Prime Minister of Canada reading a script whose logic could have been taken straight out of the Muslim Brotherhood hymnbook. In effect, Mulcair was saying it was the fault of America that ISIS was beheading fellow Muslims, pushing homosexuals off the roofs of buildings and making sex slaves out of captured, non-Muslim female prisoners.
Nonsense. Jihadis have been doing this since the dawn of Islam.
I doubt that Mulcair knows the recent bloodbath by ISIS in an Iraqi city was not the first such action by jihadis. On April 21, 1802, 200 years before the United States invaded Iraq, jihadis from the first Saudi state ravaged the Iraqi city of Karbala, killing 5,000 fellow Muslims, plundering the city and destroying the 1,000-year-old tomb of the grandson of Prophet Mohammed.
As for that other man seeking to replace Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's positions on Canada's and the West's national security reflect his fear of offending Islamofacists.
When CBC's Terry Milewski asked Trudeau, "If you don't want to bomb a group as ghastly as ISIS, when would you ever support real military action?" Trudeau's response was shocking. "That's a nonsensical question," he retorted.
In 1988, I put up my federal NDP sign, "This time it's Ed" on my front lawn and voted for Ed Broadbent and his party.
This time, I will not vote NDP.
**Tarek Fatah, a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, a columnist at the Toronto Sun, and the author of the award-winning books Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State and The Jew is Not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti-Semitism.

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

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