New Page 5

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

Bible Quotations For Today

On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to name him Zechariah after his father. But his mother said, ‘No; he is to be called John
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 01/57-66: "Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. Her neighbours and relatives heard that the Lord had shown his great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to name him Zechariah after his father. But his mother said, ‘No; he is to be called John.’They said to her, ‘None of your relatives has this name.’Then they began motioning to his father to find out what name he wanted to give him. He asked for a writing-tablet and wrote, ‘His name is John.’ And all of them were amazed. Immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue freed, and he began to speak, praising God. Fear came over all their neighbours, and all these things were talked about throughout the entire hill country of Judea. All who heard them pondered them and said, ‘What then will this child become?’ For, indeed, the hand of the Lord was with him.

Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children, burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than the children of the one who is married.
Letter to the Galatians 04/21//31/05,01: "Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, ‘Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children, burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than the children of the one who is married.’Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the scripture say? ‘Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.’ So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman. For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

Russia-Turkey-GCC: Is a Truce in Syria Still Possible/Middle East Briefing/December 05/15
The Imbroglio in Syria: Erdogan or Putin in the Anti-ISIL Coalition/Middle East Briefing/December 05/15
Hollande’s War Plan Under Review in Washington and Moscow/Middle East Briefing/December 05/15
Washington Used Hotline to Moscow after Su-24 Downing/Middle East Briefing/December 05/15/
Russia Devouring the Eastern Mediterranean/Burak Bekdil/ Gatestone Institute/December 05/15
Why is the dollar surging in Iran/Mohammad Ali Shabani/Al-Monitor/December 05/15
Turkey takes a hit from the Russian hammer/Cengiz Çandar/Al-Monitor/December 05
Analysis: The end of the post-World War II order/JOHN LLOYD, REUTERS/J.Post/12/06/2015
Ethnic Cleansing Threatens Syria's Unity/Fabrice Balanche/Washington Institute/December 05/15
Tehran’s plan for the Arabs: the quota system/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/December 05/15
Swords are mightier than words in the war on ISIS/Hisham Melhem/Al Arabiya/December 05/15
Vital steps to eradicate violence against women/Yara al-Wazir/Al Arabiya/December 05/15

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin for Lebanese Related News published on December 05-06/15
Suspect Blows Himself up in Army Raid in North, Injures 7
Report: Aoun to Meet Nasrallah Soon to Address Presidential Elections
Report: Hariri in Beirut next Week to Follow up on Franjieh Nomination
Moussawi: If Arsal is Occupied, what is the Plan to Liberate it?
Ahmed Hariri: Failure to Approve Political Settlement Will Lead to Election of President with Blood

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on December 05-06/15
U.N. summit to combat financing of terror
Obama Says U.S. 'Will not Be Terrorized' in Wake of California Attack
Fabius: Assad's Departure Not Necessary before Political Transition
Baghdad Calls on Ankara to 'Immediately' Withdraw Troops from Northern Iraq
U.S. puts request for bigger Turkish air role on hold
Report links Paris militant group to Britain, police cautious
Russia bans 'undesirable' US-funded foundation
Veteran Israeli Dove Yossi Sarid Dies at 75
Risk of Huge IS Influx into Libya, France Warns

Suspect Blows Himself up in Army Raid in North, Injures 7
Naharnet/December 06/15/A wanted suspect blew himself on Saturday during an army raid against his residence in the northern region of Deir Ammar, announced the military in a statement. It said that Mohammed Mustafa Hamza first tossed two hand grenades at the troops, one of which exploded, wounding seven soldiers. He then detonated an explosives belt, killing himself and two of his relatives. The National News Agency said his mother, Hasna Hamza, and niece, Israa Mohammed al-Sayyed, were killed in the blast. A number of other civilians at the scene were wounded, said the army communique. NNA said the suspect's sister Safa Hamza was among the wounded. Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3) identified some of the injured soldiers as Hassan Safa, Fadi Kanj, Khodr Deeb, Wassim Khalifeh, and Hassan Tleijeh. A number of Lebanese and Syrian nationals were arrested in connection to Hamza, added the army. The military police is tackling the investigation in the case along with the concerned judiciary. Hamza, a fugitive, is wanted for opening fire at two army patrols in the Mankoubin neighborhood in the northern city of Tripoli in 2014, continued the military statement. He also joined an armed group in opening fire at a military surveillance post on September 24, 2014. The incident left several soldiers dead and one civilian injured. Media reports had said earlier on Saturday that Hamza was linked to the armed group of Osama Mansour, who was shot dead by security forces in Tripoli in April. Mansour and extremist Shadi al-Mawlawi had led armed groups that engaged in deadly gunbattles with the army in Tripoli and its surrounding areas in October.

Report: Aoun to Meet Nasrallah Soon to Address Presidential Elections
Naharnet/December 06/15/Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun is expected to hold talks soon with Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to tackle the latest developments related to the presidential elections, reported the daily An Nahar on Saturday. A date for the meeting has not been scheduled yet. The two officials are expected to tackle the emergence of Marada Movement head MP Suleiman Franjieh as a presidential candidate. Aoun himself is a candidate and a fellow member of the March 8 alliance. Media reports have said that Hizbullah is committed to Aoun's nomination as president “as long as his candidacy still stands,” a stance that was echoed by Franjieh. Political powers are leaning towards the nomination of Franjieh as part of a greater settlement aimed at resolving the political deadlock in Lebanon. The country has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing disputes between the March 8 and 14 camps over a compromise candidate have thwarted the polls.

Report: Hariri in Beirut next Week to Follow up on Franjieh Nomination
Naharnet/December 06/15/Head of the Mustaqbal Movement MP Saad Hariri is expected to make a return to Lebanon to follow up on the latest developments linked to the presidential elections, revealed the daily An Nahar on Saturday. It said that he is likely to return next week, either on Tuesday or Wednesday, to follow up on the efforts to nominate Marada Movement chief MP Suleiman Franjieh as president. The lawmaker's nomination will be officially announced on Tuesday or Wednesday, added the daily. Hariri is currently in Riyadh where he arrived from Paris. He is set to meet with a number of Lebanese officials to address the presidential elections, including Justice Minister Ashraf Rifi. Franjieh had received on Friday a telephone call from French President Francois Hollande to discuss the presidential elections. The call came a day after Hariri had met the French leader in Paris. The Marada Movement chief has emerged as a potential presidential candidate as part of a greater settlement aimed at ending the political deadlock in Lebanon. There are however voices of dissent among the Kataeb Party, Lebanese Forces, and Change and Reform bloc over the nomination of Franjieh. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing disputes between the rival March 8 and 14 camps over a compromise candidate have thwarted the polls. Hariri had last paid a visit to Beirut in February to mark the tenth anniversary of his father's assassination.

Moussawi: If Arsal is Occupied, what is the Plan to Liberate it?
Naharnet/December 06/15/Hizbullah MP Nawwaf al-Moussawi condemned the state's inaction in tackling the presence of al-Nusra Front extremists in the northeastern border region of Arsal, vowing that the party will “pursue the criminals wherever they are," reported the National News Agency on Saturday. He said: “We ask the interior minister, government, and all state institutions what they plan to do now that they have acknowledged that Arsal is being occupied?” “Seeing as Arsal is occupied, then the state should devise a plan to liberate it and its people,” he urged. Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq had acknowledged on Thursday that the Arsal region is indeed “occupied” by gunmen from Syria. He stressed that the army has not taken any action over the situation “to avoid dragging Lebanon into the Syrian conflict.”Moussawi continued by hailing the release of the 16 servicemen who were being held hostage by the al-Nusra Front, noting however how “some sides sought to acquit these takfiri and terrorist groups of their crimes to employ them for political purposes.”“We should therefore protest against all attempts to acquit these groups,” the lawmaker added. Al-Nusra Front should be “uprooted from Lebanese soil because it violates Lebanon's diversity,” he demanded. “Whoever tries to incorporate this group within Lebanon’s political fabric is insulting this identity,” he declared. “We should therefore stand united to eliminate these terrorist and takfiri groups from Lebanon,” Moussawi said. “This can only be achieved through a united stance on these groups,” he stated. The servicemen were released on Tuesday through a Qatari-sponsored deal that included a prisoner swap that saw the release of inmates from Lebanese and Syrian jails. Footage of the exchange showed images of armed Nusra Front members freely roaming the Lebanese area of Arsal. Speaker Nabih Berri on Wednesday condemned such images, saying that the country's sovereignty has been violated. Some 30 servicemen were abducted in the wake of clashes with the Nusra Front and Islamic State group in August 2014. The Islamic State continues to hold nine hostages.

Ahmed Hariri: Failure to Approve Political Settlement Will Lead to Election of President with Blood
Naharnet/December 06/15/Secretary General of the Mustaqbal Movement Ahmed al-Hariri warned on Saturday of the serious repercussions of the failure to adopt the settlement that is being devised to resolve the political deadlock and presidential vacuum in Lebanon. He warned: “The failure of the settlement may lead to the election of a new president with blood.” Efforts are underway to reach an agreement over the nomination of Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh as president. “The prolongation of the crisis for several more months will result in the election of a president in blood, rather than in a calm atmosphere,” Hariri warned. “Do we want another civil war?” he asked. “The conditions for the approval of the current settlement are not ripe yet,” he noted however. “The initiative launched by Mustaqbal Movement chief MP Saad Hariri is aimed at saving Lebanon from collapse,” he stressed. The emergence of Franjieh as a candidate has also led to talks of a political settlement. There are however voices of dissent among the Kataeb Party, Lebanese Forces, Change and Reform bloc, and some March 14 officials over the nomination. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing disputes between the rival March 8 and 14 camps over a compromise candidate have thwarted the polls.

U.N. summit to combat financing of terror
The Associated Press, United Nations Saturday, 5 December 2015/The United States is organizing a summit of finance ministers from U.N. Security Council nations aimed at strengthening global efforts to combat “the financing of terrorism” — especially methods used by ISIS militants. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. said Friday that Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew will chair the Dec. 17 meeting which will adopt a new resolution on the sanctions regime against al-Qaeda and the ISIS, focused on the growing ISIS threat. Lew said cutting ISIS off from the international financial system and disrupting its financing “are critical to effectively combatting this violent militant group.”“A united international front is vital to achieve that goal, and this meeting marks an important step in coordinating our efforts,” he said in a statement. U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said Tuesday that the U.S. is working on a draft resolution “that will consolidate and streamline the council’s recent efforts on ISIL financing, as well as include new steps to make the sanctions more effective.” She stressed Friday that “the United States is focused on using every tool in its toolbox to defeat ISIL.”Russia has also circulated a draft resolution aimed at tightening the U.N. crackdown on the financing of IS and other extremist groups. The Security Council adopted a Russian-sponsored resolution on Feb. 12 which is aimed at halting illicit oil sales, trading in antiquities, and ransom payments for hostages that are key methods used by militant groups to finance their operations.
Power said the new Russian effort is focused on the same thing the U.S. is focused on and expressed guarded optimism that U.S. and Russian ideas can be melded into a resolution.

Obama Says U.S. 'Will not Be Terrorized' in Wake of California Attack
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 06/15/President Barack Obama insisted that the United States "will not be terrorized" and renewed his call for tighter gun control measures in a weekly address Saturday that focused on the deadly attack in California. As it became increasingly likely that the San Bernardino shooting spree that left 14 people dead was inspired by the Islamic State group, Obama vowed that investigators would "get to the bottom" of how and why the rampage occurred. "It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror," Obama said in remarks that expanded beyond his initial singular focus on gun control. "We know that ISIL and other terrorist groups are actively encouraging people -- around the world and in our country -- to commit terrible acts of violence, often times as lone wolf actors," he said using an alternate acronym for the Islamic State group. "All of us -- government, law enforcement, communities, faith leaders -- need to work together to prevent people from falling victim to these hateful ideologies." The attackers, U.S.-born Muslim Syed Farook, 28, and his 29-year-old Pakistani wife Tashfeen Malik, were killed during a police manhunt. The FBI is investigating possible links to groups outside the United States and said the rampage is being probed as "an act of terrorism."
Obama used the address to renew his calls for this latest mass shooting to prompt a rethink on gun laws that allow virtually any adult to buy deadly weapons and munitions. "This tragedy reminds us of our obligation to do everything in our power, together, to keep our communities safe," Obama said. "We know that the killers in San Bernardino used military-style assault weapons -- weapons of war -- to kill as many people as they could. It's another tragic reminder that here in America it's way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun."
Obama again touted measures, which he may yet try to introduce by executive order. Such a move would prompt a political and legal storm in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election."Right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane," Obama said. "If you're too dangerous to board a plane, you're too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun."Officials have seized thousands of rounds of ammunition from the home of the couple, who were armed with assault rifles and handguns -- all legally purchased. Republicans who vehemently oppose gun control measures have accused Obama of politicizing a tragedy that was the result of radicalism. "As President, my highest priority is the security and safety of the American people. This is work that should unite us all -- as Americans -- so that we're doing everything in our power to defend our country," he said. "That's how we can honor the lives we lost in San Bernardino. That's how we can send a message to all those who would try to hurt us. We are Americans. We will uphold our values -- a free and open society. We are strong. And we are resilient. And we will not be terrorized."

Fabius: Assad's Departure Not Necessary before Political Transition
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 06/15/The departure of Syrian President Bashar Assad is no longer necessary before any political transition in the war-torn country, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in an interview published Saturday. The comments mark a softening of Paris' position on the Syrian president as attention turns to the fight against the Islamic State group which staged a series of bloody attacks on the French capital last month, killing 130.
"The fight against Daesh is crucial, but it will only be totally effective if all the Syrian and regional forces are united," Fabius told the French regional newspaper Le Progres, using an Arabic acronym for IS. "How is it possible that Bashar Assad is president, he who committed so many atrocities, and who has a large part of the population against him?" he said."A united Syria implies a political transition. That does not mean that Bashar Assad must leave even before the transition, but there must be assurances for the future".Until now, France, along with Washington and other Western powers fighting IS jihadists have long insisted Assad must step down as part of any political solution to the four-year Syrian conflict. Paris has been adamant in its opposition to Assad, describing him as a "butcher" of his own people in a civil war that has so far claimed a quarter million lives and created millions of refugees, triggering the biggest humanitarian crisis since World War II. On a trip to Washington last week, French President Francois Hollande reiterated his determination to see Assad step down in order to give Syria a chance for peace, saying "it should be as soon as possible."But there have also been signs Paris might moderate its position as its priority shifted to tackling Islamic State militants which staged a series of deadly attacks on Paris last month. Last month, Fabius sparked speculation after telling France's RTL radio "regime forces" could potentially join the fight against IS. He told Le Progres that "the experience of recent decades, whether it is in Iraq or in Afghanistan, shows that Western forces on the ground quickly appear like occupation forces. "The operations must be led by local forces: Syrian, moderate, Arab, Kurdish, or, if necessary, then in coordination with the Syrian army, which is impossible without a political transition", he told the Lyon-based paper.

Baghdad Calls on Ankara to 'Immediately' Withdraw Troops from Northern Iraq
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 06/15/Baghdad demanded Saturday the immediate withdrawal of forces it said Turkey illegally deployed in Iraq, which is struggling to assert its sovereignty while receiving foreign assistance against the Islamic State group. A senior officer from the Kurdish forces in the region -- which are allied to Ankara -- downplayed the deployment as a routine training rotation but a Turkish paper said it was part of deal to set up a permanent base. The Turkish troops, tanks and artillery were sent to Nineveh, a northern province largely held by IS, in an area currently controlled by Kurdish forces but also claimed by Baghdad. Facing major political pressure as a result of statements by American officials, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has taken an increasingly hard public line on foreign forces in Iraq over the past week, terming the deployment of ground combat forces a "hostile act". "The Iraqi authorities call on Turkey to... immediately withdraw from Iraqi territory," a statement from his office said. "We have confirmation that Turkish forces, numbering about one armored regiment with a number of tanks and artillery, entered Iraqi territory... allegedly to train Iraqi groups, without a request or authorization from Iraqi federal authorities," it said. The deployment "is considered a serious violation of Iraqi sovereignty," it added. Major General Nureddin Herki, the commander of Kurdish peshmerga forces in the area, said the newly-arrived Turkish troops were part of a routine rotation in a training programme accompanied by a protection force that has since returned to Turkey. "Before some time, a number of Turkish officers arrived to train Hashad al-Watani forces in the Zilkan base," Herki said in a statement, referring to volunteer anti-IS fighters. "Another team arrived to the camp to replace the previous team, and the mission of the (new) force that came was only to protect the trainers and return the previous team to Turkey," he said. Herki rejected reports that a large Turkish force had deployed to take part in an operation to recapture the nearby city of Mosul from IS. But Turkish media reported much more major deployment than that described by Herki. "Turkey is establishing a base in the Bashiqa region of Mosul with 600 soldiers," Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported on its front page. The newspaper said that an agreement to do this was concluded early last month between Iraqi Kurdish regional president Massud Barzani and then Turkish foreign minister Feridun Sinirlioglu. The peshmerga forces deployed in the Bashiqa area are loyal to Barzani's party, which has close ties to Ankara. Baghdad's relations with Turkey have improved recently but remained strained by Ankara's relationship with Barzani and differences over the Syrian civil war. Abadi has repeatedly said Iraq needed all the help it could to fight IS but is also walking a fine line between receiving that support and projecting sovereignty. The Turkish deployment is just the latest in a series of challenges he faced over the past week that have pushed him to take a hard line on foreign forces helping Iraq against IS, which overran large parts of Iraq last year. Calls from two American senators for the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to be tripled combined with Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter's announcement that Washington would send a special forces contingent to fight IS in Iraq and Syria put Abadi under heavy pressure. Shiite paramilitary forces dominated by Iran-backed militias came out strongly against the U.S., and Abadi issued his own series of increasingly strident statements on foreign forces.

U.S. puts request for bigger Turkish air role on hold
Reuters, Washington Saturday, 5 December 2015/Since Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet last week, the United States has quietly put on hold a long-standing request for its NATO ally to play a more active role in the U.S.-led air war against ISIS. The move, disclosed to Reuters by a U.S. official, is aimed at allowing just enough time for heightened Turkey-Russia tensions to ease. Turkey has not flown any coalition air missions in Syria against ISIS since the Nov. 24 incident, two U.S. officials said. The pause is the latest complication over Turkey's role to have tested the patience of U.S. war planners, who want a more assertive Turkish contribution - particularly in securing a section of border with Syria that is seen as a crucial supply route for ISIS. As Britain starts strikes in Syria and France ramps up its role in the wake of last month's attacks on Paris by the extremist group, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter publicly appealed this week for a greater Turkish military role. The top U.S. priority is for Turkey to secure its southern border with Syria, the first official said. U.S. concern is focused on a roughly 60-mile (98-km) stretch used by ISIS to shuttle foreign fighters and illicit trade back and forth. But the United States also wants to see more Turkish air strikes devoted to ISIS, even as Washington firmly supports Ankara's strikes against Turkey's Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), viewed by both countries as a terrorist group. Carter told a congressional hearing this week that most Turkish air operations have been targeted at the PKK rather than at ISIS, but U.S. officials acknowledge some promising signs from Turkey, including moves to secure key border crossings. For example, Turkish F-16 fighter jets last month joined an air operation to support Syrian rebels taking back two villages from ISIS along the so-called Mara Line, a senior Obama administration official told reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity. The United States does not give data on the number or type of missions conducted by Turkish air force flights in Syria.Turkey rejects any suggestion it is not playing its part in the fight against ISIL. "We have taken part in at least half of the operations," a senior Turkish official told Reuters. "Apart from that, Turkey takes part in identifying targets and providing logistics and bases. We are in close cooperation with the U.S." Russian President Vladimir Putin branded Turkey's shoot-down a war crime on Thursday and said Turkey would face further sanctions. Moscow has already banned some Turkish food imports as part of a wider package of retaliatory sanctions. The United States hopes that tensions between Moscow and Ankara will ease quickly, allowing Turkey to take a more prominent role inside the U.S.-led coalition's air campaign, the first official said. The Pentagon declined to comment on the status of Turkish flights since the shoot-down. Two Turkish officials declined to directly comment but stressed that Turkey remained part of the air coalition. "For us nothing has changed," a senior Turkish official told Reuters. U.S. officials stressed that overall coalition air operations had been unaffected by the tensions between Turkey and Russia. There is debate within the Obama administration on how hard to push Turkey. U.S. officials broadly acknowledge its support has been vital to the U.S.-led campaign in Syria, allowing the coalition to stage strike missions out of a Turkish air base. Turkey, for its part, has grown frustrated over the past few years at what it sees as indecision on the part of the United States and its Western allies, arguing that only Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's removal from power can bring lasting peace.

Report links Paris militant group to Britain, police cautious
London, Reuters Saturday, 5 December 2015/The militant network behind last month’s attacks in Paris had links to people in Britain, the Wall Street Journal has said in a report that British police described on Saturday as “speculative.”Several people suspected of having connections to Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militant and alleged ringleader of the Nov. 13 attacks, are based in Britain, according to two unidentified Western officials the Journal cited late on Friday. The officials told the Journal those people, including some of Moroccan heritage, were based in the Birmingham area in central England, about 120 miles (190 km) from London. There has been no official suggestion in London of any direct links between the group that carried out the attack that killed 130 people and British militants. But jihadi groups are often loosely arranged and contacts, including the use of social media, are widespread. West Midlands Police, based in Birmingham, said on Saturday that media reports regarding the Paris attackers and potential contact with people or places in the city were “speculative.” Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale said the force’s counter-terrorism unit was “working hand-in-hand” with counter-terrorism colleagues in London, the national counter-terrorism network and security services to provide support to the French and Belgian investigations into the attacks. Britain’s Mirror newspaper reported that British police were investigating claims that a member of the gang that attacked Paris made several phone calls to Birmingham in the run-up to the atrocity. “They were made shortly before the Paris attacks. British police are urgently investigating whether anyone in the UK was involved in those atrocities and also whether there is a linked terror cell based here,” the Mirror cited a source as saying. Britain suffered by far its worst militant Islamist attack in July, 2005, when 52 people were killed by suicide bombs on underground trains and a bus. Britain is on its second-highest alert level of “severe,” meaning a militant attack is considered highly likely. This is mainly due to the threat the authorities say is posed by ISIS militants in Syria and Iraq and their encouragement of supporters to carry out attacks in their homelands. Charles Farr, the director general of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, said last month that up to 800 Britons had traveled to Iraq and Syria, some to join ISIS. About 50 percent had returned home while about 70 were believed to have been killed, Farr said. Britain says seven plots have been foiled in the last year, although not on the same scale as those carried out in Paris, and counter-terrorism officers make on average an arrest every day.

Russia bans 'undesirable' US-funded foundation
By AFP, Moscow Friday, 4 December 2015/Russian prosecutors on Friday declared a U.S. government-funded foundation an ‘undesirable’ organisation, the fourth entity to be banned under a controversial law targeting foreign groups accused of political meddling in the country. The U.S. Russia Foundation for Economic Advancement and the Rule of Law (USRF), which promotes private sector development and institution building in Russia, will be banned as its activities “present a threat to the foundations of Russia’s constitutional system and state security”, Russia’s Prosecutor General said in a statement. The Prosecutor “has decided to declare as undesirable” its activities and banned its president, U.S. citizen Mark Pomar, from entering Russia until 2025, the statement added. The decision now needs to be rubber-stamped by the justice ministry, which keeps a register of “undesirable” groups. Prosecutors accused USRF - which has had an office in Russia since 2009 - of financing local NGOs that “participate in political processes”, branded “foreign agents” by the Russian justice ministry. Critics of the law on “undesirable” organisations - under which Russian activists who cooperate with these groups can face fines and prison time - say it strips local NGOs of crucial funding they could not receive from domestic donors. On Monday, New York-based foundations run by financier George Soros - the Open Society Foundation and its Assistance Fund - were slapped with the ‘undesirable’ label and banned from the country.

Veteran Israeli Dove Yossi Sarid Dies at 75
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 06/15/Veteran Israeli dove Yossi Sarid, who championed the cause of a Palestinian state over a political career spanning three decades, died on Friday evening at the age of 75. Sarid, who was a member of parliament from 1974 to 2006 and served in the government of Yitzhak Rabin which signed the Oslo accords with the Palestinians in the 1990s, died of a heart attack at his home in Tel Aviv. Opposition Labor party leader Isaac Herzog paid tribute to an "important leader of the Israeli peace camp, a leader whose clear and sharp voice always sounded obstinately and fiercely, with a brave unwavering truth, which he believed with all his heart." Environment minister then education minister, Sarid led the dovish Meretz party from 1996 to 2003 and, even after his retirement from politics, continued to champion the cause of peace through regular newspaper columns. Asked last year about the prospects for Israel under what is widely regarded as its most right-wing government ever, Sarid said: "Two main things keep me awake at night -- the occupation of the West Bank and inequality in society, because both threaten the existence (of the state) and not just its quality."
In his final column, published in the Haaretz newspaper on Friday, he railed against Israeli authorities for the disparity in treatment between Jews and Palestinians convicted of terrorism offenses. "Your Jewish terrorists come first. Their homes will not be demolished, their families will not bear the blame," he wrote. He was referring to a deterrent policy regularly implemented against the family homes of suspected Palestinian attackers, but not against those of Jews. Sarid was also an outspoken champion of secularism and strongly opposed the privileges granted by the Israeli state to ultra-Orthodox Jews, which include generous subsidies to religious schools as well as exemptions from military service. He led Meretz out of government in 2000 in a row over religious education. Born in 1940 when Palestine was still under British mandate, Sarid worked as a journalist for Israeli army radio before making his first steps into politics as ruling party spokesman in the 1960s. Asked to sum up his own legacy in a 2014 interview with a Tel Aviv University student magazine, Sarid said it was as someone who had never been afraid to voice unpalatable truths. "I made a name for myself in my different positions as someone who is determined to go against the wind when it's bad, to swim against the stream if it's dirty, and is prepared to pay the price for his determination."

Risk of Huge IS Influx into Libya, France Warns
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 06/15/There is an increasing risk of Libya becoming a haven for combatants from Islamic State, even as western nations target the extremist jihadist group in Iraq and Syria, the French defense minister warned in comments published Sunday. "We see foreign jihadists arriving in the region of Syrte (northern Libya) who, if our operations in Syria and Iraq succeed in reducing the territorial reach of Daesh (Islamic State, IS) could tomorrow be more numerous," defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told the Jeune Afrique weekly. Le Drian ruled out military intervention in Libya but warned the West had to try to foster Libyan unity in the face of such a threat. "It is a major risk and that's why there absolutely must be understanding between the Libyans," said Le Drian. Analysts believe Libya would present a less hospitable environment for IS than Syria and Iraq. But Tripoli is hampered in presenting a united front as rival governments vie for power -- a militia alliance including Islamists that overran Tripoli in August 2014, and the internationally recognized administration that fled to eastern Libya. The current chaos in Libya with groups of competing militias since the overthrow and death of dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 has allowed IS to build influence, notably in Gadhafi's coastal home town of Sirte, east of Tripoli. And there are widespread fears the group could exploit tribal conflicts further into Africa. Recognizing Islamic State's increasing Libyan reach, Le Drian said he feared that ultimately the group could form one half of a double-edged jihadist challenge in conjunction with Boko Haram, which pledged allegiance to their fellow Islamic extremists in March and which has been bringing terror to Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroon. "There is a major risk of a link being forged with Boko Haram," said Le Drian, urging Libya's rival administrations to make common cause while urging neighbors Algeria and Egypt to work diplomatic channels to that effect. But Le Drian insisted that France would not countenance military action at least while the Libyans are divided among themselves. "That's not on the agenda. One cannot release the Libyans from their responsibilities by suggesting there might one day be an intervention. They must find solutions themselves."

Russia-Turkey-GCC: Is a Truce in Syria Still Possible?
Middle East Briefing/December 05/15
The leaked reports circulating in Ankara that there have been a dispute between the Turkish Armed Forces and President Erdogan about shooting the Russian jet will take time to verify. Yet, it has been persistently reported, for few months now, that the Turkish Army is not happy with the way Erdogan handled Turkey’s policy on the Syrian crisis. We believed at the time that these reports were not accurate. We even estimated that allegations that the Turkish army is trying to inch Erdogan out of the decision making process related to Syria, were grossly exaggerated.
The assessment we had was that the Turkish Armed Forces were increasingly playing a more integrated role within the security related political process in view of the security environment in and around the country. Therefore, and if our assessment is accurate, any alleged dispute in Ankara around the Russian jet incident maybe at best a manageable difference between the Turkish military and Erdogan.
These leaked reports will not amount to anything significant. What could, however, is the Western position on Erdogan after the Russian jet incident.
But first, to another related development. Russia’s influential Pravda carried an opinion November 19 threatening Saudi Arabia and Qatar that in its fight against terrorism “Russia will act in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. The article regulates the right to self-defense for a state, Putin stated. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed out at a meeting with his Lebanese counterpart that Russia would be implementing the article by all means – military, diplomatic and financial ones”.
Furthermore, Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov conveyed an oral warning message through a Lebanese politician to both Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The CEO of the Institute for the Middle East, Yevgeny Satanovsky said that the two countries should be afraid of Russia’s punishment. “Russia stepped on the warpath, grabbed a large tomahawk, arrows and went to work. Everything else does not matter. Russia was not coordinating its actions with international organizations to take Berlin in 1945”, the expert added.
The threat added to an already inflamed situation. Qatar started a public campaign to support Erdogan. Pakistan has previously announced that “any threat to Saudi Arabia will be met by a strong action from Islamabad. The Saudis chose not to respond to the Russian threats. Even the cabinet meeting that followed the incident by few days neglected what happened altogether.
Where are the limits of rhetoric in all this?
Difficult to say. The most likely course is that Russia will not take any practical steps beyond the threats. The reason is that Moscow simply used the incident to its favor very rapidly indeed. It increased its military control over the Assad part of Syria by a substantial leap in the quality of its military systems deployed there.
Su-24M, Slava-class missiles, S-400 surface-to-air missiles, several units of Spetsnaz commandos, and other naval capabilities were added to Russia’s forces in Syria within a week after downing the jet.
On the diplomatic front, France which used to adopt a hardline policy towards Syria seems now to be willing to work with the Russians to fight ISIL. This was enough to indicate that any attempt to drag NATO to Ankara’s positions regarding the Russian operation in Syria was unsuccessful.
Furthermore, the Pentagon has announced plans to send additional Special Forces to Syria based on positive assessment of the impact of the first 50 that were sent there earlier.
All the while, Assad forces and their allied Shia militias are waging a relentless offensive from Aleppo to Homs to Dara to the Hasakah province. The situation around Aleppo seems pretty difficult for the opposition. There is almost no presence for ISIL in that region. Obviously, Assad forces are slowly achieving some progress in that area.
What can we make of all this?
Moscow used shooting its jet by Turkey to move in two simultaneous paths. The first is to harden its political discourse related to Syria’s crisis and its stand on the political solution there. This was done while gaining more international backing particularly in Europe. The second was to try to put both the Syrian opposition and its regional backers on the defensive. In other words, Moscow used the incident to advance quickly towards achieving its initial goal in Syria.
There is obviously a new momentum created by the Russian intervention in Syria and by the escalation of Russia’s military capabilities there. This momentum manifests itself in both the military situation on the ground and the diplomatic campaign to widen the group of global powers which are ready to support Moscow’s effort in Syria or simply to go and do what should be done to fight ISIL. UK just joined the coalition which adds a positive step to the West’s moves to counter Russia’s strategic plans for Syria.
It is difficult to say where all this will go. Reducing the Syrian crisis to merely defeating ISIL, or even defeating the non-ISIL opposition is a major mistake for one obvious reason: When this crisis started, there was no ISIL in Syria. In fact, there was no armed opposition whatsoever.
Meanwhile, efforts to form a unified delegation that represents the non-ISIL opposition is accelerating. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UN envoy Staphan de Mistura are involved in intense talks about the formation of the delegation. Saudi Arabia is waiting the results of these talks to call for a conference in Riyadh for the representatives that will be chosen. Obviously, each country will be willing to include the closest groups to its policy. In any case, the opposition is almost unanimous in wanting all foreign troops out, particularly Iranian forces and their allies.
Whatever the delegation that will come out, it will trigger tension within the opposition groups which already fight each other sometimes with no valid reason. Saudi foreign minister said however that his country insists on a balanced representation for all Syrian minorities in any unified opposition delegation.
Representatives of the minorities will certainly be added to the delegation. But in order to guarantee that this is not merely a decorative addition, the active groups on the ground have to commit to respecting the rights of all civilians including minorities. Observers from within Syria’s active civil society and activists group should be provided with means to report to the world any violations of this commitment.
Globally, the diplomatic effort has recognized, correctly in fact, that its efforts should indeed focus on the proposed ceasefire. So much so that even the transitional government is looked at as a tool to enact the proposed ceasefire. Yet, it is the transitional government that will lay the tone of what will happen the day after. Turkey has to be a partner in each step on this road in order to avoid more “Russian Jet” incidents and to coordinate moves in North of Syria. Turkish interests there have to be considered in any future plans.
Any breakthrough around what we called before a “Taif Deal” for Syria” (Similar to that which ended the civil war in Lebanon in the 80’s) will face its first serious test just after it is reached, if ever. It might be helpful to immediately move, that is the following morning after signing the deal, on the requirements to sustain it. A road map for the steps required after the deal should gain the same importance as the deal itself and be as compact in time as possible. For the window of opportunity, just after reaching the deal, to change some key elements on the situation on the ground may be short.
In any case, it is clear that the Paris climate summit created a positive momentum to cross the Turkish-Russian crisis and gave a leeway to the diplomatic process. This process is walking now a tightrope. The global engagement should be sustained at this critical moment to bring Syria’s civil war to an end.
Reaching a ceasefire in Syria will be very difficult. Sustaining the ceasefire will be even more difficult. The one golden role that should never slip away is that people on the ground are the only forces that can defeat ISIL. Those people on the ground must have hope in a better tomorrow. This hope will not come with Assad still in power. They saw the man yesterday and they know that he is as ruthless as ISIL. Why fight terror to live under terror?
However, ceasefire in Syria is still possible. The international community has to remain engaged and laser focused on reaching this goal. Then, a collective war against ISIL.

The Imbroglio in Syria: Erdogan or Putin in the Anti-ISIL Coalition?
Middle East Briefing/December 05/15
When France’s President Francois Hollande was in Moscow he heard from President Putin two important things:
* “We all agree that it is impossible to successfully fight terrorism in Syria without ground operations, and no other forces exist today that can conduct ground operations… In this respect, I feel that President Assad’s army and he himself are our natural allies in the fight against terrorism”. Putin said.
* Putin pointed out also that Russia is willing to help Syrian opposition groups to fight ISIL. Moreover, he promised that his forces will avoid “any strikes against territories and armed forces that are themselves fighting terrorists”.
However, when Hollande was still on his way back home, Russian air raids bombed mercilessly site of non-ISIL opposition groups around Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria.
The problem with the promises of the Russian President is that they cannot fit together in one package. According to Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron there are around 70,000 moderate Syrians in the armed opposition groups. These groups were generally formed before ISIL becomes active in Syria. The reason of their being is to fight Assad. They fought the Syrian dictator, still fight him and will fight him until he goes. How would it be possible to promise to protect Assad and to promise at the same breath not to fight those who want him killed or out of their country?
Before Mr. Hollande’s visit, as after his visit, Mr. Putin was consistent with himself. Only during the visit he had to step out of his way in a not very convincing fashion. Or maybe it was just Russian hospitality?
It was remarkable as well that Mr. Putin, standing side by side with Hollande who went to Russia to offer coordination in military operations in Syria, stated his position on the proposed global coalition to fight ISIL. “We (Russia) do not need such cooperation, with anyone, any coalition or country”, the Russian President said.
In this, President Putin was consistent. He understands that for any coalition to be established, it has to be based on a common objective. What will the common objective be in this case? To keep Assad as he says, or to consider him part of the problem as the Syrians, the US and the Europeans say? To target the non-ISIL opposition as Mr. Putin does, or to focus on ISIL as the current coalition, however inaccurate the name is, does?
The story with President Erdogan is a little different. In many of the Turkish President’s policies we saw examples of cruelty, shortsightedness, and even abhorrent decisions. Yet, Mr. Erdogan is so important to US access to Syria and to NATO’s role there that alienating him does not look like a good idea. Emotions aside, losing Turkey will complicate everything in Syria and in the Middle East. Keeping the dialogue wide opened with Mr. Erdogan is essential to ease Turkey’s way back to its role as a regional power broker instead of the assertive powerhouse role it tried unsuccessfully to play in the last few years. It will also help restart the Turkish-Kurdish peace process. And finally, it will be a constructive step towards a coherent antiterrorism policy in that region.
Erdogan’s behavior, particularly turning a blind eye to ISIL or worse, is a big mistake based on bigger mistakes by others, namely the Obama administration. The moment the US gave up its leadership role in the Middle East was the moment the regional parties scrambled to develop their own tools in a quest to achieve a host of contradicting and partial agendas. The scene was that of a group of countries fighting with each other in total disarray.
The US helped the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the cold war and we do not expect that Mr. Putin would have behaved differently than Mr. Erdogan if there was a civil war in a country bordering Russia. The absence of a US led Master Plan gave ample space to a host of conflicting games by regional powers. Mr. Erdogan has to be kept within the general frame of the Western alliance all the while addressing his policies in regard to Syria, the People’s Democratic Party (HDP), domestic policies and regional plans in a candid and critical way. In order to do that, his concerns regarding Syria and Turkish interests there must be considered. Incentives and consequences should be firmly explained.
Erdogan is not going to go away any time soon. The composition of the new Turkish cabinet bears his signature in almost every post. His son has the energy portfolio. And the results of the last snap elections testifies to his coherent popular base.
The central point that should be examined now is potential coordination between Russia and the PKK. This particular issue has gained a central weight after the Russian jet incident. Turkey needs assurances that the PKK will not use any gains it achieves in Syria as a platform to attack Turkey. Moscow might see it proper to assist the PKK to do just that as a step in the escalation with Turkey. Russia has kept traditionally long and strong relations with the PKK. Whatever the way to address this issue, the point of start should be bringing Russian-Turkish escalation under control while encouraging a new start for the Kurdish-Turkish peace process based on assurances given to the two sides. This effort should gain urgent importance due to the fact that the PKK can actually cause substantial damage, through the Turkish window, to any plan to reach international-regional accommodation to pacify Syria.
But the differences between the US and Turkey concerning both the PKK and ISIL should be narrowed first. If Turkey’s motives are not understood and reshaped based on respecting Ankara’s interests and the legitimate aspirations of the Kurds, there will be no way to go but a continuation of a the previous games of half-heartedly kept commitments and full-heartedly deception tricks played by Ankara.
Obviously such an effort to collectively agree on the limits of each side’s actions in the North of Syria is more likely to fail than to succeed. An agreement does not yet have enough substance to make it possible. But this should be tried anyway with the help of EU.
The bottom line that should not be given up is to stand by Turkey. President Obama correctly did that just after the Russian jet incident. Ankara sees that Moscow is moving fast to change the strategic environment in Central and West Asia unfavorably from the Turkish view. These changes are not favorable to NATO neither. Emphasizing the solidarity of NATO with Turkey seems to be the right policy at this critical moment. Turkey is key. It can either cause substantial problems, or play a constructive role in making any comprehensive plan related to the east Mediterranean applicable. In order to push Mr. Erdogan gently out of his self-claimed role in that region, there must be someone else playing this role. Currently, there is no one. Playing this role depends on having enough leverage and a game plan that does not totally contradict Turkey’s views of its own interests, rather it emphasize the common goals. There are several points in this context. Both the US and Turkey understand that only Sunni Arab fighters can defeat ISIL and preserve the territories liberated of its terror. Both the US and Turkey have presence in the North of Syria. And now, the UK, France and potentially others will send more Special Forces and other military contributions parallel to the US decision to send more troops to train the Syrian Sunnis in the North.
How will all this develop?
To answer this question the following points have to be thought of:
* There is no point in involving the Russians in any coalition to fight ISIL as they seem to have a different strategic agenda. It was clear from day one that they were not interested only in fighting ISIL. What Russia is invited to do is to protect the Alawi community, if this community chose so, and to focus on fighting ISIL. But above all, a Russian role to enact a ceasefire should be welcomed as a positive contribution.
* Giving up the demand for Assad’s departure would amount to alienating all Sunni opposition and pushing it closer to ISIL. Furthermore, it will guarantee a continuation of the war in Syria for a decade or more.
* Turkey and NATO have to reach an agreement that addresses Turkey’s concerns all the while working to give the Kurds in Syria the rights they earned by their own blood and sacrifices in their own territories.
* The EU has to move on easing Turkey’s road to full membership in return for cooperation on a specific plan related to the Middle East. A test period should be specified to see how far Ankara is willing to cooperate.
* There is an urgent need to resume the Kurdish-Turkish dialogue and cease both Ankara’s security machine atrocities against the Kurds and PKK terrorist operations in Turkey.
* Mr. Erdogan does not need any more domestic political gimmicks to enhance his party’s positions. This should be seen by the US and Europe as an opportunity to influence Ankara’s orientations in domestic and regional policies.
It is clear that the Syrian crisis is gaining larger dimensions now. NATO countries have to be present in order to foil any Russian strategic plans. If Russia is sincere when it says it wants only to fight terrorism, this will be evident soon and should change positions on Russian participation. If not, the Russian plan should be countered in every step it takes.
The most likely scenario does not look encouraging. However, what should be done should be done.

Hollande’s War Plan Under Review in Washington and Moscow
Middle East Briefing/December 05/15
French President Francois Hollande presented a detailed war plan last week, in his meetings in Washington and Sochi with Presidents Obama and Putin on Nov. 24 and 26. The French President is attempting to exploit the universal support he has received from world leaders, following the Nov. 13 Paris massacres by Islamic State-linked jihadists.Hollande is proposing an all-out ground offensive against the Islamic State, starting in Raqqa in northern Syria. He wants the United States, Russia and Europe to coordinate bombing campaigns, while indigenous Syrian forces, made up of the Syrian Army and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and allied non-jihadist rebel groups, carry out ground operations. This would include a significant role for Kurdish militias as well. The Hollande proposal, discussed with both Obama and Putin, does not rule out the possibility of some Arab military forces participating in the ground campaign, which French military officials estimate can be achieved with 30,000 well-trained troops. A parallel military campaign would be launched in Iraq, using the same formula, but relying primarily on the Iraq Armed Forces to conduct the ground campaign. This is a sticking point, given the Iraq Army’s poor track record to date in fighting against ISIL.
Hollande is proposing a classic military campaign, with a classic military objective: Totally crush and defeat the Islamic State in its Syrian and Iraqi strongholds. In his meetings in Washington and Sochi, Hollande side-stepped the most controversial issue: The future status of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Hollande knows that any viable diplomatic solution will require Assad’s departure. But he argued that no one is calling for the dismantling of the Syrian state or the Syrian Army. Therefore, the future status of Assad and his inner circle is not relevant to the immediate task of thoroughly defeating ISIL in Syria and Iraq.
Neither President Obama nor President Putin gave a full endorsement to the French proposal. Both similarly said that they would seriously study the proposal and provide a response soon. Washington and Moscow are now working on expanded intelligence sharing, which is an important next step in the limited deconfliction agreement that was worked out between the U.S. and Russia.
While Hollande is focused on crushing ISIL, in the aftermath of Paris, Obama and Putin are facing domestic challenges that impel them to move more slowly. Obama has come under increasing criticism for his go-slow approach to the Syria war and the emergence of ISIL. For nine months, Pentagon planners urged Obama to give them the OK to bomb oil refineries and tanker trucks that have provided the Islamic State with its most lucrative source of revenue. Obama refused those requests, up until the Paris attacks.
All three of Obama’s former Secretaries of Defense—Robert Gates, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel—have criticized Obama’s indecisiveness and lack of a strategy for dealing with Syria. Back in 2011, at the outset of the Syrian war, Gates, along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, and other top Administration national security officials urged the arming and training of the Syrian rebels. This was before the influx of foreign fighters, before the migration of Al Qaeda in Iraq across the border into Syria, and well-before the emergence of the Islamic State. All of those former Administration officials have blamed Obama’s indecisiveness for the rise of ISIL. Some have also charged that Obama’s failure to reach a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq back in 2011 created a security vacuum that also contributed to the rise of ISIL.
President Putin is facing an even more challenging domestic dilemma, despite his enormous popularity. The recent bombings of the power lines into Crimea by the Right Sector, throwing the peninsula into a near-total blackout, have hurt Putin’s reputation as a “strongman.” And the two back-to-back attacks—the ISIL downing of the Metrojet plane over the Sinai, and the Turkish shooting down of the Su-24—have further tarnished his image and posed a direct challenge to formulate a measured but strong response.
Putin needs a public apology from Turkey, and President Recip Erdogan cannot politically afford to do that, given his own diminishing support from the Turkish population, and the reemergence of the Turkish Armed Forces as a significant political force in the country, after having been tremendously weakened by Erdogan’s constant attacks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the occasion of the Su-24 shoot-down to deliver a jab at Erdogan, announcing publicly in Israel that the Russians had carried out an identical incursion into Israeli air space, but that Israel had not even contemplated shooting the Russian plane down. Russia and Israel have the most elaborate deconfliction agreement, which was personally negotiated by Putin and Netanyahu. The Israeli comments, combined with behind-the-scenes pressure from almost all of Turkey’s NATO allies to de-escalate the conflict with Russia, have brought some results. That pressure includes growing demands to fully seal the Turkey-Syria border, thus cutting off the main logistical supply lines to Raqqa. When all of these factors are taken into account, it could strengthen Hollande’s argument for his war plan. If ISIL can be crushed in Syria in a several week-long military campaign, using conventional ground and air tactics, world attention will be refocused on that victory—especially if France, the UK, the United States and Russia work in a coordinated fashion to lead the air war and provide combat advisors to the ground forces.

Washington Used Hotline to Moscow after Su-24 Downing
Middle East Briefing/December 05/15/From the moment that U.S. intelligence confirmed that Turkey had shot down a Russian Su-24 along the Turkish-Syrian border on Nov. 24, top Pentagon and State Department officials activated their hotlines to Moscow to convince Vladimir Putin not to launch an immediate military retaliation that could have led to a broader war and an irreversible breakdown of the Vienna process, aimed at ending the nearly five year long Syrian war. Among the messages conveyed through the military-to-military channels was that the U.S. was caught completely by surprise by the Turkish actions, and had not been consulted in advance for any kind of tacit green light approval. The generals reported that U.S. military commanders operating out of the bases in Turkey were furious at the action taken by the Turkish Air Force. One Turkish general confirmed to some American friends that the attack on the Russian plane had been pre-meditated and had been ordered by President Recip Erdogan personally. That Turkish general later equivocated and merely confirmed that the order had come from “the top,” meaning either Erdogan or top Turkish military officials. U.S. intelligence officials are trying to get to the bottom of who issued the orders, because there are dramatically different conclusions to be drawn, based on whether or not the order came directly from the Turkish President.
The early communications between U.S. and Russian military commanders and diplomats were successful. President Putin conveyed that Russia would not retaliate militarily, and that there would be a thorough investigation to get all of the facts. Despite the Putin pledge not to escalate the military confrontation with Turkey, a NATO member, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov did convey to Secretary of State John Kerry that Russia would extract a price for the Turkish actions. And, within hours of the shoot-down of the Su-24, Russia escalated the bombing of the area along the Turkish-Syrian border where the plane had been shot down. The main rebel forces in that area are Turkmen fighters, who have been armed and supported by Turkey since the very start of the Syria fighting in 2011. While Putin at one point told reporters that Russia had provided the United States with the flight plans of the Su-24, as part of the deconfliction agreements reached between Russia and the U.S.-led coalition, Pentagon officials, after careful review, have said that they did not have specific information on the Su-24 flight plan. The only time that the Russians provided precise information on their sorties was during a major bombing run against Raqqa, the Islamic State’s “capital” in northern Syria. Otherwise, the Russians have indicated general corridors where Russian planes will be carrying out bombing runs, but no more precise information. The day of the shoot-down of the Russian plane, President Obama was meeting with French President Hollande in Washington. During that meeting, Obama pressed Hollande to get Putin to agree to limit Russian bombing targets to the Islamic State and Nusra Front only, and abandon the claim that all rebels fighting the Assad government are “terrorists.” Hollande met with Putin in Sochi on Nov. 26, and the Russian President agreed to avoid bombing the non-IS and non-Nusra opposition groups.

Russia Devouring the Eastern Mediterranean?
Burak Bekdil/ Gatestone Institute/December 05/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7007/russia-eastern-mediterranean
Turkey shot down a Russian jet. No gain, but plenty of damage to its economy. Russia gave up one jet to Turkey and has made its military presence in Syria and the strategic eastern Mediterranean permanent.
Turkey can no longer speak to Russia about the possibility of ousting Assad.
Putin seems to be making sure that NATO will do nothing.
At this year's G-20 summit in Antalya, Turkey, Russian President, Vladimir Putin, said that the radical jihadist Islamic State (IS) was being financed by donors from at least 40 countries, including some G-20 member states -- clearly pointing his finger, without naming names, at Saudi Arabia and Turkey. A few days later, two Turkish F-16 jets shot down a Russian SU-24 warplane, and claimed that the Russian jet had violated Turkish airspace for 17 seconds on the country's Syrian border -- a violation Russia denies. This was the first time a Soviet or Russian military aircraft was shot down by a NATO air force since the end of WWII.
Turkey and Russia have long been in a proxy war in Syria: Russia, together with its quieter partner, China, supports the Shi'ite Iran-backed Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad; and Turkey explicitly supports Assad's Sunni opponents ["moderate" jihadists] -- apparently in the hope of building a Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas-type of regime in Damascus that would be friendly to its own Islamist government. After the downing of the Russian jet, the Turco-Russian proxy war has become less proxy.
No more Mr. Nice Guy.
Russian President Vladimir Putin twice refused to meet with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the sidelines of the Paris Climate Summit this week. Pictured: President Putin with then Prime Minister Erdogan, meeting in Istanbul on December 3, 2012. (Image source:kremlin.ru)
An angry Putin called the incident "a stab in the back." He declined Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's requests to discuss the issue. He twice refused to meet Erdogan on the sidelines of the Paris Climate Summit.
Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, quickly cancelled his official visit to Turkey -- a visit that had been scheduled for the day after the downing of the Russian jet. At the outset, NATO member Turkey had taught Russia a good lesson. In reality, judging from the consequences, it all looks like a Russian gambit, with Turkey shooting itself in the foot and risking a new NATO-Russia conflict.
Russia's ire seemingly is being expressed in economic terms:
Moscow said it will introduce visa restrictions for Turkish citizens, beginning Jan. 1, 2016.
Russian authorities detained a group of Turkish businessmen on charges of "false statements about their trip to the country."
Press reports noted that Russia was considering limiting or excluding Turkish construction companies from the country, a potentially multi-billion dollar loss for the Turkish economy.
Moscow warned its citizens against visiting Turkey -- a ban that could deal a big blow to Turkey's lucrative tourism industry. Last year 4.5 million Russians visited Turkey, mostly its Mediterranean coast. Russian tour operators were warned to suspend business with Turkey.
The fate of two huge Turco-Russian energy projects remains unknown, as Russia's energy minister, Alexei Ulyukayev, did not rule out sanctions hitting the Turkish Stream gas pipeline and a planned Russian nuclear energy plant in Turkey. Turkey buys about 55% of its natural gas from Russia. Its second largest gas supplier is Iran, Russia's ally -- and Turkey's rival -- in Syria.
Russia's Minister of Agriculture, Alexander Tkachev, said that Russia would be replacing Turkish food imports with goods from Iran, Israel and Morocco.
Shipments of wheat to Turkey from key Russian ports were put on hold.
The Kremlin officially announced a wide range of sanctions on Turkey, including a ban on Turkish workers (with estimates that 90,000 will be fired by Jan. 1, 2016), restrictions on imported goods and services from Turkey and calls for "strengthening of port control and monitoring to ensure transport safety."
Around 1,250 trucks carrying Turkish exports were blocked from entering Russia on Nov. 30 and were stranded at border posts, awaiting clearance.
Russian soccer clubs will be banned from signing Turkish players during the upcoming winter break.
All of that is commercially punitive. There is a more serious side of the Turco-Russian conflict that concerns NATO and western interests in the Middle East. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced on Nov. 25 that Russia would deploy S-400 surface-to-air missile systems in its Hmeymim air base in Syria. Turkey shot down a Russian jet. No gain, but plenty of damage to its economy. Russia gave up one jet and has made its military presence in Syria and the strategic eastern Mediterranean permanent. It has reinforced its bases in Syria and intends to build a new military base there. Turkey can no longer speak to Russia about the possibility of ousting Assad. In a further move to escalate tensions, the Russian General Staff deployed one of its largest air defense ships at the edge of Turkish territorial waters in the Mediterranean. Russian military spokesman General Sergei Rudskoi said that Russian bomber aircraft would be "supported by chasers, and any kinds of threats will be responded to instantly." Accordingly, The Moscow, one of the Russian Navy's two largest warships and the flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, will be deployed where Turkey-Syria territorial waters connect. In addition, Putin issued orders to deploy nearly 7,000 troops, plus anti-aircraft missiles, rocket launchers, and artillery to the Turkish border, and asked them to be in readiness for full combat.
There have been other military repercussions, too. Since the shooting down of the Russian jet, the Russian military has been regularly pounding the Syrian villages near the Turkish border that populated by the Turkmen, a Turkish ethnicity that supports jihadists in Syria -- and is supported by Ankara. The Russians also have been hitting Turkish aid convoys bound for Turkmen villages. More than 500 Turks and Turkmen have been killed in Russian airstrikes. Meanwhile, the U.S.-led allied air strikes against IS have come to a halt. Neither Washington nor Ankara is keen for another conflict with Russia. So, IS and Russia keep on flourishing.
The Russian military has scrapped all contacts with the Turkish military, possibly waiting for the first Turkish military aircraft that violates foreign airspace to shoot. Turkey has every liberty to challenge Russia and, inevitably, become the victim. But with its geostrategic, Islamist ambitions, it is exposing NATO allies to the risk of a fresh conflict with Russia -- and at a time when the wounds of previous conflicts remain unhealed. Putin has accused Turkey's leaders of encouraging the Islamization of the Turkish society, which he said was a "problem." He was not wrong. In fact, Islamism and neo-Ottoman ambitions are the source of Turkey's (not-so) proxy war with Russia in the Syrian theater. Although Turkey, officially, is a NATO member and part of the allied campaign against IS, its Sunni Islamist ambitions over Syria hinder the global fight against jihadists. A Turco-Russian conflict is weakening the fight.
Putin seems to be making sure that NATO will do nothing.
***Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Why is the dollar surging in Iran?
Mohammad Ali Shabani/Al-Monitor/December 05/15
In Iran, the value of the national currency is not only seen as a function of Central Bank policy, trade balance and inflation. In the absence of reliable consumer and business confidence indices, it has been perceived as a key indicator of the general state of the economy, and more broadly, the country’s international standing. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to engage in any private discussion in Tehran about the national currency without a mention of how the greenback once traded for 70 rial. This has been particularly the case in the past few years, when successive devaluations have been triggered by Western sanctions.
In 2002, Iran introduced a single exchange rate after years of maintaining a multi-tiered currency market, which among other adverse effects facilitated immense revenues for those able to take advantage of the arbitrage. Over the following decade, the Iranian currency maintained relative stability and kept being overvalued, thanks to Central Bank intervention. This system collapsed in 2012, when hard-hitting financial, economic and oil sanctions were imposed by the European Union and the United States. As a result, the multi-tiered exchange market re-emerged. Between 2012 and 2013, the divergence between the official and open market rates reached as high as 300%. This collapse in confidence triggered a rush for foreign exchange, precious metals and property, aided by low rial bank deposit rates amid high inflation.
In his 2013 campaign, incumbent President Hassan Rouhani thus made the economy a top priority, arguing that “it is important for the centrifuges to spin, but people's lives should run too.” Indeed, under Rouhani, Iran has exited a deep recession, while the inflation rate — which reached almost 40% when he was elected — has been drastically cut. With the signing of the July 14, 2015, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), many ordinary Iranians anticipated an immediate economic boost, fueled by the administration’s poor expectation management. However, as most of Iran’s centrifuges have stopped spinning under the JCPOA, so has the growth of its economy.
The monetary and fiscal measures that have been taken to stop galloping inflation are paradoxically what have greatly slowed down the economy, recently forcing Rouhani to do a U-turn and adopt a stimulus package. Yet, as some analysts have argued, “the expanded money supply and other efforts aimed at encouraging the private sector to borrow for projects are likely too little to stimulate the economy — but large enough to ignite inflation expectations.” Indeed, one indication of popular expectations of Rouhani and his promises about the economy and the impact of the JCPOA is how consumers and businesses alike have been delaying major purchases on the back of anticipations of a cheaper greenback as Western financial, economic and oil sanctions are set to be lifted. Again, paradoxically, these expectations of an improved economy are in effect helping cause the exact opposite. Amid this Catch 22 for the Rouhani administration and the Central Bank, the dollar has in past months jumped against the rial, undermining confidence among consumers. The key questions here are thus: Why has the dollar rate been surging in past months, contrary to popular expectations of the exact opposite? What can Rouhani and the Central Bank do about this matter? More importantly, do they, and should they, even want to do something to address the dollar surge?
On the day before Rouhani’s election on June 14, 2013, the dollar traded for 36,450 rial on the open market. Today, even following the surge in the dollar rate over the past months, the dollar is trading for almost exactly the same — 36,500 rials on the open market — while the official rate has nudged just over 30,000 for the first time. Mindful of annual inflation of 34.7% in the Iranian solar calendar year 1392 (March 2013-March 2014) and 15.5% the following year, it is evident that the Central Bank has more than maintained stability in the foreign exchange market. Moreover, the popular impression of a significant weakening of the rial in the aftermath of the JCPOA only makes sense if the dollar rate is seen in isolation. A cursory review of the performance of the rial against other major currencies over the past two years makes it evident that the perhaps primary reason for the recent surge in the dollar rate has little to do with the Rouhani administration or the Central Bank. Indeed, a review of the dollar and euro rates against the rial since before Rouhani’s election makes it clear that, while the dollar has remained constant in value, the euro is over 10% cheaper.
Indeed, the issue is less that of the rial weakening and more about the dollar strengthening. In June 2013, the dollar index — a measure of the strength of the greenback relative to other major currencies, and primarily the euro — stood at 83.2. Today, it stands at just over 98, which is the highest level since late 2003. The impact of this 17.8% increase in the dollar index, which has accelerated in recent months amid anticipation of the US Federal Reserve raising interest rates for the first time in years, should not be underestimated.
The Rouhani administration has embraced Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s call for a “resistance economy,” which emphasizes a focus on increasing domestic production, boosting non-oil exports, stepping up privatization of the economy and encouraging private sector-led growth. All of the aforementioned is undermined by an overvalued national currency. Even though popular perceptions of a weakened rial may undercut the Rouhani administration, the reality, as prominent Iranian economist Djavad Salehi-Isfahani has argued, is that the rial has greatly been strengthened, and that “to bring the exchange rate close to what it was in early 2013 in real terms, the rial would have to devalue by close to 50%.” Thus, stepping in to counter the recent surge in the value of the dollar would only serve short-term political purposes rather than address key underlying economic issues. In this vein, it appears that the Rouhani administration is choosing to stay on course with a continued focus on reintroducing a single exchange rate that somewhat reflects the rial’s real value.
Indeed, on Nov. 18, Central Bank Governor Valiollah Seif stated, “To proceed toward a unified exchange rate requires accelerating the country’s access to foreign currency. It can happen once the nuclear deal is implemented, maximum six months after that.” Seif also signaled a changed role for the Central Bank, saying that it should “smoothen fluctuations of exchange rates,” and that “if we allow the rate to be defined by the economic realities and decided by the market, the bank’s only role will be to prevent shocks.”Mindful of the widespread perceptions of the dollar rate as a reflection of the general condition of the economy as well as business and consumer confidence, the perceived state of the rial could potentially undermine the president and his allies at a crucial time, as Iran is headed for hotly contested parliamentary and Assembly of Experts elections in February. The administration certainly has its work cut out for it in terms of addressing Iran’s myriad economic problems. Challenging and changing popular perceptions of what the dollar rate signifies may prove equally difficult. To achieve both of these objectives and also address misguided popular perceptions that may turn fears into self-fulfilling prophecies, Rouhani and Seif should take greater measures to better inform and engage with the public. If not, they may end up paying dearly for something they have worked effectively to avoid.

Turkey takes a hit from the Russian hammer
Cengiz Çandar/Al-Monitor/December 05/15
The conflict between Russia and Turkey that was sparked by Turkey’s downing of a Russian fighter jet on Nov. 24 is too serious to be treated in any sense of sarcasm and with emotional outbursts.On Dec. 3, delivering his state of the nation address, Vladimir Putin voiced his anger and accused his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Turkish leadership. "Allah only knows, I suppose, why they did it. And probably, Allah has decided to punish the ruling clique in Turkey by taking their mind and reason,” Putin said. Yet it seems that he did not want to leave the “punishment” to Allah. He implied that Russia will take it on.
“But, if they expected a nervous or hysterical reaction from us, if they wanted to see us become a danger to ourselves as much as to the world, they won’t get it. … We are not going to rattle the sabre. But, if someone thinks they can commit a heinous war crime, kill our people and get away with it, suffering nothing but a ban on tomato imports, or a few restrictions in construction or other industries, they’re delusional. We’ll remind them of what they did, more than once. They’ll regret it. We know what to do,” the Russian leader said in a menacing tone. The Russian autocrat implied unequivocally that the escalation between Russia and Turkey will not be confined to Moscow’s economic sanctions or trade embargo imposed upon Turkey. Short of a war, it could be in any form that will increase tensions in an already volatile geopolitical arena. It might prove to be difficult to prevent it from reaching undesirable and unintended consequences.
It is perhaps harboring the most serious seeds of conflict between the West and a resurgent Russia in the post-Cold War period.
In irate Russian public reaction against Turkey, relatively sober analyses rarely find their way to the Russian press. The following lines from a Moscow Times article reflect such a rarity:
“Putin should think thrice before striking once. The chances of his strategy becoming clear in the end are great and this would anger Ankara and worry the West. Besides, Turkey is no soft target, Erdogan doubly so. The irony is that Turkey is in many ways similar to Russia, from its revisionist plans and the aggressiveness of its intelligence agencies, to the character of its ambitious autocrat-presidents. It may lack the excitement of a war in the shadows, but ultimately Putin would be best served sticking to the humdrum world of the boycott and the diplomatic rebuke.”The psychological war seemed to be an important component of Russia’s escalation of the conflict with Turkey. In this, the Russian Defense Ministry also took part and alleged that Turkey and its president’s family are involved in illicit oil trafficking with the Islamic State (IS). Russia’s defense ministry had called journalists to a briefing at its command center on Dec. 2 to show slides and satellite imagery allegedly depicting proof that Turkey was profiting from the trade in IS oil.
“A unified team of bandits and Turkish elites operates in the region to steal oil from their neighbors [Iraq and Syria],” Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said.
President Erdogan was quick to retort. From Qatar, he dismissed the Russian accusations, labeling them as “slander.”
Earlier, when Putin made similar allegations, Erdogan had promised “to vacate his post of Turkey’s presidency if the claims are substantiated by concrete evidence.”
It was bizarre that Erdogan, who was venomous and furious at such claims when put forward domestically, had never pronounced the word “resignation,” but whenever such a claim is voiced by Putin, he could bet on his head. Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, on his way to Azerbaijan, recalled the Soviet era of Russia, and said, "Nobody attaches any value to the lies of this Soviet-style propaganda machine," As a matter of fact, Turkey’s American friends were not eager to buy the Russian allegations. Spokesmen from the US Department of Defense and Department of State rejected the allegations put forward by the deputy defense minister of Russia.Since Nov. 24, US President Barack Obama has said that Turkey has the right to self-defense. He has pressed Russia to hit IS targets in Syria rather than trying to shore up the regime of Bashar al-Assad. He also sent clear signals that the United States has no intentions to let Turkey down against an increasingly nervous Russia.
However, as “there is no free lunch” in Washington, the American support to Turkey could only come against Russia if Turkey remains in line with the rest of its NATO allies and the United States in the fight against IS. Turkey is widely believed to have dragged its feet in fighting with its coalition partners against IS and has, most of the time, not seen eye to eye with its Western allies in its Syria policy. Ash Carter, the US Secretary of Defense, in a tacitly critical tone, said recently that Turkey should do more in its capacity in the fight against IS. “France has been galvanized by the attacks in its capital, Britain is debating expanded airstrikes, Italy has made important contributions in Iraq, and Germany is making more contributions,” he noted. “All countries, including the United States, must do more. Turkey must do more to control its border.”Ottoman Turkey, the predecessor of the Republic of Turkey, had a reputation of perennial confrontation with its mighty neighbor Russia. Both empires fought around 13 wars between the 17th and 20th centuries. Apart from the Crimean War of 1853-1856 that was fought in alliance with Great Britain and France, the Ottomans never won a war against the Russians.
Turkey’s fate in the 20th century was also sealed through its relations with Russia. Its entry to World War I, which brought the end of the Ottoman Empire, was prompted by the bombardment of the Russian Black Sea ports by the two German warships that had taken refuge in Bosphorus and then joined the Ottoman navy. The aftermath of World War II saw the threats of Stalin that led to Turkey’s application to NATO with Western shelter for its survival. The latest conflict with Russia deprives Erdogan of the autonomy in foreign and security policy he was seeking against Turkey’s Western allies. In 2014, Erdogan had gone the extra mile during the G-20 summit at St. Petersburg and had asked Putin in their joint press conference, “Why don’t you let us in to the Shanghai Group, so we could be liberated from our ties to the European Union?”There were enough signs that he had wanted to emerge as the leader and spokesman of the Islamic world, a position that would not be compatible by being a faithful and regular member of the West. Downing the Russian fighter jet put such ambitious objectives of Erdogan in jeopardy, if not made them impossible to realize. Turkey once again finds itself under the Russian hammer while, this time, resting on the Western anvil. Russian allegations of Turkish leadership’s transactions with IS will continue. The rejection of Turkey’s Western partners and primarily of Washington will have credence only if Erdogan contributes to the anti-IS fight much more than he has done and also if he toes the line with the Western coalition partners on many fields. Such a trajectory, most probably, was not what Erdogan had envisaged in his term as Turkey’s president.

Analysis: The end of the post-World War II order
JOHN LLOYD, REUTERS/J.Post/12/06/2015
After World War Two, having crushed evil, Western politicians unleashed a deluge of good. Welfare states were created, with healthcare, education, pensions and social services extended to entire populations. The European imperialists, under the not-so-gentle prodding of the no-longer-imperialist United States, began to pull down their union jacks and tricolors - a process which was both bloody and protracted, but which ushered in, year after year, new states free to rule themselves. A small group of highly motivated men lobbied for an extraordinary dream to be given substance: a union of the European states, ultimately a federal Europe - and, framing it as a medium for ending Europe’s centuries of war, they won part of their point (a union, but not a federal one). These changes seemed to be the will of the people. In Britain, Winston Churchill was beaten in the post-war election by his loyal and unassuming deputy in the wartime coalition, Clement Attlee. Churchill, in a graceless put-down, said that the Labor leader was a modest man who “had much to be modest about” - who then modestly pioneered huge social change. Everywhere, including in the United States, trade unions flourished, and were brought in to help to determine much of economic policy.
The push came mainly from the left, but the reforms got a large consensus with the center right - especially with the Christian Democratic parties in continental Europe, infused with Catholic social teaching. These reforms were what are called today “top down”: framed and run by governments and large state institutions staffed by technocrats. When a member of Attlee’s government, Douglas Jay, wrote that “the gentleman in Whitehall (the government bureaucracy) really does know better than the people themselves what is good for them,” there were no calls for his resignation. That was what politicians and bureaucrats were for: to give people what they needed, to make life fuller, less risky. At a conference at the Flemish Academy in Brussels this past week, the writer Ian Buruma, the Academy’s “thinker in residence,” argued that “postwar” was over. By that he means that the consensus that more or less held between center-left and center-right over social provision, strong states and, in Europe, a movement to closer integration, holds no more.
The “rot began in the 1980s,” Buruma believes, with the administrations of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the UK. It was deepened as the collapse of communism spurred the anti-collectivist mood; and now breaks down entirely, as “Neoliberalism filled the vacuum, creating vast wealth for some people, but at the expense of the ideal of equality” and “the rise of right-wing populism reflects revived yearnings for pure national communities, that keep immigrants and minorities out.”I think that “neoliberalism” isn’t much help in understanding what’s happening to Western economies, which, even with some cuts, still spend hugely on socialized medicine, education, pensions and social care. In the case of the United States, spending on socialized medicine (Obamacare) has meant a rise in state spending on health. In the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, spending on health between 2010 and 2014 - the austerity period - has grown in richer countries, albeit by a measly 1 percent. Isn’t neo-liberalism supposed to mean slashing state budgets? It’s true, though, that quite a lot of the state spending passes through the public health and education bureaucracies to private contractors. For a variety of reasons, there’s still a predisposition to think private enterprise is more efficient. It’s certainly true that the collectivist assumption that organized labor was good for society as well as the workers has shrunk, as unions have. And it’s even truer that the European Union is in real trouble. Its economy is still weak, its borders, opened under the Schengen Area Agreement of 1995, are closing under the pressure of desperate migrants.
This is the time when gentlemen (and ladies) in governments everywhere don’t just not dare to know better, but really don’t know what’s happening to them. This is the time when populism thrives - in the United States, on the right, where a blowhard real estate mogul leads the Republican nomination race, but also, in a different way, in Europe. The European populist right is doing well in many states. The National Front in France is now ahead of all other parties in all polls for regional elections happening Sunday. In the Netherlands, the strongly anti-Muslim Freedom Party also tops the polls. In Italy, two populist parties - the Five Star Movement of Beppe Grillo and the Liga - are first and third in the polls. Both are opposed to more immigration. And in Poland, which of all the post-Communist states has done best, its income per head doubling over the quarter of a century, a populist party runs the government, holding up both Russia and the EU as enemies of the true Poland.
The post-war push to slough off imperialism assumed that new, independent countries would produce governments responsive to the will of their peoples. That they would be pushed by newly enfranchised citizens to raise living standards and run more or less efficient and honest governments.
Instead, throughout Africa and the Middle East, governments are bywords for authoritarian rule or corruption or more often both. The resulting poverty and frequent wars power the migrant flows to Europe. The Dutch economist Erik Schlokkaert, who spoke at the Postwar Conference in Brussels, said that “nobody believes that the migration pressure will stop. It is impossible to keep Europe as an island of prosperity in a sea of misery.”
What is to be done?
Actually, a lot.
We can begin by taking climate change seriously and putting pressure on those who pollute. We must work to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction; combat violent jihadism; revitalize civil societies; assist developing countries in keeping their citizens by cleaning up government and reforming their economies; seek agreements with Russia on Syria and Ukraine; encourage citizens everywhere to hold, not just governments, but themselves to account for their choices and public actions. On these, people of the left and right could again find a post-post war consensus. On these, political movements can again find causes and the need for renewed energy. It’s a tall order: and it’s not true that we have nothing to fear but fear itself, for we have a lot to be fearful about. But we can do nothing other than try to shape up, and tackle the challenges the 21st century throws at us so generously. John Lloyd co-founded the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, where he is Senior Research Fellow. Lloyd has written several books, including "What the Media Are Doing to Our Politics" (2004). He is also a contributing editor at FT and the founder of FT Magazine.

Ethnic Cleansing Threatens Syria's Unity
Fabrice Balanche/Washington Institute/December 05/15
The escalating conflict remains a sectarian war, and deliberate ethnic cleansing by various actors is drawing new internal borders that will be difficult to erase.
Between refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), more than half of the Syrian population has left their homes since the war began in 2011. To understand why this has happened and what can be done to reverse it, one must examine the country's demographics in detail.
POPULATION SHORTFALL
Syria currently has around 16 million residents -- a far cry from the 2010 UN projection that the population would reach 22.6 million by the end of 2015. The birth deficit and excess mortality (violent and natural) have reduced the natural population growth by half since 2011. Even if refugees are added to the current population figure, the total would be only 21.3 million, or 1.3 million less than the prewar projection. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has registered 4.2 million Syrians thus far, but that figure undervalues the actual number of refugees by at least 20%. Some refugees refuse to register for fear of being arrested and taken back to Syria (as is happening in Lebanon), while many wealthy refugees do not see the point of registering. So a more realistic estimate of total refugees is 5.3 million.
That number is expected to increase sharply. In Aleppo province alone, escalating hostilities have spurred another 200,000 people to leave their homes in the past two months. The Russian offensive and the lack of short-term hope for peace have convinced many living in relatively calm areas to leave as well, and more may follow suit if the recent German-led plan to welcome more refugees is implemented.
AREAS OF CONTROL
Although it is difficult to give an exact number for IDPs, the available data suggests that 6.5 million Syrians have fled violent areas for safer areas of the country. This includes about 2 million who have fled to the current government-controlled zone from areas controlled by other factions, as well as millions of others who fled one regime-controlled area for another due to intense fighting.
The areas held by rebels (the northwest, the south, and other small pockets such as Ghouta) have lost the most people because they are the least secure -- Russian and regime airstrikes impede normal life there, and the presence of numerous different rebel factions creates persistent insecurity. The area held by the self-styled Islamic State (IS) seems safer, in part because it has a central authority. Although religious minorities and secular Sunnis fled Raqqa and Deir al-Zour, they were replaced by foreign jihadists and Syrians displaced from Aleppo. In general, people tend to seek refuge where they have relatives, and where there is no fighting; the identity of the faction that controls the area does not necessarily matter to them as much. The Kurdish area attracts displaced Kurds but few Arabs -- no surprise given that the faction in control, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), aims to make the area ethnically homogeneous.
Mainstream media reports often highlight the fact that the Syrian army controls less than 17% of the country, and IS over 50%. Yet these seemingly shocking figures do not factor in Syria's geography -- namely that 47% of the country is sparsely inhabited steppes. Of course, extending control over some of the steppes may hold strategic interest for IS; Palmyra is a traffic hub with important gas and oil resources, for example, and it borders Iraq and Jordan. In any case, the Assad regime controls the largest share of Syria's residential areas, and also the most populated area. Around 10.1 million inhabitants live in the government zone, or 63% of the total resident population. The areas controlled by the other three main factions (Kurds, IS, and rebels) are roughly equal, with about 2 million each. In short, the regime has gone from controlling about 20 million Syrians prewar to about 10 million now.
LOCAL ETHNIC CLEANSING
The large-scale population movements have not been a simple byproduct of war. Rather, they represent conscious strategies of ethnic cleansing by each faction.
To be sure, the ethno-sectarian composition of the country as a whole has not changed much, despite the departure of disproportionately Christian and Sunni Arab refugees. Christians have traditionally been scattered throughout the country and do not have their own area of refuge like the Alawites and Druze, spurring many of them to flee abroad. As for Sunni Arabs, because the insurgency took root in their ranks, they have been the first target of regime repression and airstrikes (though some Sunni clans support Bashar al-Assad and have remained safe in the government zone). Overall, Syria's current population is 22% religious minorities, 16% Kurds, and 61% Sunni Arabs -- in other words, not that different from the prewar composition.
These figures could change in the coming months, of course, particularly if the PYD creates a continuous zone of Kurdish control along the border with Turkey by seizing territories between Azaz and Jarabulus. Any such move to connect the northwestern Kurdish enclave of Afrin with the rest of the PYD's territory in the northeast (known as Rojava) could spur hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs to flee. Meanwhile, expanded efforts to eliminate IS will likely produce an internal Sunni war between tribes supporting the terrorist group and other factions, creating further refugee flows.
For now, Syria's overall population figures hide the rampant ethnic separation already occurring within territories controlled by each faction. Acutely aware that its Alawite base is a shrinking minority, the regime has created a zone of control with 41% religious minorities, compared to the national figure of 22%. The army consistently prioritizes asserting its grip over Christian, Alawite, Druze, Ismaili, and Shiite localities.
In contrast, rebel victories often spur local religious and ethnic minorities to depart. Only the Druze area of Jabal al-Summaq in northwestern Idlib province remains in the rebel zone, enjoying special Saudi protection in connection with Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt -- it is the fragile exception that proves the rule. Rebel groups dominate a Sunni Arab territory; the main minority there is Sunni Turkmen, which is probably the most anti-Assad group.
Similarly, all religious minorities tend to flee IS-held areas. Some Kurds have remained behind; IS does not seem to distinguish them from local Sunni Arabs, probably because they are Sunni believers as well. That said, many secular Kurds have fled to PYD territory.
In the Kurdish zone of Rojava, Arabs must agree to live as minorities -- as the Kurds did during centuries under Arab rule -- or leave. This reversal of power is intolerable for many Sunni Arabs accustomed to dominating the northeast, leading some to support IS.
The fact that the regime-controlled zone is the most diverse does not mean that Assad is more benevolent than the rebels, Kurds, or IS. Rather, it reflects his political strategy. He knows he must expel millions of Sunni Arabs to make the balance of power more favorable to minorities who support him. He also needs to divide the Sunnis by redistributing land and housing that belonged to refugees, making loyalist Sunnis who remain behind even more beholden to him and pitting them against any who decide to return.
In sum, the Syrian conflict is a sectarian war, and ethnic cleansing is an integral part of the strategy used by various actors, even if they claim otherwise.
WHAT ETHNIC CLEANSING MEANS FOR SYRIA'S FUTURE
Although many refugees and IDPs will want to return home once peace is established, they will be unable to do so because of their ethnicity and/or political affiliation. Resettling displaced people will become a strategic question for each player. Their efforts at local ethnic cleansing are already making Syria's de facto partition more and more irremediable. Sectarian diversity is disappearing in many areas of the country, and this process of regional homogenization is drawing internal borders. Yet formal partition is not necessarily a good solution. It could generate new conflicts, as seen when Sudan split and then the new country of South Sudan dissolved into civil war. Therefore, the international community may need to work toward a Syrian agreement that lies somewhere between the Taif Accord, which imposed a kind of unity on Lebanon, and the Dayton Agreement, which imposed a difficult partition on Bosnia under intense foreign supervision. Syria's various communities will accept living in a new, united Syrian Republic, but not the Syrian Arab Republic as it existed prewar. A federal system would be the best political regime because the previous centralization cannot be reestablished, whatever the ruling group.
**Fabrice Balanche, an associate professor and research director at the University of Lyon 2, is a visiting fellow at The Washington Institute.

Tehran’s plan for the Arabs: the quota system
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/December 05/15
You will hear it a lot during the coming days: “the quota system is the solution” for Yemen, Syria and Bahrain. Iran has begun to promote the idea of this controversial political sectarian regime, so that it can pave the way for its interventions and influence on the decisions of these countries within its project to dominate the region. It is not a new idea – it is a duplicate of the Lebanese and Iraqi models that Iran dominates today. Many Iranian officials tackled this issue; I even heard one of them giving more details about it. He said: “You want a solution in Syria? Why don’t we give all the communities and parties in Syria fixed quotas in governance; Sunnis, Alawites, Druze, Christians, Shiites, Kurds and Turkmen, and thus Sunnis will have the parliamentary majority? We have to do the same thing in Yemen, and other countries in the region.” One of those who were sitting next to me hummed: “Ah, he means Bahrain”. Of course, we all know that he indirectly pointed to Bahrain, although we know that there is no war over the rule like in Yemen, Syria and Iraq, but there are hubs of protest in Bahrain that can emerge in any other country, including Iran itself. After decades of practice, it is now obvious that the quota system is a lousy model of governance.As for the reason why we rush to reject the idea as long as it satisfies the majority of the troubled countries, it is because sectarian quotas are the basis and essence of chaos, although the case does not apply to Malaysia and the Netherlands because they live in different regional conditions.
The Taif Agreement
Some may argue and say that the Taif Agreement, which was signed in Saudi Arabia to end the Civil War in Lebanon, is the mother of quota systems. That gave the presidency of the republic to the Christians, the premiership to the Sunnis and the parliament presidency to the Shiites.
While the agreement was signed in the Saudi city of Taif, it was the outcome of a collective dialogue between the belligerent parties and was not a Saudi decision. Moreover, the quota system had always existed in the Lebanese regime that was present 50 years before the Taif Agreement, with the same presidencies’ restructuring but with different parliament seat quotas. We should not forget that Taif was just a temporary project to stop the bleeding, and a passage to move to a better permanent regime. Hafez al-Assad’s regime disrupted the development of the Lebanese governance project: He oppressed the Lebanese state and controlled it through his local intelligence agents; he killed and marginalized all those whom dared to challenge him and thought of changing the political system.
A lousy model
After decades of practice, it is now obvious that the quota system is a lousy model of governance and should be avoided. If it were to be applied in Yemen tomorrow, it would divide Yemeni people forever, and external forces like Iran will use it to influence and mess up from the outside and will try to guide the decisions of Yemen. What is the interest of Yemenis in the sharing of seats according to their religious belonging? Actually, there is none. The first idea on which was built the reconciliation, after the uprising of the Yemeni street, was that Yemenis decide whom shall govern them through the ballot box, but the amendments continued under the Houthis’ threats to be granted quotas in the government. If we look at the quota system in Iraq, we find that the latter has become like Lebanon; the president of the republic is merely a decor. The three vice-presidents and three vice-prime ministers are also accessories claiming to represent the country’s ethnic and sectarian components. Even the prime minister, the first executive position, has become hostage of Iranian influence through the quota system tools. Similarly to the Lebanese Hezbollah, an Iraqi political team decided to build the ‘Popular Mobilization Forces’, a militia that controls the country, with the army a mere subdivision of it. This is what Iran has sought to do in Yemen when it backed the ‘Ansar Allah’ Houthi militias, which took over the army weapon stores, and tried to amend the constitution granting itself fixed shares in the government, and for this purpose, it took President Hadi as a hostage in his home in Sanaa. This comedy stopped only when Saudi Arabia launched its war there. According to the Iranian plan to manage several troubled Arab countries, the quota system was not supposed to pass under the pretext of being an alternative to the chaos, because it will lay the foundations of confusion for decades. It will fertilize the soil for long-term tensions and civil wars. There are alternative options, such as the adoption of a federal system, and the reduction of the central government without resorting to dividing society into sectarian and ethnic groups.

Swords are mightier than words in the war on ISIS
Hisham Melhem/Al Arabiya/December 05/15
In wars, generals deploy their phalanxes to defeat their enemies and control physical space, while political leaders invoke ideas, ideals, and excuses to legitimize and explain a state’s use of force. Battles are won, and wars are decided by the clanging of the swords, not the exchange of words. Proponents of “wars of ideas” claim that the West won the Cold War by the sheer power of its values and liberal ideology. They tend to forget that during the Cold War, bloody wars were fought between the U.S. and Soviet Union through their proxies, and that the Soviet Empire collapsed because of its military overreach, and relative primitiveness of its economy. Of course wars of ideas and ideological and cultural competitions are an integral part of the history of warfare, but given the revolutionary changes brought about by social media, the internet and an increasingly networked and globalized world, some are tempted to make the false claim that the war of ideas is as – or even more – important as the war of arms.
Marketing a brand
For more than a year now an intense debate has ensued among scholars, historians and politicians concerning the role and efficacy of ideas in the current wars of arms against ISIS, particularly the limited campaign that the United States and its allies have been waging against the fake caliphate.
It is very doubtful that the U.S. and its allies can mount an effective strategy to undermine ISIS’s narrative and reputation, without a simultaneous limited land campaign. Since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the U.S. has invested large sums of money, exerted huge efforts and established special bodies to wage a war of ideas against al-Qaeda and its branches and tentacles, to discredit the group’s ideological appeal, to ‘sell’ the U.S. and its liberal democracy as an antidote to al-Qaeda, and to cut it down to size and humiliate it, as a first step to denying it volunteers and funds. It was awkward, not to say painful in those days to watch otherwise intelligent U.S. officials bandying and marketing the United States to the Muslim world as a ‘brand’, with the support of slick Madison Avenue experts. Needless to say, the ‘brand’ remained on the shelves, and did not sell well.
Marketing a utopia
In the war of ideas with ISIS, the United States has established the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications to engage the sophisticated ‘electronic brigades’ that ISIS employs. Battles are raging in the virtual world between ISIS and its thousands of online volunteers on one side, and the United States, Google and Twitter on the other, for the hearts and minds of the Jihadi ‘fence-sitters’.The results so far have been limited at best. In their book ‘ISIS, the State of Terror’, Jessica Stern and J.M. Berger give a gripping account of a movement that is “rewriting the playbook of extremism” through “a daring experiment in the power of horror, but also in the marketing of utopia”.Stern and Berger have written the definitive analysis of ISIS’ creative cutting-edge propaganda, and unprecedented manipulation of social media. They devoted almost a third of their book to the epic struggle between ISIS and the U.S. and its allies for primacy in the virtual world. Every time an ISIS Twitter account is suspended others spring up; the authors estimated that “at least 45,000 pro-ISIS accounts were online between September and November 2014, along with thousands more pro-ISIS bot and spam accounts”.
There are limits to what the United States Government can do to “un-sell” ISIS to those young impressionistic would-be Muslim volunteers in the West who are convinced by the slick propaganda of ISIS, and the idea that waging Jihad is an act of cleansing one’s sins, or an act of rebellion – against one’s status quo, family and society – and to seek a ‘winning’ identity. Conversely, the hardened Islamists in ISIS who come from Western countries – some of them misfits, petty criminals and former prisoners – are immune to U.S. entreaties. If an effective counter narrative is to be developed against ISIS, it should be Arab or Muslim. It is very doubtful that the U.S. and its allies can mount an effective strategy to undermine ISIS’s narrative and reputation, without a simultaneous limited land campaign. Muslim history is replete with pretend Caliphs, fake Mahdis and false Prophets; some of them were dismissed out of hand, but others acted on their dangerous visions. Their actions and narratives were not challenged by counter narratives, but by crushing military force. ISIS is bound to face a similar fate.

Vital steps to eradicate violence against women
Yara al-Wazir/Al Arabiya/December 05/15
Women in the Middle East and North Africa are more likely to experience violence by an intimate partner than any of their international counterparts, according to the World Health Organisation. The United Nations on Nov. 25 marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, beginning a 16-day campaign that continues into next week. What is disappointing is that 20 years after the U.N. General Assembly declared a framework to end violence against women, it is still forecasted that 70 percent of women will experience some form of violence in their lifetime. And this region has a lot of work to do in ending the problem.
In war and peace, violence persists
Violence against women is not limited to the domestic sphere. The number of wars in the Middle East make developing a framework to end violence against women in the region ever more difficult. One of the first steps to combating violence against women in the region is implementing legislation that protects their rights. Throughout history, violence against women has been a systematic during war. Syria is no exception; the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network has published a report highlighting how women have been subjected to violence throughout the Syrian war; the report includes stories of women being used as bargaining chips during hostage exchanges, and tells tales of sexual violence, rape, torture, and deprivation of basic sanitation and medical care when in detention. The report highlights grave human rights abuses and violations against women. The actual number of women subjected to abuse during war is unknown due to limited data. The social stigma associated with confessing abuse is still prominent. A study by AWRAD showed that 77 per cent of Palestinian women are not even aware of any organisations that directly supports abused women.
Fear of police action
Another reason that women don’t go to the authorities to report violence is fear of what may happen while at the police station, or a lack of action by police in some cases. In Egypt, studies show that 93.4 per cent of Egyptian women fail to report violence to the police authorities. The reason is blatant: 93 per cent of those who had the courage to go to the police stated that their questions and requests for help went unanswered. Additionally, there is the issue of police-instigated violence against women, including virginity tests, which was documented by Amnesty International in 2014. In admitting abuse or violence, there is an element of humiliation, and that is natural human instinct. Inevitably, there may be an element of self-blame. The lack of police action against abusers means that reporting such crimes often entails pointless humiliation. Legislation without implementation is pointless
One of the first steps to combating violence against women in the region is implementing legislation that protects their rights and offers them safety and security when they come forward. It is alarming that women in the region are more likely to be abused by a member of their family or an intimate partner, than they are by a stranger. That’s when the need for safety comes in.
Legislation has been trickling into the region, notably in Lebanon and Jordan. However, it is important that significant efforts are made to implement this legislation. Additionally, there is a dire need for effective policing. Every member of the police force must be trained to deal with issues of violence against women. Egypt’s tactic of employing special units compromised of female officers is insufficient given the size of the population. The police force needs to be transparent in the way it deals with complaints and adamant about prosecuting the attackers. Legislation, implementation, and safety make up the holy triangle to combating violence against women in the Middle East. Once this triangle is formed, the region can begin to stabilize and successfully end violence.

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