New Page 5

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

Bible Quotation For Today/Blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it!
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 11/27-32: "A woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!’But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!’
When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, ‘This generation is an evil generation; it asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to this generation.
The queen of the South will rise at the judgement with the people of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here! The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!"

Bible Quotation For Today/ Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.
Acts of the Apostles 18/01-11: "After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth.There he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them,
and, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them, and they worked together by trade they were tentmakers. Every sabbath he would argue in the synagogue and would try to convince Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with proclaiming the word, testifying to the Jews that the Messiah was Jesus. When they opposed and reviled him, in protest he shook the dust from his clothes and said to them, ‘Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.’Then he left the synagogue and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshipper of God; his house was next door to the synagogue.Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers and were baptized. One night the Lord said to Paul in a vision, ‘Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no one will lay a hand on you to harm you, for there are many in this city who are my people.’He stayed there for a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

LCCC Latest analysis, editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 17-18/15
AIPAC employees told to ax summer vacation plans and gear up to fight Iran deal/RON KAMPEAS/JTA/J.Post/07/17/2015
Thwarting Iran’s regional dominance/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/Friday, 17 July/15
Iran’s nuclear deal: Four-bundle effects and concerns/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/Friday, 17 July/15
Assad regime no less depraved than ISIS/Brooklyn Middleton/Al Arabiya/Friday, 17 July/15
The Lebanese are tired of political games/Nayla Tueni/Al Arabiya/Friday, 17 July/15
Syrian ethnic groups accuse Kurds of bias/By Humeyra Pamuk/Reuters/Al Arabiya/Friday, 17 July/15
Assad Regime, Hizbullah: Iran Nuclear Agreement Is Historic Victory For Resistance Axis, Surrender For Americans, Defeat For Saudis/MEMRI/July 16/15/ July 16, 2015 Special Dispatch No.610
How to assess the Iran deal and what to do about it/Former Amb. James F. Jeffrey, contributor/The Hill/July 16/15
Comment on the Iran and the superpowers deal: We have all lost/By BEN CASPIT/J.Post/07/17/2015
Obama defends Iran deal/Washington, Paris and Cairo, July 16/15/AP/
Is Iran Now Under the Tutelage of the Six World Powers?/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/Friday, 17 Jul, 2015

LCCC Bulletin itles for the Lebanese Related News published on July 17-18/15
Moqbel to Launch Consultations over Chief of Staff Post
Al-Rahi Says Presidency Can't be Replaced with '24-Head Republic'
Al-Nusra Front Invites Families to Visit Captives
Berri Says Presidential Crisis Solution Should Come from Abroad
Sources: Bkirki Hopes Iran Deal Would Help Resolve Presidential Crisis
Report: Jumblat, his Son to Meet with Hollande in Paris
Australian Jailed over 12-year-old Daughter's 'Marriage' to Lebanese Man
Six Wounded in Family Clashes in Wadi Khaled, Akkar
Media Exposes Yatim's Criminal Past, Aoun Urges State to 'Deter' Offenders
Naameh Landfill Closure Deadline Expires, Protesters Stage Sit-in
Daryan Throws his Weight behind Salam and Slams the 'Wrong-doers' of Paralysis

Moqbel to Launch Consultations over Chief of Staff Post
Naharnet/17 July/15/ Defense Minister Samir Moqbel is expected to launch consultations after the Eid al-Fitr holidays on the post of the army chief of staff which will be left vacant next month, As Safir daily reported on Friday. The newspaper said that Moqbel, who is also the deputy prime minister, will inquire several officials, mainly Progressive Socialist Party chief MP Walid Jumblat on what steps to take to fill the post which will be left vacant after the retirement of Maj. Gen. Walid Salman on August 7. The issue will be discussed by the cabinet early next month either through making a new appointment or extending Salman's term to avoid a vacuum. The posts of high-ranking military and security officials have lately led to controversy and major disputes between cabinet ministers. The terms of several officials have been extended in the past months despite the objection of the Free Patriotic Movement which is calling for making new appointments.FPM chief MP Michel Aoun, who is in a bitter dispute with Prime Minister Tammam Salam over the appointments, wants his son-in-law Commando Regiment chief Brig. Gen. Chamel Roukoz to head the army. Roukoz's tenure ends in October 2015 while the term of army commander Gen. Jean Qahwaji expires at the end of September.

Al-Rahi Says Presidency Can't be Replaced with '24-Head Republic'
Naharnet/17 July/15/Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi on Friday reiterated his call for political forces to elect a new president, noting that the 24-member government cannot continue practicing the powers of the presidency indefinitely.
“We pray for politicians to elect a president for Lebanon, because if there is no president, we can't do anything. The parliament is not being able to perform its duties and the fate of the faltering government is in peril,” said al-Rahi as he laid the cornerstone for a religious foundation in the Qannoubine Valley. Referring to the presidential powers that the government assumed after president Michel Suleiman left office in May 2014, and the dispute over its decision-taking mechanism, the patriarch pointed out that “you cannot have a republic with '24 heads' replacing the president.”“All institutions are paralyzed and no reforms can be introduced in the absence of a president,” al-Rahi cautioned. He also noted that “Lebanon is the only country in the Arab world whose president is Christian.”“As Christians, we must preserve our presence, role and peaceful and cooperative coexistence with our Muslim brothers,” al-Rahi added, calling for safeguarding “equality” as well in order to “protect the Christians of the Middle East.”Earlier this month, the cabinet held a stormy session that witnessed arguments among ministers on several controversial issues. The cabinet sessions had been suspended for more than three weeks over a dispute over the appointment of top security and military chiefs. The cabinet's parties have agreed to continue the thorny debate over the cabinet's decision-taking mechanism after Eid al-Fitr, with Prime Minister Tammam Salam promising that it would be the first item on the agenda.

Al-Nusra Front Invites Families to Visit Captives
Naharnet/17 July/15/The emir of al-Nusra Front in the Syrian Qalamoun region, Abou Malek al-Talli, has reportedly invited the families of the Lebanese hostages to visit their loved ones on the occasion of Eid al-Fitr. Family member Hussein Youssef told TV and radio stations that al-Talli asked Sheikh Mustafa al-Hujeiri to inform the relatives held captive by al-Nusra Front to head to the northeastern border town of Arsal on Saturday to meet the hostages.The invitation comes amid reports that the negotiations for the release of the captives, who are believed to be held on Arsal's outkirts, were frozen. Qatar is mediating the release of the soldiers and policemen taken hostage by al-Nusra Front which reportedly had asked for setting free Islamists held in Roumieh prison in the prisoner exchange. The Islamic State extremist group has also taken servicemen as hostages but the negotiations with it have reached a standstill over its crippling demands. The captives were taken by the two groups when they overran Arsal in August last year and engaged in deadly battles with the Lebanese army. General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim returned from Doha this week with pledges to revive the prisoner exchange deal after Eid al-Fitr holidays, al-Joumhouria newspaper reported Thursday.Ibrahim is the official Lebanese negotiator in the case of the troops and policemen.

Berri Says Presidential Crisis Solution Should Come from Abroad
Naharnet/17 July/15/ Speaker Nabih Berri has reiterated that the solution to Lebanon's presidential deadlock should come through settlements made by major powers following the Iran nuclear deal. “I am becoming more convinced that the Lebanese solution would be the result of settlements abroad by bridging differences" between different countries, Berri told al-Joumhouria daily published on Friday. Earlier this week, Iran, the U.S. and five other world powers struck a deal that aims to curb Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief. On Thursday, the speaker expressed regret that Lebanese officials failed to resolve the presidential crisis without the mediation of countries that have influence on Lebanon. “We the Lebanese are useless,” he told al-Mustaqbal daily. “Shahhadeen w Msharteen (We beg by putting conditions),” he said in Arabic. Baabda Palace has been vacant since President Michel Suleiman's six-year term ended in May 2014.Sharp differences between the March 8 and 14 alliances caused the vacuum, which also led to the paralysis of the parliament and disputes among cabinet members. Several envoys from countries having influence on Lebanon have failed to strike a deal on the election of a new president. Asked by al-Joumhouria on his efforts to hold an extraordinary legislative session to approve draft-laws that he deems necessary, Berri expressed surprise at the conditions put by some parties, mainly those who have parliamentary blocs. “No one can put conditions and paralyze the work of the parliament. The legislature elects a president and indirectly elects the prime minister and gives the government its vote of confidence,” Berri said. Several parliamentary blocs have warned the speaker that they would boycott any session which does not have on its agenda several draft-laws that they consider important, mainly the one that gives the nationality to Lebanese expatriates. Parliament has been paralyzed since last November when it met to extend its own term over the failure of the rival lawmakers to agree on an electoral law.

Sources: Bkirki Hopes Iran Deal Would Help Resolve Presidential Crisis
Naharnet/17 July/15/Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi is hoping that the deal struck between Iran and major powers would help resolve Lebanon's presidential stalemate, Bkirki sources said Friday. The sources told al-Joumhouria newspaper that al-Rahi “has always told visiting officials that Lebanon is not an isolated island.” He has also said that “the solution to the presidential crisis is not purely Lebanese. Regional countries are responsible - as a result of their differences - for the obstruction of the presidential elections.”Under the deal struck on Tuesday, Iran pledged to curb its nuclear program for a decade in exchange for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of relief from international sanctions. “The Maronite Patriarchate hopes for and encourages regional and international settlements and deals because they lead to solutions whether in the Middle East or worldwide,” said the sources. Bkirki believes that the deal would limit tension in the region and bring viewpoints closer, they told al-Joumhouria. It should lead to a solution to the presidential crisis, the sources said. The country's top Christian post is vacant since President Michel Suleiman's six-year term ended in May last year. Al-Rahi has been reiterating since then the importance of electing a new head of state to guarantee the functioning of state institutions. Bkirki believes that some countries, mainly Saudi Arabia and Iran, have influence on the elections, the sources said. They added that the patriarch will continue his consultations with the ambassadors of major and regional powers to remove the obstacles and open the door to an internal settlement on the presidential polls that receives a regional blessing and an international sponsorship.

Report: Jumblat, his Son to Meet with Hollande in Paris
Naharnet/17 July/15/Progressive Socialist Party chief MP Walid Jumblat and his son Taymour are expected to meet with French President Francois Hollande next week, pan-Arab daily al-Hayat reported on Friday. The newspaper said that the meeting is set to take place at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Monday afternoon. Earlier this week, Jumblat met with al-Mustaqbal Movement leader ex-PM Saad Hariri in Saudi Arabia. Ministerial and parliamentary sources told al-Hayat that the PSP chief reiterated during the meeting that he has withdrawn any initiative to resolve Lebanon's political crisis. Jumblat and Hariri also agreed not to succumb to any pressure exerted by Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun, said the sources. Aoun is engaged in a bitter dispute with Prime Minister Tammam Salam over his accusations that the premier is infringing on the powers of the Christian president in the absence of a head of state. He wants his son-in-law Commando Regiment chief Brig. Gen. Chamel Roukoz to head the army. But the government is procrastinating in making any appointment of high-ranking security and military officials. Roukoz's tenure ends in October 2015 while the term of army commander Gen. Jean Qahwaji expires at the end of September.

Australian Jailed over 12-year-old Daughter's 'Marriage' to Lebanese Man
Naharnet/17 July/15/ An Australian man who consented to an Islamic "marriage" ceremony between his 12-year-old daughter and a Lebanese man more than twice her age was Friday jailed for at least six years.The 63-year-old father, who cannot be named to protect the girl's identity, was found guilty in April of procuring a child under the age of 14 for unlawful sexual activity and encouraging the pair to have intercourse despite denying the charges. "(The man) failed in his duty to his daughter," Judge Deborah Sweeney said during sentencing at the Downing Center District Court in Sydney. The court had earlier heard that he wanted to save the girl from what he considered the sin of having sex outside marriage so when she reached puberty he decided she should wed. When a 26-year-old Lebanese man, in Australia on a student visa, showed interest in her the father consented to a marriage, which was carried out by a local sheikh last year at his home around 250 kilometers (150 miles) north of Sydney. On the night of the wedding -- which was not recognized under Australian law -- the pair went to a hotel with the father's permission. They had sex there and twice more at the father's home the following weekend. During the trial, the court heard the girl was told on the night of the ceremony not to use contraceptive pills or condoms as it was against the religious teachings they followed. Sweeney said religious beliefs did not justify what happened. "They were linked in the purpose that (the man) would have sex with his daughter," she said.The man was sentenced to eight years in prison but will be eligible for parole in November 2020. His daughter is now in the care of authorities while the "husband" was jailed for seven-and-a-half years earlier this year for sexual abuse of a child.

Six Wounded in Family Clashes in Wadi Khaled, Akkar
Naharnet/17 July/15/Six people were wounded Friday in two separate clashes in the North district, al-Jadeed television reported. A dispute between the Attiya and Hammoud families escalated into a fight involving the use of batons and knives in the Akkar district town of al-Muqaybleh. Gunshots were also fired in the air during the incident. Al-Jadeed said three people were injured in the clash, identifying them as Raed Khaled Attiya, Mahmoud Ahmed Khaled and his brother Majd. They were all rushed to hospital for treatment. In another incident, three people from the Haddara family were wounded in a clash with members of the al-Mir family in the Akkar district town of Mar Touma.

Media Exposes Yatim's Criminal Past, Aoun Urges State to 'Deter' Offenders
Naharnet/17 July/15/Lebanese media outlets scrambled Friday to highlight the criminal record of Tareq Yatim, the man who stabbed to death a 45-year-old father of four children in Ashrafieh, as Free Patriotic Movement chief MP Michel Aoun urged the state to “start deterring criminals.”According to OTV, Yatim -- identified by the media as a bodyguard of SGBL Bank chairman Antoun Sehnaoui -- was among the group that beat up a valet parking attendant in 2009 outside the Sofitel Le Gabriel Beirut Hotel in Ashrafieh. He was arrested over the incident before being eventually released. In 2012, Yatim was among those who opened fire at a motorcycle repair shop in Sidd al-Baouchrieh, killing Elie Numan and wounding two others, OTV said. According to LBCI television, Wednesday's knife man and his group were also involved in a 2010 shooting at the Maison Blanche nightclub in Beirut. Mazen Zein and Sami al-Maamari were wounded in that incident. Speaking to LBCI, Zein said Yatim was jailed for a period ranging from eight to ten months. “He confessed to taking part in the crime … security forces did not allow me to face him after he was detained,” Zein said. “All of them are protected by Antoun Sehnaoui. Who else is providing these young men with weapons? Who is giving them money? How are they roaming the streets? Who is getting them firearm licenses?” Zein added. LBCI also reported that Yatim was involved in a 2012 incident at the Zahrat el-Ihsan School in Ashrafieh. It said the man and his associates beat up sports instructor Elie Farah and ripped off his ear after he did not allow a schoolgirl not donning sportswear from taking part in his class. The TV network said the residents of the Ashrafieh neighborhood of Karm al-Zaytoun had been complaining of the “daily practices” of Yatim and his group. Meanwhile, Antoun Sehnaoui issued a statement condemning the killing of George al-Rif and calling for the harshest penalties against Yatim. Sehnaoui, however, warned against linking his name to the incident, which he described as an “individual” dispute. He also vowed legal measures over any “defamation, lies or blackmail attempts” in this regard. In a phone interview with OTV, FPM chief MP Michel Aoun hoped the investigation will reveal all the circumstances of the crime. “The criminal is known for his criminal record … The murderer's affiliation is also well-known and we hope the state will start deterring criminals,” Aoun added. In response to a question, Aoun said “the killer was protected by certain security agencies.” The FPM announced Friday that al-Rif was one of its activists. He was laid to rest Friday after a funeral at the Mar Mitr church in Ashrafieh. Yatim was arrested Thursday by army intelligence agents in Ashrafieh. He had chased al-Rif all the way from the airport road to Ashrafieh to stab him with a knife on Wednesday after a dispute over traffic priority. Some media reports said Yatim was under the influence of drugs when he was arrested.

Naameh Landfill Closure Deadline Expires, Protesters Stage Sit-in
Naharnet/17 July/15/ The residents of the town of Naameh that lies south of Beirut and nearby areas staged on Friday a sit-in near the landfill after the last truck left the facility following the expiry of the deadline for its closure. The trucks of Sukleen, which is responsible for collecting and transporting the garbage in Beirut and Mount Lebanon, operated early Friday backed by security forces. The state-run National News Agency said that the trucks entered the landfill through the support of security forces that were deployed in the area. But the protesters later erected the tents and staged an open-ended sit-it to prevent garbage trucks from operating in the area. Ajwad Ayyash from the anti-Naameh landfill campaign told Voice of Lebanon radio (100.5) that environmentalists and the area's residents “will never accept compromises.” The government had set Friday as a deadline for the closure of the landfill. The date also coincides with the expiry of the contract with Sukleen.Environment Minister Mohammed al-Mashnouq called on municipalities to take quick action to dispose of their own waste to avoid a crisis over Naameh. But said that 600 tons of waste will continue to be sent to the landfill instead of the 3,000 tons of trash it receives daily.

Daryan Throws his Weight behind Salam and Slams the 'Wrong-doers' of Paralysis
Naharnet/17 July/15/Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Latif Daryan on Friday reiterated his support for Prime Minister Tammam Salam and said in his Eid al-Fitr sermon that the parties paralyzing state institutions are wrong-doers. Salam is putting up with a lot of problems, Daryan said at Mohammed al-Amin Mosque in downtown Beirut. “We are with him and we back him to continue his work in the government.” “We should continue to preserve of what's left of legitimate state institutions and work for the continued functioning of the cabinet,” he said. “All the Lebanese should have patience and have confidence in the nation,” the Grand Mufti stated. He also urged the Lebanese to be “wise and think about the nation's interest.” “That's what brought us together when the current cabinet was formed,” he said.
Salam is engaged in a row with the Free Patriotic Movement of MP Michel Aoun which last week organized an anti-government protest near the Grand Serail as the cabinet was in session. Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil, who is Aoun's son-in-law, also engaged in a dispute with Salam over FPM's accusations that he is infringing on the Christian president’s powers in the absence of a head of state. “The team of wrong-doers is insisting for years to accuse Muslims of being extremists and Daeshis while another team wants to fight us as part of the battle against terror,” said Daryan. “This is extremely dangerous. It's been ten years we are being targeted but out of our awareness on the (preservation) of our religious and patriotic interest we are being highly responsible,” he stated. “We are the first to fight extremism through religion and politics,” the Grand Mufti added. Addressing Christians and Muslims in his sermon, Daryan said: “We are a single nation brought together by coexistence, a single state and a single culture.”“Coexistence will help us confront dangers,” he added.

EU Approves Emergency Short-Term Loan to Greece
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/17 July/15/The EU approved a short-term loan of 7.16 billion euros ($7.8 billion) to Greece allowing it to meet a huge payment to the ECB and repay the IMF while a new bailout is still being ratified, the EU's top official for the euro said Friday. "We have an agreement on bridge financing.... This agreement is backed by the 28 member states," Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis told reporters. Greece must pay the European Central Bank a huge debt payment of 4.2 billion euros as early as Monday, and is in arrears to the IMF. The bridging loan allows Greece to clear its debt to the IMF and to repay the ECB while the modalities of a fresh bailout, agreed in principal by European leaders on Monday, is still under negotiation. "It will allow Greece to clear its arrears with the IMF and the Bank of Greece and to repay the ECB, until Greece would start receiving financing under a new program from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM)," the European Council, which represents the bloc's 28 member states, said in a statement referring to the EU's bailout fund. The loan will be given through the EFSM, a rescue fund set up at the time of Greece's first bailout in 2010 but that involves the whole of the 28-nation EU, not just the 19 eurozone members. The loan will officially be for three months, but only provide enough cash to hold Greece over until August 20, when the country owes the ECB another huge debt payment. Britain on Thursday dropped its opposition to the emergency EU loan to Greece after reaching a deal that would, it said, protect it and other non-euro countries against potential losses. Prime Minister David Cameron of non-euro Britain had insisted that his country would not be responsible for bailing out Greece, echoing comments by finance minister George Osborne who said the plan was a "complete non-starter". The use of the EFSM risked causing a headache for Cameron as he seeks to renegotiate Britain's membership of the EU ahead of an in-out referendum by 2017.

Six Dead as Egypt Police Clash with Protesters
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/17 July/15/At least six people were killed on Friday in clashes between pro-Islamist protesters and Egyptian police in Cairo, the health ministry said. Supporters of ousted Islamist president Mohamed Morsi had held small marches after the morning prayers for Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of the holy Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. Police officials said the protesters attacked security forces stationed in Cairo's Talbiya district near the Giza pyramids. The health ministry did not give a breakdown of those killed. Protest clashes were also reported in the village of Nahya near Cairo. In the Mediterranean city of Alexandria, police arrested 20 Islamist protesters after they directed fireworks at policemen, the official MENA news agency reported. Pro-Morsi protests have dwindled since his ouster by the military in 2013, which led to a massive crackdown on Islamists that killed at least 1,400 people in street violence. Hardcore supporters continue to hold small protests that are often confined to one or two Cairo neighbourhoods. Demonstrations have largely given way to militant attacks, often small bombings and attacks on infrastructure such as electricity towers. In the Sinai Peninsula, jihadists affiliated to the Islamic State group have killed hundreds of policemen and soldiers in an insurgency since Morsi's overthrow. Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood has been blacklisted and thousands of its sympathizers have been jailed. Hundreds, including Morsi, have been sentenced to death. Most have appealed the verdicts and won retrials. Protesters risk jail even for non violent demonstrations under a law that requires obtaining a police permit to demonstrate. The crackdown has gutted the Muslim Brotherhood, once Egypt's largest political movement. The Islamists had been banned for decades until a popular 2011 uprising ousted veteran strongman Hosni Mubarak. The went on to dominate parliament and then win the 2012 presidential election with their candidate Morsi, who lasted only a year in office. The Islamist proved to be a divisive leader, prompting millions to demonstrate against him demanding his resignation.The crackdown on the Brotherhood has shown no signs of letting up, with weekly arrests of the group's remaining organizers in Egypt. Many of the group's leaders had fled the country and operate out of Turkey and the United Kingdom. Earlier this month, police killed nine mid-level and senior members of the Brotherhood in a raid on an apartment in Cairo as they were holding a meeting. Police say they came under fire when they tried to arrest the men. Agence France Presse

Police: Three Girls behind Nigeria Suicide Bombings
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/17 July/15/Three girls carried out suicide bombings in the northeastern Nigerian city of Damaturu on Friday, killing 13 people celebrating the end of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan, police said. "Thirteen people were killed in the... suicide blasts," said Markus Danladi, Yobe state police commissioner. "The attacks were carried out by three underage girls. Fifteen people were also injured in the attacks." Boko Haram Islamists have carried out a slew of deadly assaults in northeast Nigeria over the course of their six-year-old insurgency. Over the past year the group has deployed several female suicide bombers. Residents said twin explosions near a prayer ground in Damaturu killed two people, with a third blast moments later near a mosque leaving another 11 people dead, according to medics. This year's Ramadan has been particularly deadly, with suicide bombers hitting mosques and worshippers attacked by gunmen as they prayed. A medical source who wished to remain anonymous told AFP that 13 bodies had been brought to the hospital. Damaturu is the capital of Yobe, one of three northeastern states hardest hit by the insurgency that has left 15,000 people dead and 1.5 million homeless since 2009. On Thursday, rescue workers said at least 49 people were killed and dozens injured when twin blasts struck a market in the northeast Nigerian city of Gombe. The first explosion took place outside a packed footwear shop around 1620 GMT, followed by a second explosion just minutes later, said Badamasi Amin, a local trader who counted at least three bodies. He said the area at the time was crowded with customers doing some last-minute shopping on the eve of the Eid festival marking the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. "I was about 70 meters (yards) from the scene" when the first blast hit, Amin told AFP. "I and many other people rushed to assist the victims. While we were trying to attend to the wounded, another blast happened outside a china shop just opposite the footwear shop," he said, adding that he himself was "drenched in blood" from moving dead bodies. Ali Nasiru, another trader, said he saw "people lying lifeless on the ground". "Traders and shoppers helped in evacuating the victims to the hospital," he said. "In all, we have 49 dead and 71 injured," a top rescue official told AFP, asking not to be named. He warned that the toll could climb further as some of the wounded "are in a critical condition". "The victims include many women and children," he said. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blasts but a market, bus station and stadium in the city of Gombe, the capital of Gombe state, have all in recent months been targeted by bomb and suicide attacks.

Netanyahu Wishes Abbas Happy Eid, Speaks of Peace
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/17 July/15/Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Friday for the first time in 13 months, wishing him a happy Eid al-Fitr and speaking of Israel's desire for peace. Eid, which began Friday, is the holiday that follows on the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. Netanyahu's office said the premier also told Abbas in a telephone conversation "that the citizens of Israel want peace" and that "Israel would continue to act toward regional stability.The last time the two leaders spoke was in June 2014. Netanyahu had asked Abbas for help in ensuring the safe return of three Israeli teens kidnapped by Palestinian militants, who murdered them. The kidnapping touched off a series of events that led to a devastating 50-day war later in the Gaza Strip between the Mediterranean enclave's Islamist rulers Hamas and Israel. U.S.-backed peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel collapsed in April 2014 after nine months of fruitless meetings amid bitter recriminations and mutual blame.Since the war, relations with the Palestinian Authority headed by Abbas have deteriorated further, with Palestinian moves against the Israelis in the international arena.

Saudi says ready to confront any Iran ‘mischief’
Staff writer, Al Arabiya News
Friday, 17 July 2015/Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir warned Iran Thursday to use the economic benefits of a new nuclear deal to help its people and not fund “adventures in the region.”“If Iran should try to cause mischief in the region we’re committed to confront it resolutely,” Jubeir said after meeting U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, days after the landmark deal was struck granting Tehran sanctions relief in return for dismantling and mothballing most of its nuclear program. Kerry will also head to the Gulf in Aug. 3 seeking to allay fears over the Iran nuclear deal. The Saudi minister said the meeting with the Gulf Cooperation Council would take place in Doha. Back at work only days after an 18-day negotiating marathon to seal the unprecedented accord, Kerry met al-Jubeir, the beginning of a charm offensive designed to win over the many doubters in the United States and abroad. “All of us in the region want to see a peaceful resolution to Iran’s nuclear program,” Jubeir said after their talks.He welcomed a deal with a “robust and continuous inspections regime to make sure Iran does not violate the terms of the agreement,” adding it should also have an effective and quick “snapback” mechanism that allows for sanctions to be quickly reimposed if Tehran violates Tuesday’s accord. Under the deal, Iran will win relief from crippling sanctions in return for dismantling and mothballing much of its nuclear industry so it cannot quickly develop an atomic bomb. “We hope that the Iranians will use this deal in order to improve the economic situation in Iran and to improve the lot of the Iranian people, and not use it for adventures in the region,” Jubeir said.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama will meet with al-Jubeir at the White House on Friday in his first meeting with a key ally following the Iran nuclear deal, a White House official said on Thursday. The official said Obama and al-Jubeir would discuss the Iran accord among other things. Iran stands accused of supporting the militia Houthi group in Yemen who overran the capital and parts of the country, forcing the Western-backed President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi and his government into exile in Riyadh. Saudi-led warplanes have been waging air strikes against the rebels since March, helping to force the militia into retreat with ministers from Hadi’s exiled government now preparing to visit the southern city of Aden to assess the damage. Majority Sunni Gulf countries have remained wary of the U.S. overtures to arch-foe Iran, believing the nuclear deal will only embolden Tehran’s Shiite leaders.(With Reuters and AFP)

Let them die from their anger'- Iran cleric cites Israeli, Saudi rancor as sign of success
REUTERS/J.Post/07/17/2015/Iran will accept a nuclear deal with global powers only if sanctions are lifted immediately, frozen revenues are returned and the Islamic Republic's revolutionary ideals are preserved, a senior cleric told worshipers at Friday prayers in Tehran. Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani added that some of the countries with whom the accord was signed were untrustworthy and had made excessive demands that were an "insult," adding he had heard private, unofficial reports that some of the terms set by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not been met. Under the deal agreed on Tuesday, sanctions will be gradually removed in return for Iran accepting long-term curbs on a nuclear program that the West has suspected was aimed at creating a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear work is for civilian purposes. "Iranians should accept a deal only if our rights and all the red lines are preserved and the Islamic Revolution's ideals, especially the fight against global arrogance, are not put aside and forgotten. All cruel sanctions should be lifted immediately, all blocked revenues should be released and no damage should be done to our Islamic and national pride," Kermani said in an address broadcast on radio. Kermani also praised Iran's negotiators for their work in the marathon talks in Vienna, saying Tehran's negotiating partners had been forced to retreat. "With the wise efforts of the honorable president and the untiring efforts and strong logic of the negotiating team in the negotiating arena, the opposite side was forced to retreat and accept just speech and acknowledge the rights of Iranians.""Israel and its allies, especially Saudi Arabia, are extremely unhappy about this deal, and this is the best proof to show how valuable the deal is. As Iran's martyred cleric, Beheshti, used to say, 'Let them be angry and die from their anger'."

Rare meeting between Hamas chief and Saudi King may signal warming relations
REUTERS/07/17/2015/Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal and other top officials from the Palestinian militant group met with Saudi Arabia's King Salman and senior Saudi leaders on Friday, a Hamas source said, in the first meeting between the two sides for years. The meeting brought together top members of Hamas political wing with the Saudi king, crown prince and defense minister in a possible rapprochement between the conservative United States-allied kingdom and the traditionally Iran-allied party. "The delegation discussed Palestinian unity and the political situation in the region. This meeting will hopefully develop relations between Hamas and Saudi Arabia," the source told Reuters. Hamas has ruled the Gaza Strip since 2007 after fighting a brief and bloody civil war with Palestinian rivals in Fatah and has fought three wars with Israel, which it has vowed to destroy. The group was jolted by civil war and rivalries in the wake of the Arab Spring in 2011 and relations with Iran soured over its refusal that year to back Tehran's ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad, in his war against mainly Islamist rebels. Much of Hamas's senior leadership decamped to Qatar, but the tiny gas-rich state was under pressure from fellow Gulf Arab countries to reduce its support for Islamist groups. Relations between Hamas and Saudi Arabia have improved since Salman assumed the Saudi throne in January and the kingdom has taken on a newly assertive posture in the region. Saudi Arabia has led an Arab military intervention in Yemen and is fiercely opposed to what it views as Iranian encroachment in the Arab world, despite a deal agreed this week between Tehran and world powers over its disputed nuclear program.

Car bomb explodes near Saudi prison
ISIS said it was behind the attack that injured two security officials
Riyadh, Asharq Al-Awsat—17 July/15/A car bomb exploded at a police checkpoint near a high-security prison in the Saudi capital Riyadh on Thursday evening, killing the driver and injuring two security officers, the interior ministry said. A security source told Asharq Al-Awsat the attacker had been identified as Abdullah Fahd Abdullah Al-Rasheed, a19-year-old Saudi national who had never traveled outside the Kingdom. State television said the attacker was on the run after killing his uncle and stealing his car which he detonated at a police checkpoint close to the headquarters of Ha’er prison in southern Riyadh. “While security officers were manning one of the security checkpoints on Ha’er Road in Riyadh, they directed the driver of a suspected car to stop. The driver initiated an explosion which led to his death,” Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry spokesman Mansour Turki said in a statement. Two security officers were taken to hospital but their condition was stable, he added. The attacker shot dead his maternal uncle in his house in Riyadh before sunset on Thursday and then ran off with his car which he used in the operation. The Saudi Press Agency (SPA) named the dead uncle as Rashid Ibrahim Safyan who was a Saudi colonel. Ha’er prison houses hundreds of detainees convicted of militant crimes. In a statement posted online, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claimed the attack. Saudi Arabia is a target of terrorist groups, including ISIS which claimed two suicide bombings at Shi’ite mosques in the Kingdom in May.

Exiled Yemen VP says Aden ‘liberated’
AP/Reuters/Friday, 17 July 2015
Yemen’s exiled Vice President Khaled Bahah announced online Friday the “liberation” of second city Aden after four months of devastating fighting between loyalist forces and Iran-backed rebels. “The government announces the liberation of the province of Aden on the first day of Eid al-Fitr which falls on July 17,” Bahah said on his Facebook page, referring to the Muslim holiday marking the end of the fasting month of Ramadan. “We will work to restore life in Aden and all the liberated cities, to restore water and electricity,” he said.
Meanwhile, Yemen’s exiled President Abdrabbo Mansour Hadi congratulated Yemenis for the recent “victories” in Aden in a televised address on the eve of the Eid al-Fitr holiday on Thursday evening. “Eid has begun, and many families have lost their loved ones, whether they were martyred, went missing or displaced because of the brute [Houthi] militias and Saleh’s in revenge against the people who stood against them,” Hadi said, adding that the Yemeni government “realizes the suffering of the people” and is trying hard to ease their distress.
Eid al-Fitr will start Friday, a Saudi ruling body announced on Thursday evening. The occasion, which marks the end of Ramadan - where followers fast from dawn to dusk - is celebrated by Muslims all over the world.
On Thursday, Saudi-backed Yemeni troops and fighters have driven the militia Houthi group’s members out of two major neighborhoods in the southern port city of Aden, Thursday, prompting street celebrations by residents after weeks of fierce fighting.
Residents said armored vehicles and troops have deployed in the neighborhoods of Crater and Mualla, where fighting had intensified earlier as part of an offensive to regain control of the port city from the Shiite rebels and allied forces.
“Today we are free,” Aseel Mohsen, a resident of Mualla said by telephone, as celebratory gunfire broke out in the background. She said she had spent the last couple of days mostly holed up with 30 other people in the basement of their apartment building where they were taking cover from the intense fighting. “We can now go down and prepare and shop for Eid,” Mohsen said, in reference to the feast that follows Islam’s holy month of Ramadan, which ends Thursday in most of the Muslim world.
A U.N. brokered truce, which had largely failed to hold, is expected to end with the conclusion of the holy month of Ramadan. The truce was intended to put an end to months of punishing fighting in the war-torn impoverished Gulf nation and allow for the dispersing of much-needed humanitarian aid.
Fierce fighting in Aden broke out in March as empowered Iran-allied Shiite rebels expanded their bid for power from the Yemeni capital Sanaa, which they overran in September. The rebels have allied with several military units loyal to Yemen’s former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. The offensive, closely coordinated with the Saudi-led coalition, is a serious blow to the Shiite rebels, who have taken control of several provinces in Yemen, and driven the country’s internationally-recognized president into exile. President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi has been living in Saudi Arabia since March. The rebels, and allied forces, remain in control of the capital and other provinces.
Hadi, in a recorded speech aired on TV, congratulated the troops and fighters for regaining control of parts of Aden. “Aden will be the key to salvation for our people and our case,” Hadi said. “From Aden, we will regain Yemen.”
Fighting intensified Thursday in Aden as Saudi-backed troops forced the rebels out of neighborhoods they control. Meanwhile, the militia group, known as Houthis, fired Katyusha rockets that landed in the vicinity of the airport early Thursday, killing three anti-rebel fighters, according to a government official. They also fired at least five rockets at the city’s refinery, military officials said. The government official said the Saudi-trained Yemeni troops took control of the Crater neighborhood, the commercial hub of Aden that houses a presidential palace, and neighboring Mualla. He said armored vehicles were roaming the streets of the neighborhoods to ensure it has been cleared of rebels, and installing checkpoints manned by local militias.
The Saudi-backed troops and fighters, along with Saudi-led coalition airstrikes, had pushed the rebels out of the city's airport Tuesday. It was at the outset of an offensive led by troops trained in Saudi Arabia and planned for over a month, the government official said, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the ongoing fighting. Footage aired on TV showed civilians clearing the runway of the Aden airport as troops secured it.
A senior military official said more than 40 Houthis and allied fighters have surrendered to the troops. Through loudspeakers, military officials urged rebel fighters to hand themselves in. The troops are poised to enter the area that houses the presidential palace, the last remaining spot in Crater where rebels and allied forces appear to be holding on, the official and witnesses said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters. An Aden resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said he saw some local militia fighters throw a rebel-allied fighter from the roof of a building.
Speaking to Al-Arabiya News Channel, Brig. Gen. Ahmed al-Asiri, the Saudi-led coalition's spokesman, praised the “heroic efforts” of Yemeni fighters, referring to the offensive as “the Golden Arrow.”Al-Asiri said the operation has been successful so far because of “the element of surprise” and added, “We need to have patience and perseverance now.”In a statement to the Houthi-controlled Saba news agency, a spokesman said the rebels are fighting back, and are advancing in a neighborhood northwest of the airport.

Syria’s Assad in rare public appearance for Muslim holiday
AFP, Damascus/Friday, 17 July 2015/Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made a rare public appearance on Friday for holiday prayers at a Damascus mosque, state media reported. Assad attended morning prayers at the Al-Hamad mosque in northwest Damascus on Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim holiday marking the end of the fasting month of Ramadan, the SANA news agency reported. He was accompanied by “high-ranking officials from the (ruling Baath) party and from the state,” it added.
Photographs published by the news agency showed a smiling Assad surrounded by religious figures. A photograph published by the president’s official Twitter account showed him kneeling in prayer beside other officials. The mosque’s imam, Sheikh Mohammad Sharif al-Sawaf, “prayed to God to save Syria, its leader, its army and its people, and to bring victory against its enemies.”“The Syrian army will continue to defend the country,” Sawaf said in his sermon, SANA reported. Damascus has been largely spared the devastation wrought on other Syrian cities by more than four years of civil war, although there has been periodic mortar and rocket fire by rebels entrenched in the suburbs.
Assad has made few public appearances since the uprising against his rule erupted in March 2011.

Six dead as Egypt police clash with protesters
AFP, Cairo/Friday, 17 July 2015/At least six people were killed on Friday in clashes between pro-Islamist protesters and Egyptian police in Cairo, the health ministry said. Supporters of ousted Islamist president Mohamed Mursi had held small marches after the morning prayers for Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of the holy Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.Police officials said the protesters attacked security forces stationed in Cairo’s Talbiya district near the Giza pyramids.The health ministry did not give a breakdown of those killed.
Pro-Morsi protests have dwindled since his ouster by the military in 2013, which led to a massive crackdown on Islamists that killed at least 1,400 people in street violence. Hardcore supporters continue to hold small protests that are often confined to one or two Cairo neighborhoods. Demonstrations have largely given way to militant attacks, often small bombings and attacks on infrastructure such as electricity towers. In the Sinai Peninsula, jihadists affiliated to the Islamic State group have killed hundreds of policemen and soldiers in an insurgency since Mursi’s overthrow. Mursi’s Muslim Brotherhood has been blacklisted and thousands of its sympathizers have been jailed. Hundreds, including Morsi, have been sentenced to death. Most have appealed the verdicts and won retrials.

FBI: Tennessee shooting suspect has no terror ties
Staff writer, Al Arabiya News/Friday, 17 July 2015
The FBI said on Thursday it had found nothing that ties a man suspected of gunning down four Marines in Chattanooga, Tennessee, to an international terrorist organization. At a news conference, the FBI said it was still looking for a motive behind the attack on two military facilities that also left three people wounded. The gunman, identified by federal authorities as Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, was also killed. This April 2015 booking photo released by the Hamilton County Sheriffs Office shows a man identified as Mohammad Youssduf Adbulazeer after being detained for a driving offense. (AP) An autopsy would determine the cause of the suspect’s death, Edward Reinhold, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville, Tennessee, division told reporters. The Department of Defense will decide whether to release the names of the Marines killed, he added. NBC News reported that Abdulazeez, 24, was a naturalized American who was born in Kuwait. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) had threatened to step up violence in the holy fasting month of Ramadan, which ends on Friday. The extremist group, also known as ISIL, claimed responsibility when a gunman in Tunisia opened fire at a popular tourist hotel and killed 37 people in June. On the same day, there was an attack in France and a suicide bombing in Kuwait.
The SITE Intelligence Group, which tracks extremist groups, said that Abdulazeez blogged on Monday that “life is short and bitter” and Muslims should not miss an opportunity to “submit to Allah.” Reuters could not independently verify the blog postings.
The New York Times, citing unnamed law enforcement officials, reported that his father had been under investigation several years ago over possible ties to a foreign terrorist organization and had been on a terrorist watch list.
The father was later removed from that list and the investigation did not reveal any information about his son, the Times said.
People who knew him were shocked
According to a resume believed to have been posted online by Abdulazeez, he attended high school in a Chattanooga suburb and graduated from the University of Tennessee with an engineering degree. “I remember him being very creative. He was a very light minded kind of individual. All his videos were always very unique and entertaining,” said Greg Raymond, 28, who worked with Abdulazeez on a high school television program. “He was a really calm, smart and cool person who joked around. Like me he wasn’t very popular so we always kind of got along. He seemed like a really normal guy,” Raymond said. Mary Winter, president of the Colonial Shores Neighborhood Association, said she had known Abdulazeez and his family for more than 10 years and was stunned at the crime.
“We’re all shocked and saddened,” Winter said. “He never caused any trouble. We can’t believe that this happened. We were just planning to have a swim team banquet tonight.” President Barack Obama offered his condolences to the victims’ families and said officials will be prompt and thorough in getting answers on the shootings. “It is a heartbreaking circumstance for these individuals who have served our country with great valor to be killed in this fashion,” he said in a statement from the Oval Office.(With AFP and Reuters)

Hillary Clinton says she 'absolutely' does not trust Iran
REUTERS /07/17/2015./DOVER, N.H./WASHINGTON - US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton offered her most pessimistic assessment yet of the Iran nuclear deal on Thursday, telling supporters the United States should not trust Tehran to carry out the agreement. "Do I trust the Iranians?" Clinton said. "Absolutely not." Clinton has largely been supportive of the agreement struck between the United States, five other world powers and Iran to limit its nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.
But in New Hampshire, she asserted for the first time that critics of the deal had "a respectable argument." The former secretary of state reiterated her belief that the deal was the best the United States could reach at present, but added later in an exchange with reporters: "No one should be deluded about the continuing threat that Iran poses to the region." During a meeting with House of Representative Democrats on Tuesday, US Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Brad Sherman reported that she thought the deal "was worthy of support."Blumenauer said Clinton talked about the history of the Iran deal and events leading up to it and "why it puts us in a potentially stronger position." Clinton said that as president, her posture toward Iran would be "Don't trust, and verify," saying the United States would employ intrusive inspections and extensive monitoring to ensure Tehran complies with the accord. The comments reflected a continuing attempt by Clinton since the deal was struck to support the Obama administration and yet stake out a tougher stance on the issue of Iran. If Clinton was trying to distance herself slightly from President Barack Obama's foreign policy, it would not be the first time. Last year, after the publication of her memoir of her time at the State Department, Clinton criticized the administration's approach toward the civil war in Syria, arguing the United States should have done more to aid rebels battling the Assad government. Her remarks are likely to further embolden Republicans in Congress who have broadly panned the agreement and have argued it opens the way for Tehran to eventually get a nuclear weapon. US House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner told reporters on Thursday it was "pretty clear" that a majority of members of the House and Senate opposed it. Obama has pledged to veto any attempt by Republicans to sink the deal. It would take a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to override such a veto, which is considered highly unlikely. The Democratic leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, expressed strong support for the deal on Thursday, adding: "I'm very optimistic about our vote of support for the president."

Poll: 78% of Jewish Israelis say Iran deal endangers country
GIL HOFFMAN/07/17/2015 /An overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis believes the deal reached with Iran by the world’s leading nations on Tuesday endangers Israel and brings Iran closer to acquiring a military nuclear ability, according to a Capital Politics poll taken for The Jerusalem Post and its Hebrew sister publication, Maariv Hashavua. The poll was taken among participants in an online panel of 501 respondents representing a statistical sample of the adult Jewish population in Israel. The poll, which was taken Wednesday, has a 4.2 percent margin of error. The percentage saying that the deal would endanger Israel was 78%. Fifteen percent said it does endanger Israel and 7% did not know. Seventy-one percent said the deal would bring Iran closer to a military nuclear capability. Twelve percent said it would distance Iran and 17% did not know. When asked whether they support an Israeli military strike on Iran if it would be necessary to prevent the Islamic state from getting nuclear weapons, 47% said yes, 35% said no, and 18% did not know. Fifty-one percent said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should use all possible tools to persuade Congress to vote against the deal, 38% said the prime minister should instead try to reach understandings with US President Barack Obama about its implementation, and 11% did not know.
Asked whether the Zionist Union should join a unity government following the Iran deal, 52% of respondents and 84% of the Zionist Union voters among them said no, 27% of respondents and 10% of Zionist Union voters said yes, and 21% of respondents and 6% of Zionist Union voters said they did not know. Zionist Union co-leader Tzipi Livni denied reports Thursday that the faction was in talks to join Netanyahu’s governing coalition. “There are absolutely no talks for the Zionist Union to join the Netanyahu government. There is a gaping chasm between us,” Livni said in response to a report in Haaretz that President Reuven Rivlin is serving as a mediator between the two sides. Livni told Israel Radio that she had asked her Zionist Union co-leader Isaac Herzog if there was truth to claims by Meretz leader Zehava Gal-On that, following the Iranian nuclear deal, the Zionist Union would be joining the coalition within two weeks. “He said that the issue had not even come up in the meeting he had Tuesday with Netanyahu,” Livni said. Herzog has joined Netanyahu in calling the Iran agreement a “bad deal” in recent days and vowed to do his part to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Zionist Union MK Shelly Yacimovich told Army Radio Thursday that she is against joining the coalition. She criticized Herzog for his backing of Netanyahu’s narrative on the Iran deal. “I view with a certain amount of criticism the absolute backing of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” Yacimovich said. “The one who brought us to the point of such an unprecedented headon confrontation, is Netanyahu,” she added. **Daniel Clinton contributed to this report.

AIPAC employees told to ax summer vacation plans and gear up to fight Iran deal
RON KAMPEAS/JTA/J.Post/07/17/2015
Cancel your summer vacations.
That was the order AIPAC’s executive director, Howard Kohr, gave his employees in a staff meeting convened this week at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee after the United States announced the Iran nuclear deal. With the influential pro-Israel lobby group pushing for Congress to reject the deal negotiated by the Obama administration, it’s all hands on deck. Lay leaders, too, are canceling their summer plans, and AIPAC activists already are calling lawmakers and hitting synagogue listservs with appeals to can the plan. The two months that Congress has to review the deal will feature a pitched battle pitting the Obama administration and backers of the agreement against opponents and the Israeli government.
“We’ve regularly engaged with the Jewish community in the context of these negotiations,” a senior White House official told JTA on Thursday. “And now that we have a deal, we feel it’s important to continue and even accelerate this engagement.”
Bring it on, deal opponents are saying.
“We are undertaking a major and significant effort to urge Congress to oppose the deal and insist on a better agreement,” an AIPAC source told JTA. Since the deal was finalized Tuesday, White House officials have blitzed the Jewish community with phone calls and pro-deal talking points. On Thursday, Jewish lawmakers were asked to come to the White House for a briefing. J Street, the liberal Jewish Middle East lobby, which has largely backed President Barack Obama in all his Middle East strategies, raised $2 million to stump for the deal even before it was announced and already has unveiled a TV ad. The group’s president, Jeremy Ben Ami, who routinely bristles when J Street is likened to AIPAC, insisting that they play different fields, on Wednesday embraced a fight with the older and larger lobby. Asked on MSNBC whether he was going “toe to toe” with AIPAC, he said, “Essentially we are.”For his part, AIPAC’s Kohr distributed a phone script on Thursday morning to AIPAC’s tens of thousands of activists directed at members of Congress.
“I am calling to urge the senator/representative to oppose the Iran nuclear deal because it will not block Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” the script says. The Israeli government is sending officials to Washington to campaign against the plan, starting next week with the opposition leader, Zionist Union chief Isaac Herzog – a bid to show the wide breadth of Israeli opposition to the plan.
Additionally, according to multiple sources, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear to his U.S. counterparts that he will reject all U.S. overtures to discuss additional U.S. defense assistance to offset any expansion of regional Iranian influence until he is certain all avenues to killing the deal are unavailable. Caught in the middle are the 28 Jewish lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Jewish lawmakers usually are AIPAC’s first avenue of access when they take on a major initiative. Yet the lawmakers, all but one of whom caucus with Democrats, also have been under pressure by the administration to back the deal. Under a law passed earlier this year, Congress must review the deal achieved Tuesday in Vienna between the major powers and Iran, and may disapprove it. If a resolution of disapproval succeeds, Obama has said he will veto it, in which case congressional leaders may submit the deal to an override vote. That would require two-thirds of each chamber to vote no on the deal – a long shot.
On Thursday morning, Ben Rhodes, a deputy US national security adviser, convened a meeting at the White House of Jewish lawmakers in the House of Representatives. About 15 of the 18 attended, and some were uncharacteristically silent about how it went.
“Congressman Israel has said it was a very informative meeting,” was all Caitlin Girouard, spokeswoman for Rep. Steve Israel of New York, would say after the meeting. Israel signs his statements the “highest ranking Jewish Democrat” in the House.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., a hard-liner on Iran who attended the meeting and has yet to decide how he will vote on the deal, said his impression is that the White House is successfully accruing support from Democrats in general and from Jewish Democrats in particular. Without substantial support from Democrats for killing the deal, there is no chance a veto override will happen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said this week that she was unequivocally in favor of the deal. Pro-Israel insiders point to what they describe as White House love bombs to Israel: In addition to leaking to Jewish community leaders the Obama administration’s spurned offer to increase defense assistance to Israel, they note statements like that of Wendy Sherman, the undersecretary of state, who on Thursday in a phone call with Israeli reporters praised Netanyahu for helping to make the deal tougher on Iran by assuming a bad cop role. AIPAC is planning on meeting with lawmakers at their district offices during the summer break and bringing in activists to Washington, D.C., when Congress reconvenes in September. Congress has until mid-September to decide whether it will vote the deal down. Jewish sources close to the White House say the Obama administration is “on fire” and ready for the battle. Tony Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, led a call with Jewish organizations on Tuesday just six hours after the deal was announced. There have been more intimate calls with Jewish supporters of the president.
Also within hours of the deal, the White House distributed talking points arguing that the deal hews to and even improves upon five markers laid down by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an influential think tank that has historic ties to the Jewish community.
AIPAC twice has pulled out all the stops in taking on a president – and lost both times. In the early 1980s, the lobby opposed the Reagan administration’s sale of advanced military aircraft to Saudi Arabia. And a decade later, AIPAC opposed President George H. W. Bush’s linkage of loan guarantees to Israel to restraint on settlement building in disputed areas. AIPAC insiders say they know they might lose this time, too, but say they have little choice given the existential threats they believe the deal poses to Israel. Additionally, they say, galvanizing opposition to the deal now will show the Iranians that the US political establishment remains wary of the agreement, and in the event that it is approved will insist that Iran hew to every one of its provisions.

Thwarting Iran’s regional dominance
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya
Friday, 17 July/15
Why would we stand against Iran’s nuclear deal? We support any agreement ending all forms of confrontation with and sanctions on Iran, but the problem lies in the details. If it were a good deal, Iranians and Arabs would be contented neighbors, but it is not.
The Iranian regime is like a monster that was tied to a tree and finally set loose in our region. This means we are on the threshold of a new, bloody era. Verbal promises from Washington will not be enough, and Iranian pledges will not reassure us. The countries of the region have only one choice: to expect the worst-case scenario.
However, every cloud has a silver lining. The withdrawal of the West from the conflict with Tehran may be a good incentive for us to re-examine the rules of confrontation. The challenges are substantial: economic, political, security and military, all interrelated. Without a vital economy, we will not be able to improve other fronts. With the huge void caused by the withdrawal of the West from the conflict with Iran, we need to review our military capabilities according to the new reality.
Tehran does not intend to drop its aims of expanding its regional dominance and destabilizing neighboring countries, taking advantage of the lifting of sanctions
Before the agreement, there was international cooperation for some three decades in the Gulf waters. There was a ban on military deals. Iran was besieged and controlled by a large fleet – this is what led the Iranians to wage war via Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, Asaib al-Haq in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Syrian and Sudanese regimes.
After the agreement, we face one of two possibilities: Tehran will either change its ways, marking a new era of reconciliation, or it will increase its hostile activities, unencumbered by sanctions and Western involvement in the regional conflict.
Bad intentions
Tehran does not intend to drop its aims of expanding its regional dominance and destabilizing neighboring countries, taking advantage of the lifting of sanctions, which will facilitate the transfer of funds and the purchase and shipment of arms.
Tehran intends to destabilize the region in order to impose submissive regimes. It is using Hezbollah to control Lebanon. It is behind Palestinian division by using Hamas against the Palestinian Authority (PA). Iran is also operating a large network of organizations and militias in Iraq to impose its authority over the country’s institutions. It is behind the Yemen coup through its Houthi representatives, who occupied most of the country.
Iran is using the Sudanese regime for its own purposes, and is using opposition groups to spread unrest in Bahrain. Tehran is responsible for the Syrian regime’s unprecedented crimes. The list of chaos and Iranian agents is very long.
Washington believes these activities are temporary as Tehran is using them to force the lifting of sanctions and to reach an agreement.
However, we believe it is a fixed policy. Tehran’s dominance will expand and become more dangerous with time, even without direct conflict between us and Iran.
The countries of the region face a large task in thwarting Iran's activities in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere. They should deploy all possible efforts to push Tehran toward genuine reconciliation, not mere maneuvers as it is doing today with the West.
However, conflict management will not succeed without improving economic and bureaucratic performance, and developing military and security forces that are necessary in light of today's chaos and Tehran’s determination to dominate.

Iran’s nuclear deal: Four-bundle effects and concerns
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/Friday, 17 July/15
It is crucial not to raise our expectations when it comes to the recent nuclear agreement reached between the P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus Germany) and the Islamic Republic. To have a full and realistic view of the deal, it is imperative not to conflate our analysis with hope. The Iran-P5+1 nuclear deal has four crucial categories and dimensions that should be examined separately. Nevertheless, these four brackets do interact with each other, sometimes countering and contradicting each other, and inevitably creating some unintended consequences and excesses. But Iran’s policy (whether domestic or foreign) will be shaped by the interactions among these four circles.
First bracket: The nuclear deal and Iran’s domestic policies
The first critical question to address is whether the nuclear deal can usher in a new era of freedom, social justice, and a better life for Iranian people themselves.
Iran’s regional policy poses no threat whatsoever on the hold-on-power of the Iranian ruling establishment and particularly the rule of Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei
Although many Iranians were joyful and celebrated in the streets, some soon had doubts and fundamental questions to ask.” We hope that the deal can improve our living standards and provide jobs for the youth. But I am not very optimistic that we are going to see financial benefits. Corruption is high. Most of the money will go to the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] and the military possibly. We will not be able to fully participate in the political process, do or wear whatever we like” Nastaran, an Iranian PhD student living in Tehran, said to me.
We are not likely to see any improvement in matters such as social justice, personal freedom, or political prisoners. In fact, in order to re-establish and reassert their monopoly of power and coercion, Iran’s hardliners (the Basij, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the intelligence -etela’at - etc) will attempt to ratchet up their methods and means of controlling the society. What the hardliners and ruling establishment fear the most is political (or economic) liberalization, which might lead to a soft cultural revolution and empowerment of the secular or oppositional groups. What they fear most is the cultural soft power of the West, mainly the United States, infiltrating Iranian society. Iranian leaders are cognizant of the fact that economic liberalization accompanied with political liberalization can endanger their hold on power. In other words, a more closed off Iran ensures the current leadership of their rule and control over the population.
It is important to remember that when President Khatami, the reformist, ruled as Iran’s president for eight years, the hold-on-power, application of coercion and hard power was increased by the hardliners.
Second bracket: The nuclear deal and regional ramifications
Will Iran alter its fundamental regional policies?
It is not realistic to argue that the nuclear deal is going to completely change the Middle East and Iran’s regional behavior.
The Islamic Republic rules and implements its foreign policy based on two categories: national interest and revolutionary principles. Iran’s national and economic interest justified the nuclear deal. Iran’s crippled economy was endangering the hold-on-power of the ruling establishment- which is why they tried hard to secure the nuclear deal.
Yet, Iran’s regional policy poses no threat whatsoever on the hold-on-power of the Iranian ruling establishment and particularly the rule of Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei. In other words, there is no incentive for the supreme leader to change his opposition towards the United States, other regional powers, his support for Bashar al-Assad, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Iraqi ruling Shiite coalition, and so on.
In fact, in order to keep his legitimacy and maintain his hard-line social base, the supreme leader and the senior cadre of IRGC need to hold onto their over 35-years of revolutionary principles. Otherwise, they will subvert the underlying characteristics and foundation of the Islamic Republic. They simply cannot take the risk of changing the 35-years of institutionalized revolutionary ideologies. It is totally inimical to the geopolitical, parochial, and economic interest of the Office of the Supreme Leader and the IRGC.
Finally, if Iran commits to the deal, it will receive approximately $100 billion in frozen assets as soon as the month of January. Some of Iran’s political figures will likely be removed from the U.N. blacklist if sanctions are removed. In a few years, the Islamic Republic will be capable of exporting and importing ballistic missiles and conventional weapons legally. The arms embargo can be lifted in five years. Iran will be cable of reintegrating into the international financial system, and export more oil. It might take Iran several months to reach this level according to U.S. authorities, or in “a matter of weeks” according to an Iranian official. All of this indicates that there is significant concern that Iran will be emboldened to increase its support for its allies and proxies in the Arab world and export its revolutionary ideology more forcefully. This will likely fuel the regional tensions and potentially turn the current turmoil into conflagration.
On the other hand, economically speaking, trade deals between Iran and some regional powers, primarily the UAE and Oman will likely increase.
Third bracket: Nuclear deal, United Nations, NPT, and the complexities
Although the deal will be signed soon, and although it has been described as a good deal by the relevant parties, there exist several crucial ambiguities and unanswered questions about the IAEA’s role and the military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program. Some of the U.N. authorizations and timing to lift economic and financial sanctions clashes with the timing that IAEA has to obtain a full picture of Iran’s nuclear program. The IAEA’s role in the deal is not clear-cut as well. There is only a brief explanations of how the IAEA can implements its verification regarding one of the most crucial military sites heavily suspected to be linked to Tehran’s nuclear program- Parchin.
There exist several dilemmas in the full 159-page text of the agreement, and the statements issued by the American and Iranian officials. Some have simply been playing with words and applying strategic and tactical statements to defend their position. According to President Obama, “this deal is not built on trust. It is built on verification. Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s nuclear facilities.” Nevertheless, the access for U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency, and IAEA inspectors does not appear to be 24/7. It appears that the U.N. and IAEA inspectors’ access is not a guarantee. There is a whole bureaucratic process to get access or be denied one. The timing of and lifting of sanctions can come before the IAEA has full detail of Iran’s nuclear program and its military facet. The Islamic Republic has over 10 nuclear or uranium enrichment sites (including in Shiraz, Bushehr, Ardakan, Tehran, Saghand, Esfahan, and Karaj).
In addition, it is not clear whether Iran will legally endorse the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The deal indicates that the Islamic Republic will accept the Additional Protocol “provisionally”. This can take a considerable amount of time, since there is not any fixed timetable mentioned in the deal. This can occur after the sanctions are supposed to be removed. In addition, the limit on research and development is only eight years, not 15.
The most crucial parts of the deal still remain to be implemented. The current deal is an understanding, agreement and accord. A deal is a deal when all terms of the agreement are fully implemented and sanctions are lifted. It remains to be seen whether both sides will have the same interpretation of the deal. Will both sides face differences and come into tension when they begin implementing the deal in detail (such as U.N. inspectors visiting Iran’s nuclear sites)? Secondly, it remains to be seen whether Iran will completely adhere to the technical nuances of the deal. But, what is clear is that as long President Obama is in power, it is less likely to witness any dispute between Tehran and Washington. In other words, by the time President Obama leaves office, most of the economic sanctions will have been lifted, according to the timetable of the deal, and the Islamic Republic will have achieved its goals.
Finally, will Iran stick to the deal? When the economic sanctions are lifted, there is no incentive for the Iranian ruling establishment to continue committing themselves to the agreement. The major purpose of the deal for Iranian leaders was getting sanctions removed.
Why should they continue the deal?
Fourth bracket: Iran-U.S. and Iran-EU relationships
Iran’s positions towards the United States and European countries have been slightly different from the beginning of the Islamic Revolution. While Iran’s revolutionary ideology is based on opposing America, Tehran has had slightly more amicable ties and diplomatic relationships with European countries, economically and geopolitically speaking.
After the deal, the economic and political ties will likely improve between the Iranian governments and EU countries. Considering Iran-U.S. ties, the significant issue is that Iranian and American diplomats have established a direct line of connection and communication (thanks to the nuclear negotiations) after over 30 years of hostility.
From President Obama’s perspective, the absolute and real winner of the deal is himself. Whether the deal succeeds or fails in the future, whether Iran complies with the terms and sanctions are lifted, President Obama will argue that he has achieved his lifetime Middle Eastern and foreign policy legacy. As time passes, the public will view the deal as the President’s foreign policy legacy as well. The problem is whether the deal can resolve the issue or increase tensions between the West and Iran in the future- what will be remembered is that President Obama scored a victory and reached a landmark nuclear deal with Iran after more than decade of stand off. President Obama is, and will be, triumphant even if the deal collapses in the future.
Finally, when it comes to regional challenges, while the U.S. will continue to cooperate with Iranian leaders, tactically speaking, American leaders can at least speak directly with Iranian leaders for any strategic tension. This will alleviate the increased hostility between Tehran and Washington and might lead to both tactical and partial strategic cooperation.
The interactions between the aforementioned four categories define Iran’s policy after the deal.

Assad regime no less depraved than ISIS
Brooklyn Middleton/Al Arabiya/Friday, 17 July/15
Of the approximately 55,000 images of mutilated bodies that former Syrian regime photographer Caesar smuggled out of the country in 2013, the FBI has just concluded its assessment of 242. The year-long analysis verified the images’ authenticity, saying they “appear to depict real people and events.”
This week, the Holocaust Memorial Museum sponsored an exhibit in Congress of dozens of Caesar’s photographs, in it latest effort to prevent the international community from ignoring the ongoing bloodshed in Syria.
ISIS, by consistently documenting and showcasing its own attacks and killings, has helped obscure the regime’s own atrocities against Syrians
Cameron Hudson, director of the museum’s Center for the Prevention of Genocide, told Yahoo News in Oct. 2014 that Caesar’s evidence “reminds you of the horrific scenes from the Holocaust… from the worst days of the Holocaust.”
Amid the continued broadcasting by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) of its gruesome killings, it is important to remember that the bodies photographed by Caesar were mutilated by the Syrian regime in ways no less barbaric than ISIS. Policy-makers must acknowledge this truth. The cruel and bizarre reality is that ISIS, by consistently documenting and showcasing its own attacks and killings, has helped obscure the regime’s own atrocities against Syrians.
Buried and denied
Unlike the sustained social media campaign waged by ISIS, most of the regime’s crimes are buried, denied and too quickly forgotten. However, those who have followed the Syrian conflict since before the rise of ISIS know the regime is capable of the depravity Caesar’s images show. The regime’s continued use of starvation and torture as weapons of war have long been indisputable facts.
Now that such systematic killing and torture have yet again been verified, the latest window of opportunity is wide open for the international community to bring war crime charges against the regime. Amid the new channel of communication between Washington and Tehran, the former – now more than ever – has a moral and strategic obligation to pressure the latter to deescalate the Syrian conflict.
The regime has, unsurprisingly, fully embraced the Iran nuclear deal, saying: “We are quite assured that the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue, with greater momentum, supporting the just issues of peoples and working for peace and stability to prevail in the region and the world.” That is a damning endorsement if there ever was one.
Iran’s role
U.S. President Barack Obama’s latest remarks directly addressed Iran’s role: “In order for us to resolve [the Syrian civil war], there’s going to have to be agreement among the major powers that are interested in Syria that this is not going to be won on the battlefield… Iran is one of those players, and I think it’s important for them to be a part of that conversation.”
Obama is correct, but continued vague statements about including Iran versus actively working to halt or at least degrade its ongoing support for Assad will lead nowhere. Washington must capitalize on its renewed relations with Iran to truly confront the Syrian crisis.
NPR interviewed Syrian doctor Mohammed Ayash, who has the responsibility of viewing the photographs of Assad’s butchered victims. Ayash said: “It comes to my dreams sometimes, because of the horrible methods – by torture, by starvation and eye gouging – and it's very hard for me.” It is not enough that these images haunt only those dealing with the photographs first-hand. They should haunt the world.

The Lebanese are tired of political games
Nayla Tueni/Al Arabiya/Friday, 17 July/15
No gloating is intended here and there’s no attempt to gloat because political work requires realism and moderation. This is how we should analyze last week’s protest by Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun’s supporters in order to benefit when looking to the future and analyzing political activity on the street.
Aoun is demanding an inter-Christian referendum that with time has turned into a de-facto poll that’s non-binding to all parties, whether those who consented to it or rejected it altogether. However, Aoun has begun with mobilizing a delegation of supporters with having them protest in Downtown Beirut. He justified the small number of protestors, saying he did not call for a popular mobilization. This statement is actually half true as prior to this protest, he had elevated the rhetoric among his Christian protestors and among the Lebanese people in general in hopes to mobilize people and send a message to his rival saying: “Look how people support our demands and how they took to the streets in rejection of the status quo.”
Not as expected
However, things didn’t go as Aoun expected as according to security reports, delegations who visited Aoun at Rabieh were very small in number and the cameras have resorted to the zoom in and zoom out technique to make it look like there are crowds. The excuse was that the zone in which he received the delegations does not fit more people. As for the protests at Downtown, the number of protestors did not exceed 200 and they included former and current ministers and members of parliament who spoke to television stations inciting people to take to the streets with them. However all this yielded no results.
Therefore we must adopt a different perspective when it comes to political street activity as people, regardless of which political party they are affiliated with, have grown tired of this game and of speeches which are not rooted in fact. Many Lebanese people have actually realized that several parties’ demands actually have personal rather than patriotic aims and that they mostly aim to serve short-term interests.
Last week’s Downtown protest was one symptom of what Aoun wants and other symptoms may not be any better, especially with what I see as his growing tendency to ignore his allies’ stances – an act that reflects on his popularity among both, his allies’ and rivals’ supporters. I believe that Aoun’s anti-media tendency has also worsened and this negatively affects the Christian and national public opinion which are greatly influenced by what the media presents.

Syrian ethnic groups accuse Kurds of bias
By Humeyra Pamuk/Reuters/Al Arabiya/Friday, 17 July/15
Cemal Dede fled his home in a remote Turkmen village in Syria after warplanes from the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) bombed the house next door. He had no idea he wouldn’t be coming back.
Dede says the Kurdish YPG militia did not let his family of seven return to Dedeler near the Turkish border, telling him it was now Kurdish territory and Turkmens like him had no place there.
“When ISIS was there, they persecuted people. Now there is YPG and they are no different,” the 43-year old told Reuters in an impromptu settlement of refugee tents at a disused truck depot near Turkey’s Akcakale border gate.
“We don’t support any group, but still we are stripped of our right to live in our own land.”
The Kurds, who have emerged as the U.S.-led coalition’s most capable partner in Syria against ISIS on the ground, strongly deny having forced people of other ethnic groups out of territory they have seized. They say those who left did so to escape fighting and are welcome to return with guarantees of their safety.
“When you come inside Tel Abyad, you’ll see that the Arabs, Muslims, Turkmens, the Armenian people, all of them - they are living together,” said Idris Nassan, an official in the Kurdish administration for the Kobani canton, which includes Tel Abyad.
“It is multi-cultural, multi-national, multi-sectarian. The protectors of this administration are the YPG, the People’s Protection Units. That refers to all people. We are not just for the Kurdish people,” he told Reuters by telephone.
But accusations that non-Kurds have been forced to flee, described as “ethnic cleansing” by neighboring Turkey, have tarnished the Kurds’ reputation even as their success against ISIS on the ground has raised their stature.
Backed by U.S. air strikes, the YPG and smaller Syrian rebel groups captured the border town of Tel Abyad from ISIS on June 15, prompting more than 26,000 people to flee to Turkey.
With nearly half the length of Syria’s border with Turkey now in Kurdish hands, Ankara fears the creation of an autonomous Kurdish region in northern Syria which could inflame separatist sentiment among its own Kurdish population. It accuses Kurdish fighters in Syria of links to the PKK militant group, which has waged an insurgency against the Turkish state for three decades.
Some Kurds say fear among refugees is being whipped up by Turks to discredit them.
“This is a psychological war waged against Kurds,” said Dengir Mir Mehmet Firat, a member of the Turkish parliament from the pro-Kurdish opposition HDP.
“The (Turkish) government said that it doesn’t want the (Kurdish) cantons to be united, and when it happened they are now trying to create negative public opinion because they are angry. They’re playing a dangerous game by igniting nationalistic feelings.”
Rami Abdulrahman, director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based group that monitors the Syrian war with a network of sources on the ground, says there has been no evidence of systematic expulsion by Kurdish militias on the grounds of ethnicity, despite isolated cases.
But new father Yasin Saeed, who fled Suluk, a Syrian Arab village around 20 km (12 miles) east of Tel Abyad as Kurdish forces entered over a month ago, said he was afraid to return.
“If you are not a Kurd but an Arab who has been living under ISIS rule, they automatically see you as someone who supports and aids the group,” he said, sat in a tent, as his wife played with their 8-month-old daughter.
‘The barrels are pointing at us’
Tel Abyad had been held since January 2014 by ISIS, the Sunni hardline group which has seized large parts of Syria and Iraq and declared a caliphate, and which proudly boasts of the extreme violence it metes out to its enemies.
Most of the refugees in the make-shift camp near Akcakale, established by the Turkish authorities, lived for more than a year under ISIS rule. They have few good memories, although they say it was a period of relative stability.
Around 4,000 have returned, according to Turkish officials. The rest have either been placed in refugee camps around Turkey’s southeast or have sought refuge with relatives, much like the 1.8 million other Syrian refugees Turkey is now sheltering.
Saeed said that unless the Kurdish militias left his home region, he had no plans to go back.
“The distrust between Kurds and Arabs has been there for years. But now they are at an advantage because they have guns and the barrels are pointing at us,” Saeed said.
U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said this month that Washington was supporting the Syrian Kurds because they were “capable of acting,” although U.S. officials have also said they do not support a separate Kurdish entity in northern Syria.
“We are very clear in communicating our expectations to (the Syrian Kurds) about the behavior they should be exercising in the areas where they have recently pushed Daesh (ISIS) off the border,” U.S. ambassador to Turkey John Bass told reporters this month, emphasizing that displaced civilians must be allowed to return.
In Syria’s multi-sided civil war, the Kurds have often avoided conflict with the government of President Bashar al-Assad, although the YPG says it does not cooperate with Damascus. Some Arabs and Turkmens suspect the Kurds of having a tacit agreement with Assad.
“They’ve been spared by Assad,” said another refugee, Halil, 32, whose cousin was executed by ISIS this year and who asked not to use his surname for security reasons. “Assad has carried out all sorts of atrocities against many groups, but hasn’t touched the Kurds. Why?” he said, sipping tea and drawing on a cigarette.
“America, which never helped Syrian Arabs and didn’t give us weapons to protect ourselves against Bashar (al-Assad), is now arming the Kurds. And they’re using that against us.”

Assad Regime, Hizbullah: Iran Nuclear Agreement Is Historic Victory For Resistance Axis, Surrender For Americans, Defeat For Saudis
MEMRI/July 16/15/ July 16, 2015 Special Dispatch No.610
The Bashar Al-Assad regime in Syria and Hizbullah in Lebanon, both of which are allies of Iran, were overjoyed at the announcement of the Iran-P5+1 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. They called it "a huge victory" for the entire resistance axis, and "an historic turning point" that would shift the balance of power in the region and globally.
President Assad sent a congratulatory letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei expressing his delight at the "huge victory" that he said was achieved thanks to Iran's steadfast position. The head of Hizbullah in the Lebanese parliament, Muhammad Ra'd, stated that the superpowers, humiliated and vanquished by Iran, were also forced to recognize Iran as a superpower, and added that the agreement opens a new page that will lead to changes in the global balance of power.
The Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to Hizbullah, celebrated "the surrender of the West," led by the U.S., with a series of extremely anti-U.S. articles. For example, in an article titled "Death To America," Ibrahim Al-Amin, head of the Al-Akhbar board of directors, called on the oppressed Arab peoples to learn a lesson from the Iranian achievement and work to remove Western and American hegemony worldwide. Other articles in the daily also stated that the nuclear agreement strengthened Iran, transforming it into an influential power vis-à-vis other Middle East issues as well. One article even called on the Arabs to recognize the rise of "the era of Iran" in the region, and the waning of the "the black Saudi era."
Articles in the official Syrian press also called the agreement a major victory for the entire resistance axis, including Syria and Hizbullah, as well as a surrender by the U.S. and the West and a crushing defeat for Arab countries, primarily Saudi Arabia.
The following are excerpts from official responses by the Assad regime and Hizbullah, as well as articles in the Syrian press and the Hizbullah-affiliated daily Al-Akhbar:
Hizbullah: Iran Has Humiliated And Vanquished The Superpowers; Global Power Balances Will Change
The head of Hizbullah in the Lebanese parliament, Muhammad Ra'd, discussed the agreement at a Hizbullah memorial service for its fighters, saying: "Iran has started a new page [in the history] of the world, with the agreement that it reached with the superpowers. We say in full confidence that what will happen after the agreement with Iran will not be like what happened before it. This is because many equations and balances of power [in the world] are destined to change. The world now recognizes a force [i.e. Iran]... that, during 11 years of negotiations, not just over the past two, succeeded in humiliating the world's ruling powers." He added: "Iran is now a superpower, and the [other] superpowers have recognized this. Today it is a strong and mindful country that can be trusted to play a role in reaching arrangements and dealing with crises of tension in our region. However, it will absolutely not recognize Israel, the entity that stole Jerusalem and Palestine, and no one can forget this. Iran has said this and is committed to it..."
Ra'd added: "The Iranian people were patient for 36 years, under a most criminal international siege. The entire world rejected it and besieged it, [but] it had the willpower for confrontation... Iran reached a phase where it [managed] to provide for itself, in agriculture, industry, technology, science, education, and culture, and to export its science, culture, art, technology, and industry. It became a superpower that is taken into account. All those who participated in the siege on it succumbed to [this reality], surrendered to Iran's will, and negotiated with it, in an attempt to preserve their honor, while recognizing its status, role, and effectiveness among nations. The world powers, represented by the P5+1 Group, which won World War II and distributed global influence among themselves each other, stood on one side of the [negotiating] table, while Iran stood alone on the other side, under the leadership of Sayed 'Ali Khamenei. [Iran] negotiated with them until they bent to its will, acknowledged its right to a nuclear program, and were forced to acknowledge [Iran's] importance and the importance of the role it plays – to the point that there are those who say that security and stability in the Middle East can only be achieved with Iran's cooperation..."[1]
Pro-Hizbullah Daily 'Al-Akhbar': The West Has Surrendered To Iran
The day after the agreement was signed, the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is identified with Hizbullah, devoted large sections of the newspaper to this topic. The front page featured the Persian headline "[Yes] We Can" – a play on the famous Obama campaign slogan – which the daily claimed was a motto of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini dating back to the 1960s, when he began his struggle against the Shah's regime.
Articles in the daily celebrated Iran's victory in both the international arena against the U.S. and the West and in the regional arena against Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia.
July 15, 2015 cover of Al-Akhbar with the Farsi headline "[Yes] We Can"
We Raise Our Voices And Shout "Death To America"
The head of Al-Akhbar's board of directors, Ibrahim Al-Amin, wrote in an article titled "Death To America" that the agreement between Iran and the superpowers was actually an American surrender to Iran. He added that the Arabs should understand that vanquishing the West, Israel, and the Arab regimes hostile to the resistance axis is now possible, and must act accordingly: "...We must learn this lesson well in order to stand against the global hegemonic order led by the West itself, which yesterday was forced to surrender to Iran. The important thing is that we reexamine the events around us and simply conclude that the age of Western hegemony over the world is waning, and that the independence of nations is within the reach of every oppressed person... We should state that we, in a small country like Lebanon, have succeeded over the past quarter century [since the fall of the Soviet Union] to thwart plans to transform the country into an obedient and pathetic servant of the new world order. We have managed to thwart the Israeli plan to occupy Lebanon, and have launched resistance that has become a role model, helping the residents of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen to work against the forces of the West and their Arab allies...
"We must accept that we cannot continue to [act] ambiguously, seek arrangements here and there, and deceive ourselves only for the sake of appeasing the despicable West or the doomed Arab regimes for a drop of water. We must prepare for a new stage in the struggle, which will be based on the idea that the West, and America with it, are a capable force, but are no longer [an immutable] force of nature, and that removing this oppression has become attainable...
"It is no longer difficult to be rid of the hegemonic world order; it is no longer impossible to topple the Zionist regime in Palestine; and it is no longer tough to topple what is left of the Arab regimes of ignorance and failure. What Iran has achieved vis-à-vis the West puts us back at square one, where we must raise our voices and shout at the top of our lungs a single slogan: 'Death to America.'"[2]
Ibrahim Al-Amin's article "Death To America"
'Al-Akhbar' Article: The Agreement's Military Facilities Inspection Clause Is Of No Practical Significance
Journalist Elie Chalhoub argued in an article in Al-Akhbar that the sanctions imposed on Iran did not prevent it from reinforcing its nuclear capabilities and that the newly reached agreement reinforced Iran still further. Enumerating Iran's achievements vis-à-vis the U.S. in the agreement, he claimed that "the events laid the U.S. bare and made clear to everybody the limits to its power," and that "the war option against Iran is completely off the table..."
Chalhoub noted: "Also the second option – sanctions – is of no avail and does not prevent Iran from developing its nuclear capabilities and expanding its influence in the region. Therefore, [the West] is left with no other option aside from engagement and mutual understanding [with Iran]. Furthermore, the agreement enjoyed an Iranian consensus in the framework of the red lines set by the Supreme Leader [Khamenei], has torpedoed every [American] wager to exploit it [the agreement] as a Trojan horse for creating internal fitna [within Iran between liberals and conservatives]...
"In the address by Sayyid Ali Khamenei the day before yesterday, it was clear that the conflict with the U.S. in the region would continue, and could even escalate. True, Iran agreed to supervision over all its facilities including the military ones and this according to the mechanism determined in the Additional Protocol of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT], but this is a very complicated mechanism that makes the [Iranian] 'surrender' of no practical significance...
"The agreement accomplishes two things: first, the international community cannot [henceforth] impose sanctions on Iran under any pretext whatsoever without running the risk that Iran will announce that it is renouncing its commitments under this agreement. Secondly, the agreement gives Iran greater room for action on the regional level, and equips it with [additional] capabilities that it will receive as a result of the lifting of the sanctions...
"With regard to the issue of [lifting] the sanctions, we are not dealing with a minor detail pertaining to money.. This will effectively bring $120 billion into the Islamic Republic [of Iran]. And when will this happen? [It is happening] at the peak of the financial crisis striking the world. Additionally, this measure will bring Iran back to working with [the international financial clearinghouse] SWIFT, and will remove the ban on trade with it [Iran], with all its implications for thousands of Western companies that are dying of hunger and [seeking] [just] such investment opportunities. This by itself will block the West from [eventually] escalating against Iran."[3]
This Is The Age Of Iran; Arabs Must Coexist With Iran – Otherwise It Is Suicide For Them
Other articles in Al-Akhbar addressed the regional implications of the agreement, in light of the current Sunni-Shi'ite struggle in several arenas in the region, and struggles between the Iran-led resistance axis and the opposing Saudi-led bloc. According to the articles, this agreement improves Iran's standing and strength in the region, and recognizes its status.
Al-Akhbar columnist Nahed Hatter, a Jordanian national, wrote that the region was on the brink of an "era of Iran" to replace the "black Saudi era," and that the Arabs have no choice but to accept this reality. Not working together with Iran, he said, would be suicide for them: "Iran has earned its status as a regional power that controls the raging geopolitical conflicts in our area... The Iranians have received recognition of their central status on the issues of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, with regard to the various geopolitical conflicts on borders, security, sectarianism, etc. The main thing is the clear recognition of the Iranian role in combating terrorism...
"Thus begins a complex – and possibly lengthy, but effective – political process between the Americans and Iranians, for mutual understanding on issues that are all Arab issues, and in which the Arab element is absent...
"This is the era of Iran, that leaves behind the black Saudi era that has prevailed since the mid-1970s, that destroyed Egypt and later Iraq and Syria, and for whose destructive plans the Palestinians and Lebanese have paid a heavy price... The Arabs, with their various political trends, have no choice but to launch an initiative aimed at finding a new formula for coexisting with this [Iranian] era and benefiting from it:
"a. In the field of combating terrorism;
"b. To restore the importance of the Palestinian problem;
"c. To return to rehabilitation and development; and
"d. To establish a more rational and dynamic regional order.
"However, in order to maximize the positive aspects of this Iranian era and minimize its negative aspects for the Arab world, there are basic conditions [that the Arabs must meet], which are:
"a. To immediately cease the various forms of aggression against Syria and reach understandings with its legitimate [Assad] government in order to support its efforts to combat terrorism and restore the country; and
"b. To end the so-called Sunni program that is based on sectarian incitement and growing close to Israel at the expense of Iran.
"[This is] in order to rebuild the Arab order on the basis of mutual understanding among its traditional foundations, which are Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. This will create [a framework] for positive relations and cooperation with the rising Iranian force, while benefiting from redefining Israel as a common enemy; it will also bring about political and national solutions in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Libya, and Bahrain.
"This is the only rational option to preserve the general interests of the Arab forces that are fighting each other. Will Saudi Arabia – and especially Saudi Arabia – understand this picture, or will it insist on committing suicide?"[4]
Syrian Regime: An Historic Turning Point; A Victory For The Entire Resistance Axis
As noted, the Syrian regime of President Bashar Al-Assad also welcomed the announcement of the Iran-P5+1 nuclear agreement, and called it "an historic turning point" and a "victory" for the entire resistance axis. This was conveyed in Assad's letters to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and to Iranian President Hassan Rohani, as well as in announcements by the Syrian Foreign Ministry and in articles in the official press and the Al-Watan daily, which is close to the regime.
Assad In Letter To Khamenei: I Am Happy About Iran's Huge Historic Victory
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad wrote in a letter of congratulation to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei: "I am gladdened by the huge victory that Iran achieved in reaching a final agreement with the [P] 5+1 on the Iranian nuclear dossier. In the name of the Syrian people and in own name, I congratulate you and the fraternal Iranian people from all my heart on this historic victory.
"This agreement was attained thanks to the steadfastness by the Iranian people, in all its elements, in the face of the oppressive sanctions... that the noble Iranian people transformed into an opportunity for reinforcing its independent capabilities and progressing in its research studies, in its universities and achievements until it reached the stage where the entire world recognizes these achievements.
"The signing [sic] of this agreement is a major turning point in the history of Iran, of the region, and of the world, and unequivocal recognition by the world's countries that the Iranian nuclear program is civilian in nature, that guarantees the national rights of your people and emphasizes Iran's sovereignty and political independence. We are most confident that Iran will continue with even greater impetus to support the just causes of the peoples and will work to institute peace and stability in the region and the world..."
In his letter to President Rohani, Assad wrote, inter alia: "We have no doubt that in the coming days, the constructive role that Iran played in supporting the rights of peoples and consolidating the principles of peace and amicable relations among states will gain impetus... Warm congratulations to you and the fraternal Iranian people on this historic achievement, which constitutes a victory for all lovers of peace and justice throughout the world..." [5]
Victory For Iran, Syria And Hizbullah; Defeat For Saudi Arabia, The Great Satan
Waddah 'Abd Rabbo, editor of the Syrian daily Al-Watan, wrote on July 16, 2015 that the agreement was a major victory for the resistance axis of Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah, and a bitter defeat for Saudi Arabia. 'Abd Rabbo demanded that Saudi Arabia apologize to the whole world for the terrorism that for many years it had helped to spread:
"...Today is not as it was before. Saudi Arabia has been defeated. Its plan to prevent any closeness between Iran and the West has utterly failed, as have its attempts to destabilize Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq... Over the past years, Saudi Arabia has tried to bring about a conflagration in Iraq and Lebanon, and has spent tens of billions of dollars to spark sectarian fitna... to prevent the spread of Iranian influence that supports resistance in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine... This has failed thanks to the mighty stand of Syria, Hizbullah, and the Iraqis.
"Iran has never threatened Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country... The Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, [and the wars in] Lebanon, Iraq, and later Syria were carried out under the guidance and management of the U.S., which controls the minds, policies, and leaders of Saudi Arabia, who are mere puppets in its hands... The game is over, and Saudi Arabia and its media must admit defeat and begin trying to fix the unfixable...
"The Iranian agreement is a victory for Iranian diplomacy over three decades, but is also a success for all Syrians, without whose steadfastness and vigilancethis agreement would not have been reached in its current form.
"The Vienna agreement is a crowning moment for the steadfastness of Syria and Hizbullah, and is a mark of honor pinned to the chests of the families of the martyrs in Syria and Lebanon... The victory of Iran is the victory of Syria and the entire resistance axis... From today onwards, Saudi Arabia will have no choice but to recognize its defeat and to apologize to the peoples of the region and the world for the terrorism, the killing, and the destruction it has senselessly caused them.
"Many believe that the main victim of the Vienna agreement is Israel, but Saudi Arabia is the true Great Satan in the region. That is the truth."[6]
The Agreement Is A Victory For The Iranian-Syrian View
Dr. 'Amran 'Abd Al-Latif, editor of the official Syrian daily Al-Ba'th, wrote that the nuclear agreement proves that Syria's strategy is right, and that its opponents – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey – are wrong. He also called on the Arabs to benefit from the agreement: "The Syrian position was to quickly express faith and optimism regarding this agreement... The letters [sent] by President Assad to Khamenei and Rohani embody Syria's positive and practical strategic view regarding this new turn to be taken by international relations as a result of the agreement – which stems from political and diplomatic discourse for conflict resolution, as opposed to supporting terrorism, extremism, and accusing others of apostasy. This view will prove, in time, that the governments that supported the plot against Syria will, one by one, enter a path of isolation and failure, leading them to helplessness and despair...
"It is our duty as Arabs to hasten to reap the benefits of this agreement, and not to divert Arab worries away from Zionism and towards our Iranian friends and brothers. Yes, it is our duty to look positively at the coming Western rush towards Iran, which reality has proven is a good and successful actor that has succeeded, on its own, in dialogue with the superpowers. There is no fear that those who succeed in such dialogue will sell [their] sovereignty, resources, justice, and duties.
"Therefore, we are optimistic: First, in light of the concern of those [i.e. the Israelis], and second, because it has been proven that our strategy is strong and practical."[7]
Obama Realized That Iran Would Not Relinquish Its National Pride; He Will Soon Learn The Same About Syria
Bassam Abu 'Abdallah, an international relations lecturer at Damascus University and a columnist for the Syrian daily Al-Watan, claimed that the forces of resistance, led by Syria and Hizbullah, had played a part in the Iranian achievement. Just as Obama realized that there was no point fighting the Iranian nuclear program, because it is a matter of national pride that Iranians would never relinquish, he would also realize that there was no point fighting Syria and its regime, because it too is a matter of national pride.
He wrote: "Those who observe and follow the Iranian nuclear negotiations cannot help but feel tremendous respect and esteem for Iran's steadfastness and for the resistance and willpower of the Iranian people and its leadership, leading up to the announcement of the historic agreement. [This agreement] was also achieved thanks to the forces of the resistance axis led by Syria, with its heroic people, proud army, and great sacrifice, and thanks to the resisting, honorable, and heroic Hizbullah.
"Obama has recognized that the nuclear achievements of the Iranian people have become a matter of national pride from which there is no turning back, and that they are achievements for which all Iranians paid a price, and so no one is entitled to bargain with them. Based on Obama's new American view regarding Iran, which led to this historic agreement, can it be said that it will apply to other issues in the region, primarily Syria? The answer is yes... [because] the main headline of the bitter battle [in Syria] is 'national pride'..."[8]
Iran's Success Inspires Other Countries Who Seek To Break Free Of Subordination To The West
Fares Riyadh Al-Jiroudi, a columnist for the Syrian daily Al-Watan wrote: "...The strategic importance of the announcement [of a nuclear agreement] does not stem from the [technical] nuclear details or from Iran's entry into the nuclear club... but rather from the fact that after 35 years of trying to impose isolation, siege, and indirect wars on it... Iran has forced the West to acknowledge it as a major force and an important factor in the international community... while Iran has not abandoned the political slogans it touted during its [Islamic] revolution, which led to the harsh historic confrontation with the West...
"This has massive implications, and opens the horizons for aspiring third-world countries that seek to break free of the burden of economic and political subordination to Western countries..."[9]
Endnotes:
[1] Elnashra.com, July 16, 2015.
[2] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), July 15, 2015.
[3] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), July 15, 2015.
[4] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), July 15, 2015.
[5] Al-B'ath (Syria), July 15, 2015.
[6] Al-Watan (Syria), July 16, 2015.
[7] Al-Ba'th (Syria), July 15, 2015.
[8] Al-Watan (Syria), July 16, 2015.
[9] Al-Watan (Syria), July 16, 2015.

How to assess the Iran deal and what to do about it
Former Amb. James F. Jeffrey, contributor/The Hill/July 16/15
The Iran nuclear agreement leaves open more questions than it answers. It clearly is a diplomatic coup for the Obama administration, and enjoys significant international support. But it is far less clear whether this agreement will enhance regional security or even the degree to which it constraints development of dual-use nuclear capabilities. These concerns have plagued the entire negotiating track, with numerous voices pushing for a tougher Western stance vis-a-vis Iran. But now with an agreement, the issue of what it will be is resolved. What now is important is to decide what to do with it. It will take time and analysis to understand completely the agreement's specifics, but the following is a guideline of possible steps.
Step No. 1: Evaluating the agreement
Before considering what to do about it, it is important to be clear on what it is. Again, details are important, but the following summary considerations are relevant.
First, the nature of the agreement as an arms control measure. This agreement as has long been anticipated, is flawed. Rather than eliminate Iran's ability to produce fissile material, as even the George W. Bush administration's deal with North Korea (briefly) did, this agreement accepts that Iran will be able to produce fissile material. In return, the agreement limits Iran's operational centrifuges by type and number, and enriched uranium by amount and grade for varying periods of time, the most relevant being the first 10 years. During that time period, the estimate in the administration's description of the April 2 agreement outline was that with these restrictions during that period, the Iranians would need one year to develop sufficient fissile material for one nuclear weapon. This, along with the one real classic arms control measure in it — removing the core of the Arak heavy water plant, and an enhanced inspection regime — are designed to give the international community confidence that Iran will be discouraged from breaking out, and if it does so, will be quickly caught. The assumption, then, is that the international community would act to penalize Iran through sanctions and other diplomatic efforts, and if necessary act, or tolerate others acting, to destroy nuclear infrastructure to preclude Iran getting a bomb.
So the agreement must sink or swim on the basis of this "one-year breakout time over a 10-year period" standard which the U.S. administration has itself advocated and argued it must have. Given that the administration, along with its P5+1 partners (the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany), abandoned true arms control in their negotiations with Iran, a major concession to an undeserving Iran, it's vital that the administration meets its own "flawed but acceptable" standard. Likewise, the inspection regime must be serious and generate confidence.
The second standard of measure is the political psychology of the agreement. In the end, the international community has been much more seized with the Iranian nuclear program than, for example, the Pakistani nuclear program, because of Iran's far more threatening regional role. Regional security flows not simply from constraining Iran's nuclear program, but from deterring or containing its hegemonic ambitions. Objectively, Iran's achieving even the April 2 version of a nuclear agreement was a political victory that can be translated into regional capital, as it refused to yield on its basic enrichment program or even most of its infrastructure (at most mothballing the majority of its centrifuges). So regional security depends on good part not just on Iran's nuclear capabilities post-agreement, covered above, but on its intentions, and those of the international community. And here the negotiating result can yield insight.
What is particularly important is the degree to which Iran was able to walk back what the U.S. administration and at least some of its international partners claimed were essential elements of any agreement back on April 2. The P5+1's yielding on points of importance would demonstrate either (or both) disunity and weakness in dealing with Iran, or too hurried a push to get any agreement. None of this would augur well for an agreement.
But the issues on which the international negotiators yielded are also important. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has clearly been focused on removing any hint of Iranian capitulation, admission of guilt, or "remorse" for a decade of violating international agreements and U.N. resolutions. While some of that position can be attributed to prickly national pride, a good deal of it can only be explained by Iran's interest in presenting itself not only as the victor in these negotiations, but also the aggrieved party, rather than the international community whose rules Iran violated. Thus the insistence on keeping essentially all of its infrastructure (except the Arak core); the refusal to engage seriously on the weaponization question (which incontrovertibly would establish Iran as violating international norms in a way none of its other nuclear-related actions would); and the demand that all sanctions be lifted immediately to the extent possible, including those related to other Iranian depredations beyond the nuclear file such as concerning ballistic missiles. Iran's pushing for changes in the April 2 preliminary agreement would strongly suggest not only a lack of regret and contrition, but also intent to use the agreement as propaganda to support its expansionist interests.
Step No. 2: Considering alternatives
During the negotiations. critics of the Obama administration could justifiably and logically call for ever tougher negotiating positions. Once an agreement has been signed off, the issue becomes what to do with a reality, not how to shape one. The U.S. Congress in the Iran Agreement Review Act specifically has the responsibility to pass judgment on the agreement, and could pass legislation upon that review to block the president's lifting of oil import sanctions — key to the entire deal — under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). If that were to happen, and the president could not override the veto, the deal presumably would collapse. (Alternatives, while unlikely, are possible: Iran tolerating the continuation of those sanctions, and the administration finding subterfuges to avoid implementing violations of them, but this congressional power should be seen as decisive for the fate of the agreement.)
Given the inherent problem with the agreement — it does not end Iran's enrichment capabilities — the option to sink the agreement cannot be ruled out-of-hand. Justification for that course of action of course would increase if the other factors noted above — a record of consistent P5+1 caving, and Iranian insistence on a political "bill of good health" were present. But for Congress to vote to curb the president's NDAA sanctions waiver authority for the purpose of scuttling the agreement (there are other rationales; see below), it must be aware of the impact of this action, and what alternatives would remain to curb Iran's quest both for nuclear weapons capability and regional dominance. The major impacts of a congressional rejection are inventoried below.
Diplomatic chaos: As this is an international agreement with five other major states (and indirectly, the EU) involved, there is a significant commitment to this agreement in the international community. Were the U.S. to sink the agreement through congressional action, there should be no illusions that the international community would then quickly rally behind the U.S. for a new effort with Iran. Furthermore, the repercussions of blowing up an agreement would have a significant effect on the credibility and diplomatic power of the U.S. That does not mean the agreement should not be blocked. It does mean that the bar for doing so is fairly high, and the negative consequences of that action need to be recognized as likely and significant.
Sanctions relief: The U.S. could keep the U.N. sanctions in place even without an agreement, but there is no guarantee the Obama administration would do so were Russia and others to come up with an alternative deal even worse than this agreement and push in the U.N. Security Council for U.N. sanctions to be lifted. The EU sanctions require unanimity; but here the only real hardliner against Iran is France, and it is an open question whether Paris would support the U.S. Congress after having signed up for the agreement Congress then topples. U.S. sanctions of course would remain, but with no assurance that the international community would continue to adhere to them in what is ultimately, despite U.S. law, a "voluntary" act.
Fissile materials: While Iran would still be prohibited by U.N. resolutions from enriching, that has not stopped Tehran in the past from reaching close to the required amount of fissile material for a nuclear weapon. It could come that close again in two or three months, by the administration's estimate.
Inspections: Absent an agreement, Iran would be subject only to the inspection regime laid out in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a regime repeatedly shown as totally inadequate to monitor its activities.
Intelligence: The intrusive inspections regime achieved under the interim agreement of 2013 and certainly the new agreement would by its nature complement and inform independent national intelligence efforts targeting Iran's nuclear program. That would be lost were the agreement tossed.
Military action: If military action were left as the only option to stop Iran from gaining a nuclear device, or sufficient fissile material to rapidly and secretly develop one, then the degree of international support for a U.S. strike would be important for domestic support and international cooperation, not only on Iran but a host of other issues. Were the U.S. itself to topple the agreement and thus in the eyes of many make inevitable a strike, international support for it would be very limited.
Enhancing deterrence: On the plus side, congressional scuttling of the agreement would put Iran on notice that President Obama is relatively isolated on Iran, and that American determination should be taken seriously. How seriously Iran would take the U.S. in this case, if isolated internationally, is a legitimate counterargument.
Step No. 3: Considering options short of rejecting the agreement
If rejecting the agreement is ruled out or not possible — because there are not the votes to override a presidential veto, because of the implications of rejection noted above or because the agreement turns out not to be as bad as some feared — there are still options beyond tanking the agreement, especially if it is seriously flawed.
Congressional disapproval: Especially if the administration can be shown to have caved on significant provisions of the agreement as laid out in the April 2 provisional accord, Congress could find various ways within or outside of the mechanisms of the Nuclear Agreement Review Act to express its distaste for certain of the agreement's terms, disappointment with the administration's conduct, and skepticism towards Iran. This could include passing a motion of condemnation with the understanding that Congress could not override the inevitable Obama veto. The agreement's condemnation would put Iran on notice that much of America does not stand behind Obama without incurring the costs of torpedoing the deal. Such action can be combined with other options laid out below.
Countering Iranian mischief-making: This is official U.S. policy most recently affirmed in the Gulf Cooperation Council summit at Camp David, but whether the administration's heart is in this or not if it could damage its diplomatic triumph with Iran is open to queston. In particular, if the administration, despite Vice President Biden's and other officials' denials, seeks a transformational relationship with Iran as a potential force for stability or even security partner, as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif keeps suggesting, via the agreement, then there is real potential for regional disaster. Congress, public opinion, American allies and partners in the region, and the more realistic members of the international community such as France, could press the administration to accentuate this countering/containment policy as the price for acceptance of the agreement. The more blatant the administration is in yielding in the negotiations, and the more pronounced the Iranian argument of vindication coming out of them, the more necessary this would be.
Making the military option real: Regardless of what above course of action the administration, Congress and the international community finally decide on from the above options, the military option is the final arbiter of Iran's quest for weapons. Under any circumstances, Congress and American public opinion should understand and accept — as explicitly as possible, including by congressional formal action as well as by the administration's (this one or the next) policies — that this is on the table. The degree of bluntness can vary depending upon how bad the agreement is, and how bad Iran's behavior is, but there is no getting around this reality.
Nothing, including reluctantly accepting a really bad agreement, is as dangerous as leaving open the question of how the U.S. would react if Iran approaches a nuclear weapons capability.
**Ambassador Jeffrey is the Philip Solondz distinguished visiting fellow at the Washington Institute where he focuses on U.S. strategies to counter Iran's efforts to expand its influence in the broader Middle East. One of the nation's most respected diplomats, Ambassador Jeffrey has held a series of highly sensitive posts in Washington and abroad. In addition to his service in Turkey and Iraq, he served as assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, with a special focus on Iran.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/247844-assessing-the-iran-agreement-and-what-to-do-about-it

Comment on the Iran and the superpowers deal: We have all lost
By BEN CASPIT/J.Post/07/17/2015
The agreement between Iran and the superpowers should not have surprised anybody in the international or Israeli arenas. It would have been a strategic surprise had the agreement issue not existed. It was on this ticket, after all, that Barack Obama was elected to the US presidency. It was his mission.
For better or for worse? History will be the judge.
Obama was elected in order to put an end to America’s wars, to pull America out of the quicksand in which it was floundering. Obama was elected because America was tired and because it had changed. In the not too distant future, America’s solid white majority will have turned into a kind of coalition of minorities.
Obama was elected because Americans understood that the use of force has got them nowhere and only intensified global destruction. This week Obama fulfilled his election promise. According to him, he has already succeeded. In another year and a half he’ll establish a presidential library in Chicago. We’ll still be here, dealing with the results. Incidentally, there is no guarantee that they’ll be so terrible. History has its own laws and is full of surprises.
Lets go back 13 years, to September 2002. Benjamin Netanyahu, three years after being booted out of the Prime Minister’s Office and 18 months after relinquishing the post to Ariel Sharon, he addressed Congress and called for toppling Saddam Hussein before he developed nuclear weapons.
“There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons – no question whatsoever,” Netanyahu, then a private citizen, said in September 2002. “And there is no question that once he acquires it, history shifts immediately.”
Afterward, Americans tried to find evidence in Iraq of the WMD Netanyahu spoke of and found nothing. Saddam was captured and executed. America paid a heavy price in Iraq; the operation cost hundreds of billions of dollars and undermined the country’s economy.
The US entered the campaign in Iraq as a single unit with inbuilt supremacy over the rest of the world and came out a wounded, defensive, nervous power, helpless and lacking direction. Saddam Hussein has been replaced by our friends in ISIS, the entire Middle East is in flames, in Afghanistan the Taliban are raising their heads and soon we’ll all be yearning for Osama bin Laden, especially in comparison with Abu-Bachar al Baghdadi.
Now, as John Kerry told Yitzhak Herzog last Sunday, “No one’s listening to Netanyahu any more.” In retrospect, America acted against the wrong enemy.
The invasion of Iraq was an historic and Middle Eastern mistake. The big prize was around the corner, in the emerging nuclear sites of Tehran.
Like Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu had a mission; unfortunately an opposing one. Netanyahu sees himself as someone who was born, anointed, and destined to stop the Iranian nuclear program and prevent a second Holocaust. Netanyahu is a permanent alarmist. The trouble is that some of his warnings are right.
Sadly, Netanyahu was taken seriously when he was talking nonsense; and is treated like a fool when he’s making sense on the Iran issue. His diagnosis was right. The Iranian nuclear program is alive and kicking, deep underground and enriching uranium.
Netanyahu wasn’t the first to identify the danger. He was preceded by Rabin, Barak, Olmert, Ariel Sharon and other Israeli leaders. On a professional level, the first to indicate this danger was Maj.- Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, now a permanent fixture in Israel’s Intelligence system.
Netanyahu is absolutely right in his criticism (which is usually sharpened by Defense Minister Ya’alon) of the way the Americans conducted the negotiations.
Even if the consensus is that the only solution is a diplomatic one, it could have been done differently.
Obama conducted negotiations the way a naïve, appeasing, American liberal would. There isn’t a mistake the Americans didn’t make on the way to the agreement, including the declaration of Secretary of Defense Gates that there is no military option. They continued to stress that there is no other option, no alternative; that an agreement must be reached.
How come that after every round of talks the Americans went home in order to withdraw a little further and the Iranians didn’t budge an inch? What would have happened if, for example, during the last year, the Americans had kept two or three aircraft carriers in the Gulf region and held a few noticeable exercises in conjunction with some of the area’s friendly air and sea forces? The US conducted these negotiations as if desperate for an agreement, whereas Iran came in as a self-confident world superpower for whom the achievement or non-achievement of an agreement is of no consequence. The results are evident in the agreement’s 159 pages.
Netanyahu convened his political-security cabinet on Tuesday evening. There was a vote and the agreement was unanimously rejected. It emerged from the cabinet that all the military experts who addressed the ministers shared the opinion that this is a bad agreement with disastrous potential. True, but not entirely accurate. The Vienna agreement should be divided in two and analyzed with caution: The nuclear part “passes.” The agreement could have been better in all aspects of the nuclear issue, but it’s not entirely bad. It pushes back the nuclear program by more than a decade. It has one obvious hole with regard to suspicious new sites (monitoring of existing sites is immediate and intrusive).
Assuming that Israeli Intelligence will come to the IAEA with information on a secret site where Iran continues to enrich uranium or to secretly build another installation, it will take the powers 24 days to arrive at the place, by which time the Iranians will have enough time to clear away all incriminating evidence.
On the other hand, it is hard to believe that with the supervision now imposed on Iran, including supervision of uranium mining and, assuming that Western intelligence services (especially the CIA and Mossad) will continue to supervise events in Iran, that the ayatollahs would gamble on so rudely violating the agreement.
Nonetheless, such things have been known to happen.
Contrary to expectations, the agreement also has a conventional side. Pity we didn’t think of it earlier. The conventional part of the agreement is more dangerous than its nuclear part. While constantly screaming “nuclear, nuclear,” Netanyahu forgot that in its conventional terrorist activity, Iran poses a direct and immediate threat to the entire Middle East and beyond, besides Israel. He focused all his efforts on centrifuges and uranium enrichment, when the troubles are opening up against him from entirely different directions.
This is the reason, too, that most of Israel’s criticism of the signed agreement is now aimed at the legitimization that Iran is receiving from the international community and the hundreds of millions that will now flow into its terrorism machine.
Israeli spokesmen stress that Obama sees Iran as part of the solution and not the problem. True, Obama is getting close to Iran and is impressed by the fact that it is the only element willing to make sacrifices in the war against ISIS and Sunni extremism. This still doesn’t indicate that Obama means to abandon traditional US allies in the region. He believes that Iran is easier to change through “soft force” than by military force.
Obama is convinced that military measures have run their course. Contrary to Israeli opinion, he hopes that the new openness, foreign investment, and the beginnings of ties with the West will accelerate the political trend in Iran toward reform.
Now, amid the broken pieces, Netanyahu demands that everyone unite behind him in cooperation and solidarity against the looming catastrophe. The whole world is against us, now’s the time to lay aside the differences.
Well, no. These broken pieces are Netanyahu’s handiwork. The fact that Israel and the Republicans in America stand in isolation against the rest of the world is the exclusive invention of Netanyahu.
He decided to gamble, and to gamble again and to raise the stakes, in spite of being warned, in spite of knowing that what was in the balance, he is now trying to stick responsibility for this situation on everyone.
Admittedly, according to public opinion, Netanyahu has won a resounding victory. The problem is that it’s local public opinion. A poll by Panels Politic published Wednesday proves this.
The large majority of the public is convinced that the agreement brings Iran closer to military nuclear power (contrary to the opinions of all the world’s experts, including those in Israel); the public is convinced that this agreement endangers Israel, almost half of Israeli public opinion favors a military attack on Iran (no one has updated the public that technically Israel has a military option, but no real feasibility.
And the public (although not the large majority) is pressuring Netanyahu to continue to fight against Obama and against the agreement in Congress.
If Netanyahu really did want to halt the Iranian nuclear program, he should have followed one of two alternatives: First, he could either have attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities when this was still relevant (2009-2012), or tried to influence the powers from within. Second, he could have tried to influence the negotiations between the powers and Iran.
For this, Netanyahu should have become Obama’s and Europe’s closest strategic ally. He should have built a personal rapport with Obama. He should have taken several vital political steps (e.g. to freeze settler activity). He should have told the truth and convinced the world that he was interested in peace.
From an inside position, rather than that of an outsider, he could have influenced.
But Netanyahu had no intention of doing these things, lest it get him in trouble with the settlers and annoy extreme-right supporters. So he chose the third option, which no responsible leader would dare to choose. He attempted to depose the problematic American president (in 2012), to replace him with another, more amenable president.
It was an insane gamble, extremely strange, and one that no Israeli leader has tried before. He undermined the president by delivering a speech to Congress, in defiance of warnings, even from Israel’s staunchest supporters in America, that such an act was counterproductive.
Netanyahu ignored all the warnings. He had an election to win and he did.
And, in the meantime, we have all lost.
**Translated by Ora Cummings.

Obama defends Iran deal
Washington, Paris and Cairo, July 16/15/AP/Asharq Al-Awsat—President Barack Obama launched an aggressive and detailed defense of a landmark Iranian nuclear accord, rejecting the idea that it leaves Tehran on the brink of a bomb and arguing the only alternative to the diplomatic deal is war. The president vigorously challenged his critics during a lengthy White House news conference on Wednesday, a day after Iran, the US and five other world powers finalized a historic, years-long agreement to curb Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Opposition to the deal has been fierce, both in Washington and Israel. The Gulf states have also expressed concerns. “Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war,” Obama said. “Those are the options.”Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, perhaps the fiercest critic of Obama’s overtures to Iran, showed no sign he could be persuaded to even tolerate the agreement. In remarks to Israel’s parliament, Netanyahu said he was not bound by the terms of the deal and could still take military action against Iran. Netanyahu sees Iran’s suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon as a threat to Israel’s existence.
In Congress, resistance comes not only from Republicans, but also Obama’s own Democratic Party. Vice President Joe Biden spent the morning on Capitol Hill meeting privately with House Democrats, and planned to return Thursday to make a similar pitch to Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The president said he welcomed a “robust” debate with Congress, but showed little patience for what he cast as politically motivated opposition. Lawmakers can’t block the nuclear deal, but they can try to undermine it by insisting US sanctions stay in place.
In Tehran, Iranians took to the streets to celebrate the accord, and even Iran’s hardliners offered only mild criticism—a far cry from the outspoken opposition that the White House had feared.
The nuclear accord has become a centerpiece of Obama’s foreign policy, a high-stakes gamble that diplomatic engagement with a longtime American foe could resolve one of the world’s most pressing security challenges. The importance of the deal to Obama was evident Wednesday, both in his detailed knowledge of its technical provisions and his insistence that no critique go unanswered.
An hour into the East Room news conference, Obama asked if reporters had other questions about Iran—a highly unusual inquiry from a president who is rarely so freewheeling in his exchanges with the press. He pulled a piece of paper out of his pocket, saying he had “made notes” about the main criticisms of the deal and wanted to ensure each had been addressed.
The accord requires Iran to dismantle key elements of its nuclear program, lower its uranium enrichment levels, and give up thousands of centrifuges. International inspectors will have access to Iran’s declared nuclear facilities, but must request visits to Iran’s military sites, access that isn’t guaranteed. If Iran abides by the parameters, it will receive billions of dollars in relief from crippling international sanctions that have badly damaged the country’s economy.
The deal does nothing to address Iran’s broader support for terrorism in the Middle East or its detention of several American citizens, though some US officials hold out hope it could eventually lead Tehran to reassess its role in the world.
Obama, however, outlined a narrower ambition, saying the deal should be judged solely on whether it stops Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. As to whether the agreement might change Iran’s other behavior, he said, “We’re not betting on it.”
The president also sharply rebuffed a suggestion that he was content to let American detainees languish in Iran while he celebrated a deal. “That’s nonsense,” he said, adding that Iran would have taken advantage of any US effort to link the nuclear accord to the release of US citizens. To those who argue sanctions relief will leave Iran flush with cash to fund terrorism, Obama said Tehran is already backing Hezbollah and other groups on the cheap. He noted that the Iranian government is under pressure from citizens to use any influx of international funds to improve the country’s struggling economy.
Obama insisted sanctions on Iran could be “snapped back” in place if Iran cheats on the deal, even if Russia and China object. He defended the 24-day window Iran would have before international inspectors gain access to suspicious sites, saying nuclear material “leaves a trace” and suggesting the US has other means of monitoring facilities. Meanwhile on Wednesday Saudi Arabia’s King Salman Bin Abdulaziz said the Kingdom supported the deal so long as it prevented Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and ensured all nuclear sites were inspected thoroughly. Obama, for his part, said the US was willing to work with its Gulf allies to counter Iran’s regional ambitions and interference into the affairs of other countries in the Middle East.
Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on Wednesday, Maryam Rajavi, head of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a coalition of Iranian opposition groups, expressed misgivings regarding the deal.
She said Tehran could still seek to bypass inspectors in order to obtain a nuclear weapon by secretive means. However, she also stressed concessions made during the negotiations had weakened the “religious fascist” Tehran regime, which she believed could also help increase opposition toward the regime domestically.
“Even though the deal won’t close the door on the Mullahs’ secret maneuvering in the hope of obtaining a nuclear weapon, it does however give a chance for mobilizing dissent inside Iran itself,” she said.

Is Iran Now Under the Tutelage of the Six World Powers?
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat
Friday, 17 Jul, 2015
When talks between Iran and the P5+1 group led by the US started two years ago the stated objective was to prevent Tehran from acquiring the means of building nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of sanctions imposed by Washington, the United Nations, and the European Union. This week, the talks produced a quite different outcome. The six powers settled for minor changes in Iran’s nuclear program in the hope of delaying the making of a bomb by Tehran for eight to 10 years. In other words the nuclear program remains largely intact. At the same time the issue of lifting the sanctions was also fudged through a complicated procedure that would see most of them fully or partly maintained for up to 15 years. Let’s sum up: The six powers didn’t get what they wanted on the nuclear issue. And Iran didn’t get what it wanted on sanctions.Instead, a third thing happened. Iran agreed to put itself under a form of tutelage exercised by the six powers with the blessings of the United Nations.
The “deal,” unveiled with great fanfare in Vienna, spells out the modalities of that tutelage in a 159-page document designed to camouflage reality. The document uses long convoluted lawyerly sentences sometimes running into more than 180 words. (This does not beat Marcel Proust’s record with a single sentence running into 492 words!) Under the “deal” Iran will be treated like a criminal put under probation with periodical assessments by the police.
To be sure, Iran did violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and admitted having done so. Iran also cheated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on several occasions, and again admitted it.
The NPT and the IAEA have well-established rules for dealing with that kind of violation and cheating. However, those rules do not include putting the culprit under tutelage as is being done with Iran.
There have been several cases of violations and cheatings by other countries, including Germany and South Korea. In none of those cases the culprit was subjected to punishment disproportionate to the “crime” as is the case with Iran.
In Iran’s case, however, the “crime” is used as an excuse for the six powers to control large chunks of the Iranian economy, its trade, industry, and, by extension, foreign policies.
This is done through a number of stratagems.
To start with, by keeping the Iranian “dossier” open for at least 15 years a message is sent to the whole world that Iran is not a “normal member” of the international community.
Who would wish to invest in a country that lives under the Damocles sword of “snap-back” sanctions and pariah-status for a generation?
Next, the six powers, acting as judge, jury and executioner, set up a commission to exercise oversight on Iran. That commission will meet every two years or earlier to assess the performance of the “criminal” under probation.
The commission has a veto with regard to 32 branches of Iranian industry and services, including oil, petrochemicals, aviation, automobile, banking, insurance, and shipping.
More broadly, the tutelage commission could intervene in all aspects of Iran’s foreign trade with the excuse of preventing Tehran from acquiring “dual use” items.
For at least five years, the six powers will also decide what kind of weapons Iran could buy.
More importantly, the six powers decide how much of Iran’ own oil income Iran could spend and on what. US President Barack Obama and his French counterpart François Hollande have publicly stated that Iran would not be allowed to spend as it pleases. The six powers commission may sign a check that goes to Qassem Suleimani but would not allow Suleimani to sign checks for Hassan Nasrallah.
In every case, of course, Iran could protest.
But its protest will also go to the six-power commission where decisions must be taken with a two-third majority. It is unlikely that the four Western powers on the commission, the US, France and Germany, will break ranks to please Iran. At the same time, Russia and China, sympathetic to Iran because of their own problems with the West, would be unable to do the mullahs a favor.
The so-called “deal” does not envisage mechanisms for impartial arbitration.
The six-power cabal even goes into details of micromanaging parts of Iran’s policies in a range of fields, including a veto on which Iranian officials, military chiefs, scholars, scientists, and businessmen could travel abroad and for what purpose.
It may sound a bit exaggerated but the Vienna “deal” means that it is the six-power cabal and not the “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei that would have the last world (fasl al-khitab) on important aspects of the Iranian policy. For example, the “Supreme Guide” cannot lift the travel ban on Gen. Suleimani; but the six-power cabal can.
Having treated a great nation like a common criminal, the six powers try to reassure the rest of the world that the punishment meted out to Iran is exceptional and should not become a precedent. They declare that in all other cases, nations violating the NPT would be dealt with under the rules of the treaty and not by an ad hoc group of big powers acting like a posse in Western movies.
Unless the mullahs secretly plan to ignore the “deal” as soon as world attention is diverted to other things, the scheme worked out in Vienna represents a humiliating chapter in Iran’s history. It could be described as a surrender that took two years to pull off. This view is shared by many in Iran, including some within the Khomeinist regime and, even, inside the negotiating team led by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Those suffering from the “humiliation” are known by their silence about what Rouhani is trying to market as “Islam’s greatest diplomatic history.” In Iran, people know who cheered and who didn’t.
And, at the time of this writing, even Khamenei has refused to endorse a “deal” that, again, unless he intends to cheat on it, knows will damage Iran’s independence and sovereignty.
The Vienna text is worse than the deal offered to Iran in talks with the P5+1 in Almaty, Kazakhstan, in February 2013. Iranian demagogues have imitated their Greek counterparts under Alexis Tsipras who rejected a bad deal before swallowing an even worse one.
Zarif, the man who led the Iranian negotiating team, is crowing about the recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent. The truth, however, is that every nation has the right to enrich uranium.
Zarif sets a precedent for Iran needing to secure the approval of the six-power posse before it is “allowed” to exercise its rights.
Zarif has been suggested for a Nobel Peace Prize and may get it. His critics claim that if he gets the prize it would be for capitulation, not peace. There are other examples of Nobels granted for capitulation, notably Yasser Arafat.
However, to blame everything on Zarif’s naiveté and lack of experience is unjust.
In the Khomeinist system, ministers and even presidents are often actors playing those roles. Real decisions are taken by a “deep state,” a network of military–security and clerical circles operating around the “Supreme Guide.”
Apologists of the ”deal” recall that the late Ruhallah Khomeini, the ayatollah who founded the regime, also drunk a “chalice of poison” when he accepted to end the war with Iraq in 1988.
That is not a fair comparison.
In 1988 all that Khomeini did was to shut his big mouth about “Going to Jerusalem via Karbala,” and stop the butchery of the war. He didn’t put any aspect of Iranian policy under foreign tutelage.
The Vienna “deal” was unveiled in Hotel Coburg which used to be a castle and often used as a military headquarters.
In 1683, it was the headquarters of six Christian princes, led by the King of Poland, who defeated the Ottomans and stopped Islam’s further expansion in Europe.

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