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/Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand
Matthew 12/22-32: "Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute; and he cured him, so that the one who had been mute could speak and see. All the crowds were amazed and said, ‘Can this be the Son of David?’But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, ‘It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons.’He knew what they were thinking and said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you.Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property, without first tying up the strong man? Then indeed the house can be plundered.Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Bible Quotation For Today/Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone.
First Letter to the Corinthians 12/01-11: "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans, you were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says ‘Let Jesus be cursed!’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit. Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses."

LCCC Latest analysis, editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 25-26/15
Britain's Irreconcilable Policy on Islam/Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/July 25/15
If the Iran Deal Fails/Robert Satloff/Politico/July 25/15
Critical Points To Consider In Understanding The Iranian Nuclear Deal/By: Y. Carmon, A. Braunstein, and A. Savyon/July 25/15
Lieberman: Netanyahu can’t handle the Iranian issue/Sima Kadmon/Ynetnews/July 25/15
Why Bibi’s still the bomb, even though he’s bombing/By GIL HOFFMAN/J.Post/July 25/15
Netanyahu steered US toward war with Iran – the result is a deal he hates/SHIBLEY TELHAMI/REUTERS/J.Post/July 25/15
ISIS: Why should we care about the acronym/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/July 25/15
New UAE anti-hate law blazes a trail/Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor/Al Arabiya/July 25/15
What choices after the Iran nuclear deal/Eyad Abu Shakra/Al Arabiya/July 25/15
Nasser’s legacy: Ideologies of expansive visions/Abdullah Hamidaddin/Al Arabiya/July 25/15
Water and electricity must not be killing weapons/Yara al-Wazir/Al Arabiya/July 25/15
Saudi Arabia: Tough Choices Ahead/Samir Altaqi & Esam Aziz/MEB/July 25/15
The Middle East: Now, Where to Go/Samir Altaqi & Esam Aziz/MEB/July 25/15
Between ISIL and the Kurds: Where Will Erdogan Go/Samir Altaqi & Esam Aziz/MEB/July 25/15

LCCC Bulletin titles for the Lebanese Related News published on July 25-26/15
Sayyed Nasrallah: Before and After Nuclear Deal, US Remains the Great Satan
Nasrallah Says No Change in Ties with Iran after Nuclear Deal, Urges Mustaqbal to Listen to FPM's Demands
Hezbollah, Syrian army want rebels to leave Zabadani “without weapons”, says opposition
Tensions in Ain el-Hilweh Following Assassination of Fatah Official
2 Lebanese Injured in Clash with Army in Bekaa, Scores of Syrians Arrested
Report: Akkar Rejects Usage of its Land for Trash Disposal after Years of Neglect
Civil Aviation Directorate Thwarts Burning of Garbage by Airport
Report: Italian Defense Minister to Visit Lebanon soon
Burning Trash Cuts Off Beirut Roads as Residents Block Akkar Highway
1 Killed, 1 Wounded after Car Fails to Halt at Tripoli Checkpoint

LCCC Bulletin Miscellaneous Reports And News published on July 25-26/15
Obama Says 'Africa on the Move' in Landmark Kenya Visit
Hamas Armed Wing Gives 25,000 Gazans Combat Training
French Beach Closed Off for Saudi king
Boko Haram Blamed for Killing 'at Least 25' in NE Nigeria
Saudi-led coalition declares 5-day Yemen truce
Turkey strikes PKK in Iraq and ISIS in Syria
Turkey attacks ISIS in Syria, Kurds in Iraq
Kurds 'Gain Ground in Syria's Hasakeh' in IS Fightback
Iran hits out at Kerry’s ‘empty threats’
Obama dines with extended family in Nairobi
Assad announces amnesty for Syrian army deserters
Egypt raises death toll from Nile boat collision to 35
French defense minister visits Egypt after warplane deal
Tunisia adopts ‘historic’ anti-terror law

Sayyed Nasrallah: Before and After Nuclear Deal, US Remains the Great Satan
Local Editor/Al Manat Hezbollah Site 25 July/15
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said Iran and Hezbollah, after the signing of a nuclear deal last week, remain the great concern in the region and that the US insistence on describing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is the proof. Sayyed NasrallahIn a speech delivered at the graduation ceremony of martyrs sons in Beirut, Sayyed Nasrallah said “the United States is the Great Satan, and will remain the Great Satan even after the Iran nuclear deal. And even after the nuclear deal was signed, their main concern remained Iran and Hezbollah. That's why [US President Barack] Obama and [Secretary of State John] Kerry talked about Hezbollah lately and described it as a terrorist organization. This insistence on accusing us of being a terrorist organization changes nothing.”
“We feel pride when the US, which we consider the Great Satan before and after the nuclear deal, penalizes us because we are defending our country against the Takfiri and Israeli schemes,” his eminence said.
Sayyed Nasrallah saluted the families of the martyrs who embraced their children and who were also martyred lately following the path of their fathers, announcing that a large number of martyrs’ sons are now in the ranks of the resistance and in the battle fronts.“People are spending Eid holidays peacefully, securely in a troubled region, this is a blessing! We should all mull in the reason of this security. It's all because of the martyrs, people, army and resistance. If it weren't for these sacrifices and blood, Lebanon wouldn't have been safeguarded from the Israeli and Takfiri threats.” “The first generation of resistance believed in the cause metaphysically, but this generation witnesses victories. This is the reason for the strong belief of this generation, the third generation of resistance, which the Israeli talks about. This is because it witnessed the victories,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. Since the onset of resistance, Sayyed Nasrallah indicated, there was a big scheme set against it, that is the endeavor by the US, Israel and some Arab regimes and their Lebanese tools to eliminate the resistance, and if they couldn’t, to weaken it. “They tried over and over again and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and waged some battles, but all resulted in failure.”As part of the psychological warfare against Hezbollah, Sayyed Nasrallah said some sides worked hard on distorting the image of Hezbollah by fabricating lies of drug trafficking and money laundering. The secretary general said there’s a US insistence on harming the Lebanese businessmen, calling upon the Lebanese authorities to assume its responsibilities before the US penalties imposed against the Lebanese merchants and businessmen, stressing that Hezbollah feels proud from the Islamic Republic moral and financial support. “These attempts and sanctions on Hezbollah members don't make a difference because they neither have money nor have made bank deposits in world banks. The Lebanese government have a responsibility in protecting the Lebanese but it's not doing so.”“There's a continuous attempt to undermine Hezbollah achievements since July victory and the victories taking place in Syria. The same side also accuses us of taking control over Lebanon or hindering the election of a president, these sides are renouncing facts that are admitted by the enemy itself,” his eminence pointed out, wondering how some in Lebanon doesn't consider the Takfiris as a threat. Sayyed Nasrallah denied the lies that Iran would abandon its allies, saying Iran’s ties with its allies are dogmatic. “Following the nuclear agreement, the Iranian president and other officials have reiterated that the country's stances towards Hezbollah would not alter.” He said Hezbollah doesn't need WikiLeaks to reveal that it receives money from Iran. "We say it out loud and with pride, and we thank it for all the moral and financial support." Concerning the waste crisis in Lebanon, his eminence said the waste management crisis was a proof of a catastrophic failure for the government. Trash has been piling up in the streets of Beirut and Mount Lebanon since last weekend when Lebanon's landfill in Naameh was shut down. “Before demanding of withdrawal of our arms we told them to build a state and they can’t manage to solve the waste crisis!” Sayyed Nasrallah warned against taking the country to vacuum, "because it means taking the country to the unknown."“This is an irrational and irresponsible, we want for this government to work and not to fall apart. Threats of resignation of the government change nothing. The only solution is for the political parties in the cabinet to hold dialogue,” his eminence said.“The Future Movement should come down from its ivory tower and go for dialogue with the FPM. The FPM has demands, and the Future Movement should discuss them. Unfortunately, they have insisted on turning their back,” he ended up saying.

Nasrallah Says No Change in Ties with Iran after Nuclear Deal, Urges Mustaqbal to Listen to FPM's Demands
Naharnet/25 July/15/Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah stressed Saturday that newly issued sanctions by the U.S. against the party's officials were only aimed at targeting the Lebanese in general and that Iran's support for Hizbullah would not change following a nuclear deal with it.“Sanctions on Hizbullah members don't make a difference because they neither have money nor have made deposits in banks worldwide,” Nasrallah said at the graduation ceremony of the sons and daughters of Hizbullah martyrs. “We are proud to be sanctioned by the U.S. which will remain the great Satan after the nuclear deal with Iran,” he said from the Shahed Educational Complex in Beirut's southern suburbs. On Tuesday, the U.S. Treasury Department slapped sanctions on three Hizbullah leaders and a Lebanese businessman. The action freezes the U.S. assets of all four and prevents Americans from engaging in transactions with them, it said. But Nasrallah said that Lebanese businessmen and businesses are being targeted by the sanctions.“The state and government have a responsibility in protecting the Lebanese but they are not doing so,” he stated.“We are proud of Iran's financial and moral support to us,” he said in his first speech after the deal that was signed by the U.S. and five other world powers last week in Vienna. “Since 1982 and since the launch of the resistance, there has been an effort by the U.S. and Israel through the cooperation of some Arab countries and some Lebanese tools to smash the resistance and if not possible to contain it and weaken it,” stated Nasrallah. After the nuclear deal, Obama reiterated that Hizbullah is a terrorist organization and stressed that the U.S. policy is aimed at confronting Hizbullah to appease Israel, he said. “There has been an objective to end the role of the resistance in Lebanon. But they have failed,” Nasrallah said. He stressed Iran's ties with its allies are “dogmatic,” denying that Tehran would “sell” them after the deal with the major powers. Following the nuclear agreement, “Iran's president and the rest of the officials have reiterated that the country's stances towards Hizbullah would not change,” said the party's secretary-general. “Neither killing our leaders, our women and children would change our path nor our moral murder and sanctions would affect us,” he added. Nasrallah also tackled in his speech, the waste management crisis which he described as “proof of a catastrophic failure.” “Is there a transparent management which is willing to collect waste with the least cost?” he asked. “I don't think so.”Uncollected trash has been piling up in the streets of Beirut and Mount Lebanon since last weekend when Lebanon's largest landfill that lies in the town of Naameh south of Beirut was shut down. Nasrallah also urged his rivals to engage in dialogue with his allies in the Free Patriotic Movement to resolve the country's political crisis. “The country will head towards vacuum,” he warned, saying al-Mustaqbal Movement should hold talks with the FPM to “listen to its demands.”The FPM has been seeking a change in the government's decision-making mechanism after accusing Prime Minister Tammam Salam of infringing on the authorities of the president.“We don't want the government to collapse,” said Nasrallah, adding that warnings about a possible resignation by Salam would lead to more vacuum.Lebanon has been without a head of state since Michel Suleiman's six-year term ended in May last year.

Hezbollah, Syrian army want rebels to leave Zabadani “without weapons”, says opposition
Representatives of 11 rebel factions are set to discuss the situation in Zabadani with Staffan de Mistura's deputy in Istanbul on Saturday
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat—25 July/15/The Syrian army and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters have in recent days stepped up attacks on the rebel-held Al-Zabadani in an effort to force opposition fighters to accept a deal that would see them leave the border city without their weapons, Asharq Al-Awsat has learned. “Hezbollah is pushing in the direction of a settlement that would allow fighters to leave the city of Zabadani without their weapons,” a Syrian opposition official told Asharq Al-Awsat. Zabadani, about 30 miles (45 kilometres) northwest of the capital Damascus, has been for weeks the target of a fierce campaign by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and members of the Lebanese militia. The capture of the city would consolidate government control over the Qalamoun area between Lebanon and Syria. “The militia has stepped up attacks on the rebel-held city since Wednesday after capturing Zabadani valley and blowing up a tunnel used by the rebels for supplies,” the official said. This comes after reports that Ahrar Al-Sham, a hardline Islamist group who controls parts of Zabadani, were in talks with international sides to secure “a safe exit” for its militants following weeks of heavy bombardment. But the source denied such claims, adding that Hezbollah is “pushing for a similar settlement.”He said: “But we cannot count on Hezbollah as it will break its promises.”“If an agreement was reached over rebels’ withdrawal from the city, their likely destination would be northern Syria where Ahrar Al-Sham enjoys strong influence,” he added. Activists from the city said rebels had made “limited progress” against government forces, capturing two positions on the road to the village of Serghaya. Meanwhile, aides to UN Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura will discuss the situation in Zabadani with 11 rebel factions, including Ahrar Al-Sham, in Istanbul on Saturday, German press agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA) has reported. The DPA quoted an unnamed Syrian opposition official as saying that de Mistura will be represented by his deputy Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy. Representatives of the rebel factions participating in the meeting will brief de Mistura’s deputy about massacres committed by the Syrian army in Zabadani and urge him to include the details in the report that the envoy is expected to submit to the UN by the end of July. More than 230,000 people have been killed and more than 1 million wounded since the Syrian crisis started in 2011.

Tensions in Ain el-Hilweh Following Assassination of Fatah Official
Naharnet/25 July/15/Tensions were high in the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain el-Hilweh on Saturday following news of the assassination of Fatah official Talal al-Ordoni, reported Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3) on Saturday. It said that al-Ordoni was killed by the Jund al-Sham group. Supporters of Fatah soon opened fire in the air upon hearing the news of his death. Jund al-Sham has yet to claim responsibility for the assassination, but VDL identified al-Ordoni's shooter as Bilal Badr, a member of the group. Badr was wounded in the assassination and he is in critical condition, added the radio station. The details of the assassination have not been disclosed. Meanwhile, Fatah commander Munir al-Maqdah condemned the assassination, saying: “Some sides do not want security and stability in Ain el-Hilweh.”“We will strike down with an iron fist those who tamper with our security,” he declared according to VDL (100.5). In May 2014, Ordoni survived an attempt on his life in Ain el-Hilweh in southern Lebanon. Ain el-Hilweh, the largest Palestinian camp in the country, is home to about 50,000 refugees and is known to harbor extremists and fugitives.By long-standing convention, the Lebanese army does not enter the country's 12 refugee camps, leaving security inside to the Palestinians themselves.

2 Lebanese Injured in Clash with Army in Bekaa, Scores of Syrians Arrested
Naharnet/25 July/15/The Lebanese army said on Saturday that it has arrested two wanted Lebanese men, who were injured during a gunfight in the eastern Bekaa Valley, and scores of Syrians wanted on several charges during raids it carried out across Lebanon. “While a military intelligence patrol was in the area of Mashareeh al-Qaa seeking to arrest citizens Jaafar Shafiq al-Hajj Hassan and Shadi Mohammed Kheir Karnabi, who were masked and riding a motorcycle, one of them opened fire from a Kalashnikov rifle at the patrol's members,” said a communique issued by the army command. The troops responded to the source of fire, injuring the two suspects, it said. Hajj Hassan and Karnabi were transported to hospital following the clash that took place on Friday night. The soldiers seized the rifle and ammunition, the communique added. At dawn Saturday, an army unit raided several areas in the same area, where it arrested Syrian Mohammed Bassem Khairallah on suspicion of belonging to a terrorist organization, in addition of five other Syrian nationals suspected of entering Lebanon illegally and of drug possession. The communique also said that 44 Syrians who had infiltrated Lebanon were arrested in the areas of Tariq Jedideh in Beirut, Meryata, Ehden and Kfardlaqous in Zgharta.

Report: Akkar Rejects Usage of its Land for Trash Disposal after Years of Neglect
Naharnet/25 July/15/Prime Minister Tammam Salam, a number of Mustaqbal Movement officials, and Environment Minister Mohammed al-Mashnouq have been studying potential solutions to the waste disposal crisis, with resorting to dumping the garbage in the northern region of Akkar as one of their options, reported the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat on Saturday. It said that Akkar officials have “adamantly refused” allowing its land to be used as an area of waste disposal “following years of neglect by politicians.” The talks over a solution have been tackled by Salam, Mustaqbal Movement chief MP Saad Hariri, head of the Mustaqbal bloc MP Fouad Saniora, Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq, and the Environment Minister. Their efforts were met by the rejection of Akkar officials, “who objected to politicians only remembering the area when it came to disposing trash.” The officials criticized the state for neglecting the maintenance of the sewage system and government hospital in the northern region. They also criticized it for the absence of any Lebanese University branches similar with other regions in the country, reported al-Hayat. Moreover, they said that the landfill project proposed by politicians does not have the proper barriers that would prevent the waste from seeping into ground water used for potable water in Akkar. The region's locals have declared that allowing the state to dispose the waste of Beirut and Mount Lebanon “will come at a price.” This issue was discussed in a meeting between Saniora and Akkar MPs Hadi Hbeish and Moeen al-Merhebi on Friday. The two lawmakers also addressed the matter with the Interior Minister. The minister sought to reassure the residents of Akkar, urging them “against viewing the politicians' proposals as a challenge.”For his part, Hbeish rejected any talk of dumping the waste in Akkar, reiterating the locals' condemnation of the state of negligence in the region. “It's not enough that it suffers from neglect, but now they are seeking to turn it into a dump instead of allowing it to prosper like over provinces,” he lamented. He called on the government “to take the bold and exceptional decision to treat Akkar equally with other areas regarding development projects that are desperately needed and that can no longer be delayed.”Beirut and the Mount Lebanon area were plunged in a waste disposal crisis following last week's closure of the Naameh landfill without finding an alternative. Garbage has been piling on the streets of the capital and Mount Lebanon after dumpsters overflowed with tons of trash. Some people have resorted to burning the waste to tackle the problem amid the government's ongoing failure to find a solution to the crisis.

Report: Fabius 'Cautiously Optimistic' over Tackling Presidential Deadlock during Iran Trip
Naharnet/25 July/15/French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius is expected to tackle during his upcoming visit to Iran Lebanon's presidential vacuum amid the ongoing disputes between its rival political camps, reported the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat on Saturday. A French source told the daily that the minister is “cautiously optimistic” over tackling the issue with Iranian officials with hope that it will facilitate staging of the polls. Fabius is scheduled to travel to Iran next week. France's Middle East envoy Jean Francois Girault had previously tested Iran's position on the presidential deadlock prior to Tehran's agreement with the West over its nuclear program, added al-Hayat. The deadlock was among the topics of discussion between Fabius and Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq, who met him in Paris on Thursday. The French source added that “all options are open at the moment”, including the possibility that Iran will stick to its position of supporting Hizbullah, which is backing the election of its ally Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun as president.
Fabius' visit will determine whether Tehran has altered this position since Girault's latest visit to Iran prior to the nuclear deal. The French source meanwhile described as “good and significant” the meeting between Fabius and Mashnouq. The foreign minister is in “constant contact” with the Saudi leadership “meaning “Fabius' Iran visit and communication with Riyadh could help move forward the Lebanon's presidential file,” an Arab diplomatic source told al-Hayat. Fabius had informed Mashnouq that France will exert “all possible efforts” to resolve this issue, it added. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing disputes between the rival March 8 and 14 camps over a compromise candidate have been thwarting the polls.

Civil Aviation Directorate Thwarts Burning of Garbage by Airport
Naharnet/25 July/15/The burning of garbage near the Rafik Hariri International Airport near Beirut's southern suburbs continued on Friday amid an outcry of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation Lebanon, reported al-Mustaqbal daily on Saturday. Concerned sources told the daily that the Civil Aviation had sent a memo to the Middle East Airports Services (MEAS) to tackle the burning of waste near the western runway of the facility. It requested that it cut access to the area where the garbage is being dumped and burned. The spot is located some four kilometers away from the airport and is the property of the Civil Aviation. MEAS has since relayed the memo to the Development and Reconstruction Council. Beirut and the Mount Lebanon area were plunged in a waste disposal crisis following last week's closure of the Naameh landfill without finding an alternative. Garbage has been piling on the streets of the capital and Mount Lebanon after dumpsters overflowed with tons of trash. Some people have resorted to burning the waste to tackle the problem amid the government's ongoing failure to find a solution to the crisis.

Report: Italian Defense Minister to Visit Lebanon soon
Naharnet/25 July/15/Italy's Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti is expected to pay a visit to Lebanon soon for talks with high-ranking officials, reported al-Joumhouria newspaper on Saturday. It said that she is scheduled to hold talks with Prime Minister Tammam Salam, Defense Minister Samir Moqbel, and Army Commander Jean Qahwaji. Discussions will focus on military cooperation with Lebanon, aid granted to its army, and the role played by the Italian contingent of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. Pinotti will visit the headquarters of the international force in the South, added al-Joumhouria. Her trip comes on the heels of one paid by Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni, who was in Lebanon some ten days ago.

Burning Trash Cuts Off Beirut Roads as Residents Block Akkar Highway
Naharnet/25 July/15/The growing garbage crisis prompted citizens to take to the streets and block roads in several regions on Friday, as uncollected trash continued to pile up in the streets. “A number of young men set ablaze Sukleen trash dumpsters in several areas of Beirut, which led to a partial closure of some roads,” state-run National News Agency reported. The roads were eventually reopened by security forces, NNA said. Health and environmental experts have warned of the hazards resulting from trash burning. In the North district, several young men blocked the Halba-Qobaiyat road at Kousha's intersection over reports that quantities of garbage will be transferred from Beirut to Akkar, the agency added.
The waste management crisis started growing after the closure of the main Naameh landfill south of Beirut last week. Beirut Municipal chief Bilal Hamad told Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3) that the capital does not have uninhabited areas that would be able to temporarily pile Beirut's waste. He also criticized officials outside Beirut for refusing to dump the waste in their areas. Hamad was likely referring to the northern district of Akkar, which has been seen as an area that can receive the garbage. But the proposal has been rejected outright by residents and several Akkar lawmakers. There has also been talks to send the waste of Beirut and Mount Lebanon to the southern city of Sidon. But its officials have warned against such an action. MP Mohammed Qabbani told An Nahar daily published on Friday that Prime Minister Tammam Salam and al-Mustaqbal Movement chief ex-PM Saad Hariri have backed the establishment of a Lebanese University campus in Akkar to lure the area's officials to accept waste being dumped there.On Thursday, the government failed to reach a decision on the crisis, postponing discussions until Tuesday.

1 Killed, 1 Wounded after Car Fails to Halt at Tripoli Checkpoint
Naharnet/25 July/15/One person was killed and another wounded when a vehicle failed to stop at an Internal Security Forces checkpoint in the northern city of Tripoli, reported the National News Agency on Saturday. It said that a gray Mercedes carrying four young men did not halt at mobile security forces checkpoint in Mina in Akkar, prompting the forces to open fire at the car. It led to the death of a man identified as A.S. and the injury of R.H. Their companions have since been arrested, while the wounded was taken to hospital for treatment. An investigation in the incident is underway. Residents of Mina who were angered by the development have since gathered in the area to protest the shooting.

Obama Says 'Africa on the Move' in Landmark Kenya Visit
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/25 July/15/U.S. President Barack Obama declared Saturday that "Africa is on the move", praising the spirit of entrepreneurship at a business summit on landmark visit to Kenya. Obama arrived in Kenya late on Friday, making his first visit to the country of his father's birth since he was elected president. "I wanted to be here, because Africa is on the move, Africa is one of the fastest growing regions in the world," Obama said, drawing cheers and applause from delegates. "People are being lifted out of poverty, incomes are up, the middle class is growing and young people like you are harnessing technology to change the way Africa is doing business," Obama said in his first official engagement in Nairobi. The U.S. embassy itself warned the summit could be "a target for terrorists", but Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, sharing the stage with Obama, said the event showed a different side of Africa. "The narrative of African despair is false, and indeed was never true," Kenyatta said. "Let them know that Africa is open and ready for business." In the afternoon Obama was welcomed at State House for talks with Kenya's government. On arrival he shook hands with Deputy President William Ruto, who is on trail at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague accused of crimes against humanity during post-election violence in 2007-08.Security, trade and human rights were all on the agenda.
A massive security operation was under way in Nairobi Saturday, with parts of the usually traffic-clogged capital locked down and airspace also closed for the president's landing on Friday and his scheduled departure late Sunday for neighboring Ethiopia. Top of the list of security concerns is Somalia's al-Qaida affiliate, the Shebab, who have staged a string of suicide attacks, massacres and bombings on Kenyan soil. Two years ago a Shebab assault on the Westgate shopping mall in the heart of the Nairobi left 67 dead. Obama also laid a wreath at the memorial site of the U.S. embassy destroyed in an al-Qaida attack in 1998, standing in silence in memory of the 224 killed in the twin bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania.
Massive security operation
Obama said he was delighted at the trip, which many Kenyans see as a "homecoming". "It is wonderful to be back in Kenya," Obama said, also greeting the summit with a few words of Swahili. "I'm proud to be the first U.S. president to visit Kenya, and obviously this is personal for me. My father came from these parts." Barack Obama Sr was a pipe-smoking economist who the U.S. leader has admitted he "never truly" knew. He walked out when Obama was just two and died in a car crash in Nairobi in 1982, aged 46. Excitement has been building in Kenya for weeks, with the visit seen as a major boost for the east African nation's position as a regional hub -- something that has taken a battering in recent years due to Shebab attacks and political violence that landed Kenyan leaders in the ICC. The visit is also the first ever to Kenya by a sitting U.S. president. At least 10,000 police officers have been deployed to the capital.Kenyatta greeted Obama as he stepped off Air Force One late Friday. The president's half-sister Auma was also on the tarmac to welcome him and travel in the bomb-proof presidential limousine, nicknamed "The Beast", for the drive to the hotel in the city center, where Obama dined with members of his extended Kenyan family.
Human rights on the agenda . Kenya is now the target of frequent Shebab attacks, while the country's Muslim-majority regions are facing a major recruitment drive by the militants. The United States is a key security partner for Kenya, which has troops in Somalia as part of the African Union force, and U.S. drones frequently target Shebab fighters -- killing the group's previous leader last year. A presidential visit to Kenya had been put on hold while Kenyatta faced charges of crimes against humanity for his role in the post-election violence. The ICC has since dropped the case, citing a lack of evidence and accusing Kenya of bribing or intimidating witnesses. Ruto, whose ICC trial continues, is an unapologetic homophobe and has in the past described gays as "dirty". Asked earlier this week whether gay rights would be discussed, Kenyatta insisted it was "a non-issue", but Obama, in an interview with the BBC, said he was "not a fan of discrimination and bullying" and that this would be "part and parcel of the agenda".On Sunday Obama will meet with members of Kenya's civil society, who have complained of growing restrictions in the country. He is not scheduled to visit his father's grave in the village of Kogelo in western Kenya, and bemoaned the heavy security restrictions earlier this month. "I will be honest with you, visiting Kenya as a private citizen is probably more meaningful to me than visiting as president, because I can actually get outside of the hotel room or a conference center," Obama said. But his visit has already had a lasting impact, with a batch of Kenyan newborn babies named in honor. Two new mothers in western Kenya named their sons after the president's jet, Air Force One.

Hamas Armed Wing Gives 25,000 Gazans Combat Training
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/25 July/15/The military wing of Hamas opened its Gaza summer camp on Saturday, aimed at providing basic combat training for 25,000 Palestinians in the embattled strip. Hamas, the de facto power in Gaza, is currently engaged in indirect contacts with Israel to try to reach a long-term truce, but a year after last summer's devastating 50-day war the militant movement has kept up the fighting talk. "The goal of these military training camps is to train the vanguard for liberation -- spiritually, intellectually and physically -- to be ready and able to play its role in liberation," said a statement by the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing. It said that participants, aged 15-60, would spend two weeks being "trained in military techniques and in firing live ammunition" as well as "first aid and rescue techniques." As with all the brigades' activities the camps will be conducted out of public and media sight. Rescue squads dealt with thousands of local victims during the war of July-Agust 2014, the third in Gaza in six years. Hamas has long run summer camps devoted to sport and study of the Koran in Gaza but over the winter the al-Qassam brigades launched a new kind of camp, giving military training to 15 to 20-year-olds. Human rights activists condemned it as a forced militarization of Gazan society and a violation of children's rights. Brushing off the criticism, the brigades are repeating the exercise with the summer camp, while raising the upper age limit to 60.

French Beach Closed Off for Saudi king
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/25 July/15/French authorities on Saturday closed off the beach in front of the Riviera villa of Saudi King Salman, a move that has incensed many locals as the seaside is normally open to the public. Authorities signed an order blocking access to about a kilometer (half a mile) of beach in front of the villa from 8:00 am on Saturday, with police officers blocking access. The ban had previously been scheduled to take effect when the king arrives later Saturday, but was brought forward to prevent an occupation of the beach before its controversial closure. Beach access is normally open in France, and tensions often flare when towns close them off partially by granting concessions for firms offering rentals of parasols and chairs. More than 100,000 people have signed a petition protesting the "privatization" of the beach in front of the Saudi king's villa. French authorities may close off beach access for security reasons, however. A ban on approaching closer than 300 meters (yards) of the villa by sea goes into effect later in the day. King Salman was due to arrive by private plane Saturday afternoon at Nice airport and head directly to the private villa in Vallauris, located between Cannes and Antibes, a source said. He is being accompanied by an entourage of more than 1,000 people.

Boko Haram Blamed for Killing 'at Least 25' in NE Nigeria
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/25 July/15/At least 25 people were killed in new suspected Boko Haram attacks in northeastern Nigeria, with many villagers also forced to flee their homes, residents said Saturday. "The terrorists stormed Maikadiri around 9:00 am (0800 GMT Friday) and opened fire on hapless citizens," resident Simon Templer said. "They laid siege in daylight because there are no soldiers or police nearby," said another survivor, Markus Ali, adding: "We counted 21 corpses." The attackers "killed, destroyed and then fled," Ali said. Two other villages close to Maikadiri in southern Borno state were also attacked, said Maina Ularamu, chief of the Madagali district.
"The gunmen arrived on 10 motorbikes, two or three on each bike and attacked Kopa, Maikadiri and Yaffa" villages, he told AFP. He said four people were killed in Yaffa. He claimed that the extremists used to live in the villages before joining Boko Haram. "Now they have no limits and they are preying on their own community because of the pressure the army offensive has put on them," Ularamu said. The villages hit are on the fringes of the vast Sambisa forest, a longstanding hideout of the Islamist insurgents. The Nigerian army has led a series of raids against them in recent months, succeeding in freeing several dozen women and children from the hands of the jihadists. Ularamu said the extremists may have been taking their revenge on their former neighbours. "The attacked their community because they would not let them back when the army attacked their camps. Those who tried to come back were denounced and arrested by the authorities," he said. Fatima Saleh, who lives in the neighbouring village of Maigana, told AFP she saw the attackers pass and recognised many of them as locals. Several state officials in the region have said this week that Boko Haram is still active in the forest despite the military offensive against them. A police officer in the Borno state capital Maiduguri confirmed the attacks while requesting anonymity. Templer said many homes were also destroyed in the attacks. "My aged mother is currently in the bush. Most of our people have fled and many houses and shops have been burnt," he said.
The Boko Haram insurgency and efforts to quell it have claimed more than 15,000 lives and displaced 1.5 million people since 2009. A new wave of violence has already killed more than 800 since Nigeria's new President Muhammadu Buhari took office in May pledging to stamp out the Islamists.

Saudi-led coalition declares 5-day Yemen truce
AFP, Riyadh/Saturday, 25 July 2015/The Saudi-led coalition that has bombed the militia Houthi group in Yemen since March unilaterally declared a five-day humanitarian truce from Monday to allow aid deliveries, the official Saudi Press Agency reported. The ceasefire will take effect from midnight on Sunday, a statement on Saturday said, with the coalition reserving the right to respond to “military activity or movement” by the Houthis. SPA said the decision was taken at the request of Yemen’s President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi, who has taken refuge in the Saudi capital with much of his government. Hadi, whose supporters have recaptured most of the southern port of Aden from the Houthi militia after four months of war, wanted the truce for the “delivery and distribution of the maximum amount of humanitarian and medical aid,” it said. Two previous ceasefires brokered by the United Nations failed to take hold.

Turkey strikes PKK in Iraq and ISIS in Syria
By AFP, Reuters
Saturday, 25 July 2015
Turkish forces on Saturday unleashed a third wave of airstrikes and ground attacks on targets of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group in Syria and Kurdish militants in northern Iraq, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said. “We have given instructions for a third series of strikes in Syria and Iraq. Air and ground operations are under way,” Davutoglu told reporters in Ankara. “No one should doubt out determination,” he added. “We will not allow Turkey to be turned into a lawless country.”Turkey had early Saturday carried out a second wave of the air strikes it says are aimed at extinguishing terror threats, this time hitting not just ISIS targets in Syria but also Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) targets in northern Iraq. The strikes against PKK targets are likely to be a major blow to the stalled Kurdish peace process.In a statement posted on the PKK website on Saturday, the group said truce with turkey has “no meaning anymore” after last night’s military attacks. Fighter jets hit PKK targets in several locations in northern Iraq, including warehouses, “logistic points,” living quarters and storage buildings, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s office said. The outlawed PKK, deemed a terrorist organization by Ankara and Washington, has waged a three-decade insurgency against Turkey for greater Kurdish autonomy.
First airstrikes in Syria
Along with the strikes in Iraq, Turkey launched its first-ever air attack against ISIS targets in Syria early on Friday, promising more decisive action against both the militant and Kurdish militants. Turkey stepped up its role in the U.S.-led coalition against the militant group ISIS on Friday. As well as launching its first air strikes against the hardliners in Syria, it promised to open up its air bases to the United States. In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the U.N. Security Council, Turkey justified its decision to conduct air strikes in Syria against ISIS militants claiming the Syrian government was neither capable nor willing to tackle the radical Islamist group. Turkey’s Deputy U.N. Ambassador Levent Eler cited Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which covers an individual or collective right to self-defense against armed attack, as justification for its action. “It is apparent that the regime in Syria is neither capable of nor willing to prevent these threats emanating from its territory which clearly imperil the security of Turkey and safety of its nationals,” he wrote in the letter, seen by Reuters. “Syria has become a safe haven for (ISIS). This area is used by (ISIS) for training, planning, financing and carrying out attacks across borders,” he added.
Raids on ISIS, PKK affiliates
Police also detained 590 suspected ISIS and PKK members in a crack down on Friday, Davutoglu said after vowing to fight all “terrorist groups” equally. Turkey’s more active role comes after a suspected ISIS suicide bomber killed 32 people, some of them Kurds, this week in the border town of Suruc. That touched off a wave of violence in the mainly Kurdish southeast, with the PKK killing at least two police officers, calling it retaliation for the suicide bombing. Many Kurds and opposition supporters have suspected Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and the ruling AK Party of covertly backing ISIS against Kurdish fighters in Syria, something the government has repeatedly denied. Separately, the Istanbul authorities on Saturday banned a planned anti-militant “peace march” scheduled to take place in the Turkish metropolis this weekend, citing security and traffic congestion. The pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) has hoped to rally thousands on Sunday for the protest to condemn violence by ISIS militants following a suicide bombing on Monday that killed 32.
But the Istanbul governor's office said in a statement that the rally had been banned due to “intense traffic” expected in the city and also “provocations” endangering security. The HDP confirmed in a statement that it had been forced to cancel the rally but vowed that “our struggle for peace and democracy will continue.” Erdogan took a big political risk in starting peace talks in 2012 with the Kurds, who represent nearly 20 percent of Turkey’s population, but they now blame him for backtracking on promises.
On Friday, Erdogan said he had told U.S. President Barack Obama that the PKK, which he calls a separatist organization, would be a focus for attacks.

Turkey attacks ISIS in Syria, Kurds in Iraq
Reuters/Ynetnews/Published: 07.25.15/Israel News
In policy turn-about, Erdogan allows coalition aircraft to use Turkish bases for attacks against ISIS while Turkish jets infiltrate Syria, Iraq.Turkish fighter jets entered Syrian airspace to launch a fresh attack on Islamic State targets late on Friday, local broadcaster NTV reported. A Turkish official could not confirm the report, although another broadcaster, CNN Turk, also reported that jets had entered Syrian airspace. A first attack on Islamic State targets on Friday morning was mounted by Turkish jets from a location inside Turkey, but close to the border. An additional Turkish air strike took aim at Kurdish PKK militants in northern Iraq Friday night. Ankara also said it had approved the use of its air bases by US and coalition aircraft to mount strikes against Islamic State, marking a major change in policy that has long been a sore point for Washington. Turkey has long been a reluctant partner in the US-led coalition against Islamic State, emphasizing instead the need to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and saying Syrian Kurdish forces also pose a grave security threat.
But Friday's attacks, which officials said were launched from Turkish air space, signaled that Ankara would crack down against Islamic State across the Syrian border, while pursuing the banned Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) - which Ankara describes as a separatist organization - at home. "In our phone call with Obama, we reiterated our determination in the struggle against the separatist organization and the Islamic State," Erdogan told reporters. "We took the first step last night." Turkey has faced increasing insecurity along its 900-km (560-mile) frontier with Syria. A cross-border firefight on Thursday between the army and Islamic State, which has seized large areas of Syria and Iraq, left five militants and one soldier dead.
Turkey has also suffered a wave of violence in its largely Kurdish southeast after a suspected Islamic State suicide bombing killed 32 people, many of them Kurds, in the town of Suruc on the Syrian border this week. But Erdogan's critics say he is more concerned with keeping Syrian Kurdish fighters in check, afraid that gains they have made against Islamic State in the Syrian civil war will embolden Turkey's own 14 million-strong Kurdish minority. "Even though Erdogan has so far failed to achieve his goals in Syria - the overthrow of Assad - and Islamic State has become a problem, it is nevertheless a convenient instrument for him," said Halil Karaveli, managing editor of The Turkey Analyst, a policy journal. "Now he has all the excuses he needs to go after the Kurds and also it makes him look very good in the eyes of the US, which will be happy that Turkey is on board in the coalition." Opposition lawmakers from the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party said Erdogan is intent on "obstructing" the advances made by the Syrian Kurds against Islamic State.
"The real aim of today's operations is not the Islamic State, but the democratic opposition," they said in an e-mailed statement.News of the military operations further unnerved jittery investors, helping send the lira down nearly 4 percent on the week.
"Without distinction"
Three F-16 fighter jets took off from a base in Diyarbakir, southeastern Turkey, early on Friday and hit two Islamic State bases and one "assembly point" before returning, the prime minister's office said. "We can't say this is the beginning of a military campaign, but certainly the policy will be more involved, active and more engaged," a Turkish government official told Reuters. "But action won't likely be taken unprompted." Police also rounded up nearly 300 people in Friday's raids against suspected Islamic State and Kurdish militants, Prime Minister Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said after vowing to fight all "terrorist groups" equally. Local media reported that helicopters and more than 5,000 officers, including Special Forces, were deployed in the operation. Anti-terror police raided more than 100 locations across Istanbul alone, broadcasters CNN Turk and NTV reported. One senior official told Reuters: "This morning's air strike and operation against terrorist groups domestically are steps taken as preventive measures against a possible attack against Turkey from within or from outside ... There has been a move to active defense from passive defense."Turkey has repeatedly said it will take any "necessary measures" to protect itself from attack by both Islamic State and Kurdish militants. Obama and Erdogan agreed in their call on Wednesday to work together to stem the flow of foreign fighters and secure Turkey's border. US defense officials said on Thursday that Turkey had agreed to allow manned US planes to stage air strikes against Islamic State militants from an air base at Incirlik, close to the Syrian border. US drones are already launched from the base. Turkey's Foreign Ministry went further on Friday, saying it had approved coalition strikes to be launched from its air bases. That would include air fields such as the one in Diyarbakir, southeast Turkey, from where it dispatched the F-16 fighters for the attack in Syria. The ability to fly manned bombing raids out of Incirlik against targets in nearby Syria could be a big advantage. Such flights have so far had to fly mainly from the Gulf. Turkey's stance had frustrated some of its NATO allies, including the United States, whose priority is fighting Islamic State rather than Assad. The allies have urged Turkey to do more to prevent its border being used as a conduit to Syria by foreign jihadists.

Kurds 'Gain Ground in Syria's Hasakeh' in IS Fightback
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/25 July/15/Kurdish militia have expanded their control over portions of a major Syrian city in their fightback against the Islamic State group, to the detriment of government forces there, a monitor said Saturday. "The Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) are advancing in Hasakeh city against IS and at the expense of the regime," said Rami Abdel Rahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The YPG and government forces have both been defending the city from an IS assault, which began last month. The Britain-based Observatory said the YPG now controls a majority of the metropolis, despite Kurds making up just under a third of its population. "The YPG control 70 percent of Hasakeh city, IS controls 10 percent and the regime controls 20 percent," Abdel Rahman told Agence France Presse. Before the IS began its offensive by seizing territory in southern neighborhoods from regime forces, the Kurdish militia controlled less than half of Hasakeh. When the YPG pushed the jihadists out of some of these areas, they maintained control of them. The YPG also directly expanded into areas held by loyalists in the city center, although it did not engage in clashes with them. The militia now hold territory in Hasakeh north, west, center and south, said Abdel Rahman, with IS left "surrounded" in four small neighborhoods in the south. More than 230,000 people have been killed in Syria since anti-government protests erupted in March 2011 before degenerating into civil war.

Iran hits out at Kerry’s ‘empty threats’
By AFP | Tehran/Saturday, 25 July 2015/Iran hit out Friday against U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, accusing him of threatening military action against Tehran if it fails to respect a historic nuclear deal sealed on July 14.“Unfortunately the U.S. Secretary of State once again talked about the rotten rope of ‘the ability of the U.S. for using military force’,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in a statement. Zarif decried what he called the “uselessness of such empty threats against the nation of Iran and the resistance of the nation of Iran”, and said such remarks should be consigned “to the last century”. Despite the agreement reached with Iran on putting the nuclear bomb out of Tehran’s reach, several U.S. officials, including Defence Secretary Ashton Carter, have signalled that military force remains on the table to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Kerry and other American officials “have repeatedly admitted that these threats have no effect on the will of the people of Iran and that it will change the situation to their disadvantage,” Zarif claimed.
“Therefore, it would be better for Americans to abandon their old habit and put aside once and for all their threatening language and sanctions against this great people,” he added. Under the July 14 agreement, Iran has agreed to dismantle or mothball much of its nuclear industry in return for an easing and eventual lifting of sanctions. World powers have called it a historic opportunity to set relations with Iran on a new path.

Obama dines with extended family in Nairobi
AFP, Nairobi/Saturday, 25 July 2015/U.S. President Barack Obama’s gathered with members of his extended family in Nairobi Friday, kicking off a two day visit to his father’s native Kenya. Obama’s familial connections to the East African nation were on display as soon as Air force One touched down in Nairobi, with the president’s sister Auma Obama among those assembled to greet him. The pair shared a warm embrace, before heading to a hotel where America’s first black president met more members of his extended family for dinner. Among those gathered were his step-grandmother, Mama Sarah, whom he calls “Granny”. Obama is linked to his Kenyan family via his father Barack senior, a pipe-smoking economist who Obama has admitted he “never truly” knew. He walked out when Obama was just two and died in a car crash in Nairobi in 1982, aged 46. Obama senior had worked in the government of Jomo Kenyatta, who led Kenya at independence from Britain until his death 14 years later in 1978. The two men did not get on well, with Kenyatta -- the father of Kenya’s current president Uhuru Kenyatta -- sacking Obama senior, and blackballing him for further government jobs, an ostracisation that would help fuel alcoholism.Obama is not expected to visit the small town in Western Kenya where his father was born and is buried. This is Obama’s first trip to Kenya since becoming president.

Assad announces amnesty for Syrian army deserters
By Reuters | Beirut/Saturday, 25 July 2015/Syrian President Bashar al-Assad issued a decree announcing a general amnesty for military deserters who violated the country's compulsory military conscription law, state television said on Saturday. The decree, which was announced on state television, said the law that would lift legal penalties against thousands of army deserters, applied to those outside and inside Syria. The Syrian army, one of the region's largest, has been overstretched by a four-year long insurgency where it is battling on several major fronts Islamist rebels and ultra-hardline jihadist militants who have seized large swathes of territory. Many young men have fled the country or find ways to avoid conscription.

Egypt raises death toll from Nile boat collision to 35
By AP, AFP | Cairo/Saturday, 25 July 2015
Egypt's Health Ministry says four more bodies have been retrieved from the Nile River from a boat collision earlier this week, bringing the death toll to 35 people killed.
Ministry spokesman Hossam Abdel-Ghaffar told The Associated Press that the search efforts continued on Saturday.
The collision late on Wednesday night happened when a passenger boat traveling down the Nile near Cairo collided with a scow, causing the boat to capsize. The victims had been celebrating an engagement on the vessel, one of many Egyptians rent on the Nile for outings and celebrations. The captain of the cargo boat and his assistants were arrested following the accident late on Wednesday in the Warraq district north of Cairo, the authorities said. Traffic on the Nile has been heavy, especially near Cairo, as Egyptians celebrated the Eid al-Fitr holiday following the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The Nile river, which runs along the length of Egypt, is dotted with cargo ships, party boats and fishing vessels. In 2011, at least 22 people drowned in southern Egypt when a bus they were in fell into the Nile from a ferry which crashed into the river bank.

Egypt begins first trial run of ‘new Suez Canal’
By Cairo | AFP/Saturday, 25 July 2015/Egypt began on Saturday the first trial run of its "new Suez canal," officials and state media said, ahead of the formal inauguration of the new shipping route next month. Dubbed the Suez Canal Axis, the new 72 km project is aimed at speeding up traffic along the existing waterway by reducing the waiting period of vessels, as well as boosting revenues for Egypt. It will run part of the way along the existing canal that connects the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. "The first trial run for ships passing through the new Suez Canal started on Saturday," state news agency MENA reported. Officials said six vessels in two fleets of three each were scheduled to cross through the expanded canal as part of the first trial run. The fleet sailing from south to north had vessels flying flags of Singapore, Luxembourg and Bahrain. Those sailing from north to south had flags from Liberia, Singapore and Hong Kong. The new waterway involves 37 km of dry digging and 35 km of expansion and deepening of the Suez Canal, in a bid to help speed up the movement of vessels. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi launched the project in August and set an ambitious target of digging the expanded canal within a year. A ceremony will be held on August 6 to officially inaugurate the project. The new route is considered a "national project" that aims to kick-start an economy battered by years of political turmoil since the ouster of president Hosni Mubarak in 2011 Authorities raised $9 bln to build the new canal by selling shares in the project to domestic investors, with private Egyptian companies tasked with its construction. It is expected to more than double Suez revenues from $5.3 billion expected at the end of 2015 to $13.2 bln in 2023, according to official estimates. Built 146 years ago, the Suez Canal is one of the world's most heavily used shipping lanes and has been a key source of international trade.

French defense minister visits Egypt after warplane deal
By AFP | Cairo/Saturday, 25 July 2015/French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian began a two-day visit to Cairo on Saturday, days after France delivered the first batch of 24 Rafale warplanes Egypt had bought in a multi-billion-euro deal. Le Drian, who is currently on a tour of Africa, is to hold talks with Egypt's President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi and other Egyptian officials during his trip. The visit comes after Egypt took delivery of three of 24 Rafale fighter jets it bought from France in a $5.6 bln deal. Egypt bought the jets to boost its military capability in the face of an unstable Libya to the west and the threat posed by the Islamic State group in the Sinai Peninsula. The deal also includes contracts for missiles and for a frigate from naval group DCNS. "The minister will discuss the deliveries of hardware" to Egypt following the Rafale deal, a French official said ahead of Le Drian's visit. Le Drian met with his counterpart Sedki Sobhi, and will hold talks with Sisi and other Egyptian officials which are expected to discuss the conflict in Libya, officials said. Since the fall of dictator Moamer Kadhafi's regime in 2011, Libya is in chaos, with two rival governments vying for power and jihadists taking advantage of the situation to gain ground. In February Egypt carried out air strikes inside Libya targeting IS jihadists after the group released a video showing the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians, all but one of them Egyptians, on a beach in Libya. Since the airstrikes Sisi has pushed for a joint Arab military force to fight jihadists in the region. In May Egypt hosted a four-day meeting of Libyan tribal leaders to explore ways of uniting warring parties and bring peace to its oil-rich neighbour.

Tunisia adopts ‘historic’ anti-terror law
By AFP | Tunis/Saturday, 25 July 2015/The Tunisian parliament adopted a new “anti-terror” law overnight Friday aimed at beefing up powers to confront a militant threat following deadly attacks claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group. The law was adopted after three days of debate by 174 members of parliament with ten abstentions and no votes against, according to an AFP tally. The president of the assembly, Mohamed Ennaceur, called the passing of the law an “historic” moment and said it would “reassure” the nation’s citizens. The new legislation comes after a gunman massacred 38 tourists on a Tunisian beach in an attack claimed by ISIS on June 26. In March an attack on the Bardo museum in the capital Tunis that was also claimed by IS left 21 tourists dead. While the law was widely supported by both secular and Islamist parties, it was strongly criticized by civil society and NGOs. Critics condemned the fact the law brings back capital punishment for a number of offences, after a de facto quarter-century moratorium on executions. They also questioned the powers the law accords the authorities, allowing them to detain suspects for 15 days without access to a lawyer or being brought before a judge. The bill would also make it easier for investigators to use phone-tapping against suspects and make public expressions of support for terrorism a jailable offence. Describing it as draconian, advocacy groups have said the law’s definition of terrorist crimes is too vague and it fails to adequately safeguard the rights of defendants and could undermine freedoms.

Britain's Irreconcilable Policy on Islam
Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/July 25, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6218/britain-islam
The real question is why, when it comes to the most extreme, anti-Western nation-destroyer of them all -- a country committed to the annihilation of a UN member state -- Her Majesty's government would not only permit it to have any nuclear project, but would trust the word of a regime with stated genocidal intent when it says that it is not pursuing genocidal weaponry?
Two very interesting things happened in Britain over the last two weeks. What makes them more interesting is that they are wholly contradictory. Abroad, Britain's foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, put his nation's name to the P5+1 agreement with Iran, lifting sanctions against the Islamic Republic, unfreezing its assets, lifting arms controls on the regime and much, much more, all in exchange for having potential oversight -- with permission requested weeks in advance of any inspection -- of the country's nuclear sites. Britain's signature on this deal appears to have been an accepted and acceptable outcome with no significant opposition from any senior political figure of either main political party, and very little objection in the national press. A few days later, Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave his best speech to date on the threat of Islamic extremism at home and abroad. In that speech, the Prime Minister defined the challenge that Islamic extremism poses to Britain's way of life and cohesion as a society. He outlined the problem better than perhaps any other Western leader to date:
"What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine. And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end, it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim... mostly violence against fellow Muslims -- who don't subscribe to its sick worldview. But you don't have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish. Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality. Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation." So how does the Prime Minster's domestic speech on extremism fit with the foreign policy goals currently being pursued by the British government? The most straightforward answer is: They don't. Take that lowest rung of what David Cameron rightly sees as an ideological ladder. That is, the ideas which do not pertain to the destruction of whole nation-states but nonetheless demonstrate an extremist mind-set.
In a recent interview, the UK's Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, was asked for an example of what might constitute warning signs of radicalization in a young person. Her answer was that being "extremely intolerant of homosexuality" might be just such a warning sign. Asked whether she thought that a pupil who thought homosexuality was "evil" should be reported to the police, the Education Secretary said that it would "depend very much on the context of the discussion."By these lights, the Islamic Republic of Iran would most certainly have to be said to display signs of extremism. Indeed, given the circumstances, a referral to the police might be the only option. The Iranian regime does not simply think that homosexuality is "evil," it acts on this sentiment by hanging homosexual people from cranes in public squares. In the last year and a half alone, the regime has hanged more than a thousand people found "guilty" of this "crime," among similar offenses. Iran has also jailed others for the "crime" of being a Christian pastor, a former American marine, or a journalist for the Washington Post.
Another of Cameron's warning signs, a hostility to "sexual equality" would also appear to be among the regime's failings. As no less a figure than America's Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, said earlier this year, when Iran was attempting to join the UN's gender equality body, "In Iran, women are legally barred from holding some government positions, there are no laws against domestic violence, and adultery is punishable by stoning." This is the most diplomatic summary of Iran's subjection of women, but as Power said, these matters, among others, make Iran wholly inappropriate for membership in any gender equality body. In the eyes of the British government, they would also make the Iranian government's attitudes extremist.
Of course, the same Iranian government would fail any British inspectorate's tests in relation to other types of "discrimination, sectarianism and segregation," as David Cameron says. The Iranian government's treatment, for instance, of Iranian citizens who do not adhere to their own particular interpretation of Islam could hardly be said to be liberal. Not only are people of the Baha'i faith horribly and consistently persecuted (to select only one group), but in Iran, apostasy and blasphemy laws remain on the books, which mean that anybody convicted of believing anything other than the beliefs of the Ayatollahs can be hanged in public from cranes -- and they are. But these are all among the lowest rungs of the extremist ladder. In Prime Minister Cameron's perfectly accurate definition of "the furthest end" of extremism, it consists of "seek[ing] to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm." For an example of which one need go no further than a speech given by another world leader, only three days before David Cameron's speech.
Last Friday, just before Cameron's speech, and only days after the signatories in Vienna were rejoicing over their deal, a senior Iranian cleric, Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani, was selected by the country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to deliver Friday prayers in Tehran. He did so -- at this state-run occasion -- while standing on a podium festooned with the words, "We Will Trample Upon America." The words "We defeat the United States" could also be seen in images from the rally. Left: Senior Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani, speaking on July 17 in Tehran, behind a banner reading "We Will Trample Upon America" and "We defeat the United States." Right: Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, proclaims "Death to America" on March 2.
Meanwhile, only four days after the signing of the Vienna agreement, the Supreme Leader of Iran himself appeared on Iranian state television, praised the "magnificent Iranian people" for calling for the destruction of Israel and America, and said that he hoped that Allah would answer their prayers. Ayatollah Khamenei was referring to the previous week's official day of particular anti-Israel activity called "Al-Quds Day". Khamenei said in his speech, "You heard the chants of 'Death to Israel', 'Death to the US.' You could hear it... So we ask Almighty God to accept these prayers by the people of Iran." His speech was punctuated by cries of 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel'.
Everybody who knows anything about foreign policy understands its complexities. Perhaps it is not surprising that behaviour that would get you designated an "extremist", "subversive" and even "terrorist" at home might have to be viewed differently abroad. After all, the regime in Saudi Arabia -- an ally of the UK and US -- could hardly be said to be the world's foremost defender of human rights. So perhaps the double standard is understandable. Perhaps behaviour that is extreme at home must be tolerated abroad. But the question really is not why the UK government is willing to maintain a double standard. The real question is why, when it comes to the most extreme, anti-Western nation-destroyer of them all -- a country committed to the annihilation a UN member state -- Her Majesty's government would not only permit it to have any nuclear project, but would trust the word of a regime with stated genocidal intent when it says that it is not pursuing genocidal weaponry?

If the Iran Deal Fails...
Robert Satloff/Politico/July 25/15
Congressional rejection of the nuclear deal wouldn't be pretty, but a messy domestic political battle is a far cry from the president's warnings of potential war with Iran. I have not yet decided whether the costs of the Iran nuclear agreement are worth its advantages. But I have reached one conclusion -- President Obama's argument that "the alternative to this agreement is war" is wrong. Let us assume that Congress overrides the president's veto of a resolution disapproving the deal. What happens the day after? The president said that the congressional vote not only vitiates the agreement but destroys all international constraints on Iran's nuclear program, after which the Iranians will race toward a bomb. That development, so this argument goes, would launch a regional nuclear arms race and likely trigger either American or Israeli military action to stop Iran's march toward a bomb. With Iran likely to respond in either case by launching thousands of Hezbollah missiles into Israel, the result is war.
But is that really the most likely chain of events? No.
Faced with what would be a revolt in his own party, let alone near-universal Republican opposition, the president might have second thoughts about the Vienna deal. If he still wanted to salvage a nuclear agreement, this could compel him to go back to the bargaining table -- first with his P5+1 partners and then with Iran -- to secure certain improvements. These could include, for example, less time for Iran to delay inspections; a longer period for the maintenance of the arms embargo; or clear and agreed consequences spelled out for various types of Iranian violations. In other words, a vote for disapproval may just force the president to seek the proverbial "better deal." But let's say that the president holds firm to the current text, despite ignominious defeat on his flagship foreign policy achievement. Remember precisely what Congress will be voting on -- to constrain the president's ability to waive sanctions on Iran. That's all. He will still have the prerogatives of his office to seek execution of the deal in other ways.
In that case, I believe the likely scenario would be as follows:
The administration has said it will seek U.N. Security Council endorsement of the Vienna accord in the coming days. That means the agreement will be enshrined in international law well before Congress acts, though that Security Council resolution will be timed so as not to take effect until after Congress votes on the deal. Then, in early September, let's say Congress votes to override the president's veto. Then, a determined president will still go to the annual convening of the U.N. General Assembly and announce that he will do everything in his power to execute the agreement. If Congress won't let him waive sanctions, then -- as he did with deportations of certain illegal aliens -- he will order the State and Treasury Departments to focus their enforcement powers elsewhere. Congress will fume; a legal battle looms.But even at that point, the United States is still not in violation of the agreement. According to the deal, the next step is that Iran has to implement its nuclear restrictions -- mothballing centrifuges, redesigning the Arak plutonium reactor, etc. -- to the satisfaction of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Most experts estimate that will take at least six months. Only after the IAEA certifies that Iran has met its requirements are the P5+1 countries and the United Nations required to implement their commitments to terminate (or, in America's case, suspend) sanctions.
In other words, even if Congress denies the president waiver authority on Iran sanctions in September, he wouldn't begin to use that authority until next spring, at the earliest. At that point, when he tries to make an end-run around Congress, Messrs. Boehner and McConnell can be expected to take their case to court. Eventually, the Supreme Court will decide. Perhaps the president will still be in office; perhaps he won't. What does Iran do during this domestic political contest here in the United States? Does it chuck its enormous diplomatic achievements in Vienna for a mad dash toward a bomb? Highly unlikely. My hunch is that Iran will seek to exploit our internal squabbles to isolate America from its own negotiating partners.
"We are very sorry to see small minds in Congress try to snuff out hopes for peace and mutual security," savvy Iranian diplomats will say. "But we will not let them. Therefore, we will continue to abide by the terms of the agreement." That's the best way for Iran to make sure that the European Union and the United Nations terminate their sanctions and, along the way, deepen divisions between Washington and its major allies. So, let's put this issue into context. Congressional rejection of the Iran deal won't be pretty. While it might convince the president to seek "a better deal" to win legislative support, we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that we can just go back to square one with negotiations or that we can keep the current sanctions regime in place as if the past two years of diplomacy never happened. We will be in a different place, much grayer than before. But that messiness is a far cry from war. In my view, the only war that may ensue from a congressional vote of disapproval is a war of words between our legislative and executive branches, eventually adjudicated by the Supreme Court. In other words, the worst-case scenario will be business as usual in Washington.
**Robert Satloff is executive director of The Washington Institute.

Critical Points To Consider In Understanding The Iranian Nuclear Deal
By: Y. Carmon, A. Braunstein, and A. Savyon*
The Middle East Media Research Institute/July 24, 2015
Introduction
The following analysis is the first in a series which will discuss the Iranian nuclear deal and will examine the JCPOA from the American perspective. It will focus on the components of the JCPOA as a legal document. It will also draw on United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2231 which endorsed the JCPOA for reference. It will not discuss possible future implications, nor does it mean to be an overall assessment of the deal.
It should be emphasized that, contrary to how it is perceived, the JCPOA is not a bilateral or multilateral contract between the United States and/or Europe and Iran. Nothing has been signed and nothing is judicially binding between any of the parties. It is a set of understandings that was sent to a third party, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), for endorsement. This structure is a result of Iran's insistence to not sign any bilateral or multilateral contract.
JCPOA Provisions Prevent Future Inspection Of Military Sites[1]
The provisions of the agreement can be interpreted to prevent the inspection of military sites rather than enable inspection. The provisions for inspection by the IAEA create two categories:
The first category dictates that inspectors may request to enter a site that is suspected of having nuclear material. There is a subsequent process that the IAEA must go through in order to access that site, involving a back-and-forth exchange of requests and explanations with Iran. If an agreement cannot be reached, the Joint Commission, which is composed of the E3/EU+3 and Iran,[2] can decide on the appropriate means to resolve the issue within 7 days on the basis of 5 votes out of its 8 members, and Iran must implement the decision within 3 days.
The second category distinguishes military sites from the other sites to which the IAEA may request access by stating, "…such requests [for access] will not be aimed at interfering with Iranian military or other national security activities."[3] This provision effectively excludes a priori sites where Iran can claim that the IAEA is interfering with its military or national security activities. Therefore, the process described in the first category which would force Iran to submit to inspection at the end of the 24-day request period does not apply.[4]
The provisions of the JCPOA also stipulate that the IAEA will have to "make available relevant information"[5] when explaining why they want access to a site. This provision may serve as a basis for delay and obfuscation of access by Iran, claiming that it needs relevant sources of intelligence revealed, as it has done in the past.
Duration Of Sanctions Could Be Less than 8 Years Dependent On Report From The Director General Of The IAEA
The JCPOA establishes an option to make Transition Day arrive sooner than the specified 8 year time period by saying, "Transition Day will occur 8 years from Adoption Day or upon a report from the Director General of the IAEA to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the UN Security Council stating that the IAEA has reached the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier."[6] There is no time limitation regarding in which year the Director General of the IAEA could provide this report.
Re-Imposition Of Sanctions Dependent On Security Council
The Security Council adopted UNSCR 2231 on July 20, 2015. Articles 11 and 12 of the resolution stipulate that the re-imposition of sanctions in case of "non-performance" by Iran may occur. However, the final sentence in Article 12 provides a loophole so that sanctions may not re-imposed by saying, "…unless the Security Council decides otherwise."[7]
Accumulation Of Natural Uranium Permitted Equal To Present Amount Of Enriched Uranium
The provisions of the JCPOA stipulate that Iran will have to dispose of its 10 tons of low-level enriched uranium either by transferring it to Russia or by selling it in the commercial market. It also stipulates that the amount of enriched uranium that Iran is allowed to have cannot exceed 300 kilograms for 15 years. While the provisions are designed to inspect Iran's uranium mining facilities, supply chain, and the quantity of enriched uranium it possesses, it allows Iran to trade its enriched uranium for equal amounts of natural uranium for 15 years. This uranium could be enriched to higher, weapons-grade levels after the 15 year time limit.
PMD Investigation: Iran Demanded Only To Help In Process, Results Will Not Impact Implementation Of JCPOA
The provisions in the JCPOA demand only that Iran collaborate with the IAEA in the process of verification of the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) in order for the process of lifting sanctions to begin. It is indifferent about the results, i.e. it makes no mention of what would happen if the verification process were to discover that Iran had previously attempted to develop nuclear weapons.[8]
Parchin Investigation Put Into Secrecy
Under the JCPOA, the handling of the Parchin issue has been put into secrecy. Parchin is an example of suspected nuclear weaponization activity that took place in a military base.[9] Not revealing the details of the case conceals Iran's attempt to build a military option contrary to its repeated denials of such allegations.[10]
Arak Remains Heavy Water Facility, Authorized For Heavy Water Export
The Arak facility houses Iran's heavy water production plant and a heavy water reactor. Despite the vague wording regarding the state of the reactor following the endorsement of the JCPOA (i.e. Iran will "redesign" the reactor and it will be "modernised"),[11] it will still continue to operate partly using heavy water. In addition, "All excess heavy water will be made available for export to the international market."[12]
Interview Of Military Scientists Excluded From JCPOA
The Western demand in the negotiations that Iran allow the interviewing of Iranian nuclear scientists was excluded altogether from the JCPOA.
*Y. Carmon is President and Founder of MEMRI; A. Braunstein is a Research Fellow at MEMRI; A. Savyon is Director of the MEMRI Iranian Media Project.

Lieberman: Netanyahu can’t handle the Iranian issue
Sima Kadmon/Ynetnews/Published: 07.25.15/ Israel News
Avigdor Lieberman, who until recently was a foreign minister in Netanyahu's government, doesn't mince words when talking about his former ally now; 'to handle the Iranian issue, you need to be creative, determined, and know how to make difficult decisions, Netanyahu has none of this.'"We don't need to form an committee of inquiry; we need to replace the prime minister," says MK Avigdor Lieberman, who until recently was the foreign minister in Netanyahu's government and the man that for years was the prime minister's close confidant and ally. Lieberman, was answering the question whether he too, like Lapid, thinks there should be a committee of inquiry that would examine the agreement with Iran, responding in the same monotone, slightly drowsy voice with which he answers questions like; "how are you?" or "how do you feel sitting in the opposition?""Netanyahu cannot handle the Iranian issue," he says. "And I say this in the clearest way. It's too big for him, this entire issue. I could use all the clichés: 'If you want to shoot, shoot, don't talk' or 'a barking dog doesn't bite.' But the bottom line is that we talked about all of the options so much, that no one is taking us seriously anymore. And now when we start talking about this again, they just laugh at us."Don't be fooled: Lieberman thinks the deal with Iran is bad. Not just bad, terrible. Not just in the practical sense, but also in the moral sense. In his point of view, the agreement is like the Munich Agreement and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact put together."A country that clearly states that its ultimate goal is the annihilation of Israel, while Europe supports this - sitting with the Iranians for dinner, shaking their hands and knowing this is their official policy - that is unacceptable. And it signals all the players in the Middle East that it pays off to be aggressive and extremist, because then everyone wants to appease you. I predict a crazy arms race will start now, including the Egyptians, the Saudis and the Turks. And have no delusions: This will lead to the next conflict. Iran feels on top of the world. The agreement recognizes its special status as a regional power and its appetite and audacity will only increase."
What should we have done that we haven't?
"What should have been done? The cabinet should have made clear decisions. But everything here is blurred, undefined, unfocused. And I had quite a few rifts, some are known and some less so. I remember a conversation I had with Bibi in 2009, before he formed the previous government. I told him: ‘I know what you could do by talking compared to what you could do in practice.’ He is excellent in talking, less so in actions.
"What happened when the agreement between Iran and the West was signed was beyond a failure. Netanyahu is incapable and unequipped to deal with it. Period. He knows how to survive. He knows how to talk. He's a great performer. He's a great campaigner. He knows how to make promises he has no intention of keeping. He's a great marketer, perhaps the best we have here. But all of that is not enough to lead a country, and cannot solve the acute problems we need to deal with.”
"The problem is not whether to attack or not," Lieberman says. "A national strategy cannot come down to just this. The problem is the lack of clear strategy both on the Iranian and Palestinian issues. In all of my years in the government, I could not get the cabinet to adopt a clear strategy.
"Even now Netanyahu is not acting right. It's clear there is no chance to thwart the agreement in Congress. It's all one big mistake, his entire feud with President Obama. There are arguments and disagreements, but you don't need to turn it into a public dispute and have the whole world in on it. You are only proving how isolated we are compared to the Iranians. The United States has a right to think differently. This must not turn into a personal argument, certainly not as a prime minister. You can't keep blaming other people. The Americans are wrong, but from here on out this is our responsibility. The question is, what are we doing. But to throw the blame on them once again is a mistake."
Is Netanyahu doing the right thing by refusing to discuss a generous compensation package and security cooperation with the Americans?
"I wouldn't reject any proposal from the Americans regardless of anything," he says. "And we should already start talking about this. There are circumstances and regional developments that, even without the agreement with Iran, necessitate a reevaluation of the cooperation and military aid. What good is tying this to the attempt to thwart the agreement with Iran? Instead of getting the most cooperation and aid, after the vote in the Senate we will get the minimal amount of aid. This is the wrong attitude.
"Netanyahu wanted to succeed. He was obsessed with the nuclear issue. But it's too much for him. To handle this issue you have to be creative. Determined. To know how to make hard decisions."
"And Netanyahu," Lieberman says, "has none of those things."
Severe blow to deterrence
This isn't the only critical mistake Netanyahu has made, according to Lieberman. He has harsh criticism regarding the prime minister's conduct during Operation Protective Edge as well. "How can someone who can't handle Hamas deal with Iran? No one is taking him seriously."
"I don't have delusions of grandeur," he says. "But if I were tasked with handling this issue, I'd know how to do it better than anyone in the State of Israel."
You? How? Like you wanted to deal with the Tehran-Aswan government? (In 2001, while talking to ambassadors from the former Soviet Union, Lieberman suggested blowing up the Aswan Dam and, while at it, bomb Tehran as well)
"I didn't mean to bomb the Aswan Dam," he clarifies. "When I said it, I believed Egyptian president Mubarak would not last and that the regime there would collapse, and that we needed to create deterrence. Today we are in a situation in which we lost deterrence completely. If we can't deal with Hamas, which is at a spitting distance from us, how are we going to deal with Iran? Everyone immediately interpreted it as if I really meant to bomb Aswan and Tehran. But I was talking about issues that were developing. In 2001, I saw where Iran was heading and what was developing in Egypt and I thought we needed to be ready for it.
"When Netanyahu stood in front of the residents of Ashkelon in 2009 and said that if he were elected prime minister, he would bring down the Hamas regime, and when he could have he didn't - that was a fatal blow to deterrence. I told Bibi before Protective Edge: 'Either you don’t start this at all, or you go all the way.' But this is one of his biggest problems: He says one thing, and does the opposite. Before the elections he said: 'No Palestinian state on my watch.' After the elections, he ran to foreign media to say he didn't mean it. During the elections he was talking about Arabs going in droves to the polls, and after the elections he invited (head of the Joint Arab List) Ayman Odeh to his office."
And why do you think that you could deal with the Iranian issue better than him?
"I know the issue well. I've been dealing with it for many years. But it's not just about being familiar with the issue and understanding it. It's also a matter of personality. You need a person here that has the ability to make decisions with determination and creativity."
And you are the only person who has this?
"There are in Israel other people with quite the potential to lead the country. Good and talented people who are much better than Netanyahu and some of them are better than me in other things. But on the Iranian issue, I'm the most knowledgeable and know best how to deal with it."How?
"Of course I don't mean to talk about it in public. But I assure you, I have a detailed plan of what needs to be done. I talked about it in the appropriate forums and will continue talking about it at the Subcommittee for Intelligence and Secret Services, which I am a member of." Needless to say that you agree with Meir Dagan about Netanyahu's personality, but not on the way he thinks Israel needs to deal with Iran? "Netanyahu is wrong on everything that has to do with handling Iran, but I don't agree with what Dagan said."
I reminded him that until recently, he was sitting in Netanyahu's government. That he participated in cabinet meetings. And furthermore, that he almost joined the current government. "I have a commitment to my voters. My responsibility is first of all to them. And we need to think about what is best for this country, and what's best for Israel is that there is a stable government. But it's clear to me that we're on a flight going nowhere, that Netanyahu is leading us nowhere. I mean, I was on the inside for six years. I know what's going on in there. I tried to fight from within. It reached a new high during Protective Edge, when I said what I thought during the war. Then we went to elections. What happened, happened. I'm not perfect. It’s possible I should have left long before that. But the fact of the matter is that I made a difficult decision and in the choice between my principles and a seat in the government, I chose to stay out." When I asked how come he was not able to influence from the inside, Lieberman says Netanyahu excluded everyone from these issues and chose to deal with them on his own. "I tried to influence. I spoke my mind. But Bibi wouldn't let anyone come near. He made it his exclusive business. Even when he let Livni deal with the Palestinian issue, he paired her up with a Commissar named Yitzhak Molho. That is why I place the responsibility for the failure squarely on his shoulders."

Why Bibi’s still the bomb, even though he’s bombing
By GIL HOFFMAN/J.Post/07/25/2015
The leading countries of the world, led by the US, reached a deal with Iran last week that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been warning against since his speech to Congress – not just the one on March 3 but also the one he delivered this month 19 years ago.
Despite all of Netanyahu’s efforts to persuade the world against approving a deal that, polls show, a majority of Americans believe is bad, the vote in the United Nations Security Council Monday was unanimous, 15-0. In the UN building that Netanyahu has said is filled with darkness, a flicker of light could not even be found to abstain. US President Barack Obama, top officials in his administration and other world leaders have taken turns mocking Netanyahu since signing the deal. Senior European officials are lining up to go to Iran, with the German vice chancellor starting this week and the French and European Union foreign ministers set to follow next week.
After not shying away from fights with the Obama administration, Netanyahu irked pro-Israel Democrats who despise Obama by showing a video at his Sunday cabinet meeting of former president Bill Clinton proudly boasting of the ill-fated deal that was supposed to prevent the nuclearization of North Korea. Showing the video was seen in DC as foolishly picking a fight with Obama’s most likely successor, the North Korean deal-signer’s wife, Hillary Clinton. Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid, who purports to be the real opposition leader, has been attacking Netanyahu’s handling of the Iran issue with gradually increasing harshness for two weeks, calling it the biggest failure by a prime minister since Golda Meir in the Yom Kippur War and asking for a state commission of inquiry.
More and more politicians and press have adopted the word “failure” for Netanyahu since Lapid started his campaign two weeks ago.
Even opposition leader Isaac Herzog, whose natural inclination is to support the prime minister when facing a challenge to Israel’s security, joined the bandwagon, using the F-word about Netanyahu’s handling of Iran, even though he would enter his government under the right circumstances. Nevertheless, although the world has allowed the Islamic Republic to continue to enrich uranium, the Iran deal has enriched Netanyahu politically. Polls have shown the public continues to support Netanyahu on Iran and that it has rejected the attacks on him by Lapid. For instance, in last Friday’s Jerusalem Post poll, 51 percent of Jewish Israelis said Netanyahu should continue using all possible tools to persuade Congress to vote against the deal, 38% said the prime minister should instead try to reach understandings with Obama about its implementation, and 11% did not know.
The numbers about Lapid were more stark. When asked how they think opposition parties should behave, 62% said they should support Netanyahu in his struggle against the deal and 27% said criticize him internally for his handling of the US administration while backing him up externally in the international struggle against the deal. Seven percent said they did not know. Only 4%, which was less than the margin of error, said opposition parties should be attacking Netanyahu for his failure, as Lapid is doing. So why is the public still backing Netanyahu, if he is not succeeding at his life goal of preventing Iran’s nuclearization, a goal that is so critical for Israel’s existence? Or in modern-day parlance, why is Bibi still the bomb, even though he’s bombing on stopping the bomb? There are several answers. The most obvious one, proven time and again by polls, is that the public supports its leaders at a time when the state’s security is threatened. This is especially true during wartime. Even Ehud Olmert, who finished with record-low approval ratings, hit record highs in polls during the Second Lebanon War.
That is why Lapid’s approach of trying to depict Netanyahu as a failure on Iran was so risky. It left Lapid open to the possibility that his attacks on Netanyahu would boomerang against him and cause him grave political harm. Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett accused his former “brother” Lapid this week of attacking prematurely and “calling for a probe before the battle is over.” Bennett was mocked for that statement because he himself attacked Netanyahu during Operation Protective Edge in the Gaza Strip. It is possible that the public held Bennett and Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Liberman accountable in the March election for their attacks on Netanyahu during wartime. One can of course say that Israel is not currently at war. With all the justifiable fears of Iran, even Netanyahu does not expect the Islamic Republic to attack Israel any time soon on any front, not even through its proxies in Lebanon or the Gaza Strip.
But listening to the media in Israel lately, it is as if the war has already begun. Polls show Israelis believe Netanyahu when he says the Iran deal facilitates the nuclearization of Iran, which will cause war. Israelis have been subjected to two decades of what can be called either fear-mongering or justifiable warnings on the Iranian threat by Netanyahu, which has made Israelis feel reliant on him to deal with the threat. That leads to the next reason Netanyahu is still doing well politically, which has been proven in polls countless times: Israelis trust Netanyahu with their security. Rightly or wrongly, he makes Israelis feel safe. They don’t trust him on the economy. They don’t think he will bring about peace in the Middle East. But until the Left comes up with a credible security figure (former IDF chief Benny Gantz? Tel Aviv mayor Ron Huldai?) on security, in Bibi (and God) we trust. Security issues dominate headlines in Israel and distract the public from more immediate threats, such as whether they have enough to eat.
It is true in elections around the world that the more the economy is in the headlines, the worse it is for incumbents. As long as Iran is in the headlines, good luck getting more than a small item on cottage cheese containers not containing the amount written on the package.
While prime ministers are often irrationally and unjustifiably blamed for socioeconomic problems that are not their fault, on security issues it’s easier to deflect blame, because there is always an enemy, and it is almost always the enemy’s fault.If the deal signed in Vienna enables Iran to get a nuclear weapon, the six countries who signed it are at fault, not Netanyahu. The argument made by Lapid and others that the prime minister could have impacted the deal had he been more polite to Obama is a tough sell, especially among Israelis who don’t like the man who will be in the White House for 545 more days.
Obama was determined to make a deal with Iran. That has been clear for six years. Had a friendlier Israeli than Netanyahu, such as Herzog or Meretz leader Zehava Gal-On, been prime minister, he still would have made a deal the Israeli people would not have liked.
It goes without saying that Israelis don’t like the European Union and the other P5+1 negotiators either. That animosity prevents Israelis from blaming Bibi, no matter how persuasive the arguments they hear from Lapid. The final reason Netanyahu is still strong is that Israelis just had an election, and the public wants their leaders to govern, not engage in petty politics. Had Lapid run his anti-Netanyahu campaign when elections were on the way, it might have been different. But for now, Netanyahu is in charge, and he will live to fight many more fights on Iran.

Netanyahu steered US toward war with Iran – the result is a deal he hates
SHIBLEY TELHAMI/REUTERS/J.Post/07/25/2015
Much of the criticism of the Iran nuclear deal has focused on the fact that it is entirely limited to the nuclear issue, which leaves Iran a free hand — and new resources — to continue policies that have angered regional and international players. There is no denying that if Iran plays its hands well and uses the next decade to build its economic and political potential, its regional influence is likely to expand, as is its capacity to do the sort of things that have angered Israel and Gulf Arab states.
The deal’s biggest critic may be Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it “a historic mistake.” The irony is that the urgency with which the Obama administration pursued a nuclear deal was itself a product of Israeli actions. For Netanyahu, the deal was a good example of “be careful what you wish for.”
A little reminder is helpful here. To his credit, President Barack Obama succeeded early in his first term to get international support for sanctioning Iran - one critical reason for Iran’s willingness to take the negotiations more seriously. There have been deliberate and sustained efforts to continue pressuring Iran on multiple levels, including its behavior outside the nuclear issue. Netanyahu preferred US military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, over Israeli ones, from the outset. His calculus was that the key fear that could drive the US debate to support military strikes on Iran was the timeline of Iran’s nuclear program — not Tehran’s support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Netanyahu exaggerated the imminent nuclear threat as much as possible. Remember how many times, over the years, he cited Iran as being only six months away from a bomb? He gave the impression that Israel was prepared to take matters into its own hands by striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, even without US backing. Initially, however, most analysts, including US officials, believed he was simply bluffing. There were many reasons why the United States didn’t take Netanyahu’s early threats seriously. For one, Israel’s capacity for sustained long-distance military operations remained limited. More important, even substantial US strikes were seen to have the capacity only to delay Iran’s nuclear program — not stop it.
Israel would then have also had to worry about Iranian and Hezbollah retaliation, as well as eventually dealing with a nuclear Iran. The focus on Iran was also seen as partly intended to shift attention from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where Netanyahu faced much international pressure.But something happened in the lead-up to the 2012 US presidential elections. The Israeli pressure on the Obama administration to take action substantially increased. At first, it was hard to know if this was merely a political play. It was no secret that Netanyahu preferred the Republican nominee for president, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. His pressure on Obama was seen to be playing into the Republicans’ hands. But there was far more to the story than politics.
The Israelis took steps in 2012 that portrayed as credible their threat to attack Iran – and inevitably drawing the United States into the fight. We don’t know much about the specifics, but reports revealed hints that the Obama administration was growing increasingly alarmed by Israel’s actions. The Netanyahu government was spending billions of dollars on a military buildup, as well as consolidating military cooperation with Azerbaijan near Iran’s northern borders.
Not until a year later were there whispered suggestions — including one from former prime minister Ehud Olmert — that Netanyahu had spent billions to make his threats look more credible to Washington rather than for serious military preparation.
What is clear is that the Israeli moves were taken seriously by the Obama administration, which shifted its assessment in 2012 as more high-level US officials began to take the Israeli threat to attack as credible. Even aside from the coming presidential elections in November, the prospect was seen as disastrous for Obama. He was not going to allow himself to be dragged into another messy war in the Middle East with no end in sight. Only the Iran issue had the potential to do so, even after his re-election. And Obama also understood that the war would have been even worse for Israel. How would war have been good for Israel? The Jewish state would have been, for the first time, at war with a Persian civilization (since all Iranians would likely have unified against the enemy) that would inevitably develop nuclear weapons anyway. It would have seemed that the United States was deliberately dragged into war on behalf of Israel — undermining the Israeli-US relationship. How in the world is that good for Israel?
So a nuclear deal that would avoid war — and make it less likely to result in an Iranian bomb than war — became the Obama administration’s priority. It went into full diplomatic gear and worked on multiple tracks. The administration did everything it could to make it happen before Obama left office.Which also meant the focus of the deal had to ignore nonnuclear issues because that would have opened a Pandora’s Box by making an early agreement almost impossible. Besides, this was not merely a US-Iranian negotiation but one that involved five other countries, not to mention messy American and Iranian domestic politics.
Sure, there were other incentives along the way. The rise of Islamic State, for example, created common interests. Iran had leverage for involvement in troubled areas where US influence was limited: Syria and Iraq. Some may also have seen strategic leverage to be gained with two longtime US allies that can be hard to influence: Israel and Saudi Arabia. But these were benefits that came after the fact. What truly focused US priorities was that Israel made it clear to the White House in 2011-12 that Washington could otherwise be dragged into a war it could not control. One that would likely have devastating effects on both the United States and Israel. Thus started Obama’s urgent search for a nuclear deal.In clinching the deal with Iran, Obama has, above all, succeeded in averting a disastrous war that would not have prevented Tehran from acquiring nukes. And it was Netanyahu who made sure Obama thought war was on the horizon.

ISIS: Why should we care about the acronym?
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/Saturday, 25 July 2015
Many governments have begun urging the media to not use the “ISIS” acronym. The terrorist organization started using this acronym two years ago, when its leader declared himself a caliphate and changed the name of his group from ISI (Islamic State of Iraq) to ISIS in order to expand from Iraq to include Syria. When the group’s formation was announced in April 2013 under the appellation of the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria”, the media and specifically Al Arabiya News Channel decided to call it as “Daesh” (the Arabic abbreviation of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). We are all aware that ISIS wants to use us, as media platforms around the world, to build a picture that serves its purposes. A lot of people objected to the appellation and the coverage because it is insulting the true defenders of Islam against the Western occupiers or the oppressed Sunni community. It offended the defenders of the people of al-Anbar or the rebels against al-Assad regime in Syria. In fact, ISIS activities confused people initially, but most of them discovered later on that ISIS is nothing but the same al-Qaeda evil group, despite adopting rightful issues. ISIS (Daesh in Arabic) is not a cynical label as said and written in the Western media. It is just the acronym of the appellation. The group is certainly against this acronym because it intentionally wants to be known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, to rally around it Muslims from all over the world. According to the group, it is the identity, land and project that matters, and ISIS is the sole representative of Islam! The group has even sanctioned a kid in Anbar because he dared to call it ISIS, as it considered it to be an insult. It broadcasted the video to be a lesson to others.
‘Two Babylons’
It is an old battle with extremists. Fourteen centuries ago, Muslims fought a group that is very similar to ISIS: it expiated Muslims and called for the revolt against the State. It called itself as “Jamaat al-Mumineen”, but Muslims labeled it as Khawarij or “Kharijites”. History repeats itself. We are facing today an ideological problem that cannot be combated with weapons, but rather challenged with ideas, starting with its name and theme. Arab and foreign media were thus led behind involving the appellation of the Islamic State in heinous crimes. This is not wrong but it is also not necessary, especially in the presence of correct and professional appellations that would avoid harming the Muslims twice: the first time, in Islamic countries where the group uses its appellation to incite young Muslims to join its ranks, and the second time in other communities, by provoking non-Muslims against Muslims in communities where they coexist together, such as Europe, Russia, China and India. This will serve the vision of bin Laden to divide the world, where he called it as the “two Babylons.”
We are all aware that ISIS wants to use us, as media platforms around the world, to build a picture that serves its purposes
The French government was the first to warn against the use of “the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” appellation, saying that it is as dangerous as the terrorist act. Later, the Prime Minister of Australia asked the media not to use this appellation because it confuses Muslims and terrorists. It is not true that everyone is aware that ISIS is a terrorist group similar to fascist organizations spread around in the world. Ordinary Muslim citizens and young people may misguidedly believe that an Islamic organization is defending them just because a group labeled itself as the “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria”, and “God is great” is written on its flag. The name of the group embraces history and religion, and it facilitates the task of the defenders who are mainly Muslim extremists. They are the most dangerous fighters in the group. It also harms Islam as it ties it to activities that non-Muslims around the world might link to the religion of Islam and its followers. It is easier to link any crime to a nationality, race, religion or ideology if the media highlighted it to be so, as is the case with ISIS.
ISIS is a very intelligent group. It deploys a great effort to promote the same image; that it represents Islam and Muslims in a conflict with the whole world. It knows the mentality of Muslims around the world. Declaring the group as a state or caliphate tackles deep historical values that might attract some Muslims and urge them to fight to protect these values. This is why the group made sure that its full name be published as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It is aware that popular media will be the best way to convey its identity, appellation and messages in Syria and Iraq to millions of Muslims around the world. This is what distinguishes ISIS from al-Qaeda: the latter did not care much about the appellation’s psychology. The name of al-Qaeda was even chosen by the international media as a shortening for “Jihad base”. It did not even promote its flag. It was best known for its two signifiers: “Qaeda” and “Osama bin Laden”. Upon Bin Laden’s death, the group was faltering and al-Zawahiri failed to replace the group’s late leader Osama Bin Laden.

New UAE anti-hate law blazes a trail
Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor/Al Arabiya
Saturday, 25 July 2015
The Emirates is known as a nation of firsts, one that excels in all fields. I am proud of all that we have achieved in terms of infrastructure, facilities, modernity and multiculturalism, but what warms my heart most is that we have held fast to our values. A country without values is nothing but a façade without a soul, vulnerable to being toppled by a gust of wind. The recently passed Anti-Discrimination Law, decreed by the President of the UAE, HH Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, exemplifies the spirit of tolerance and respect for others, the bedrock of our faith and culture. I salute our President for his forthrightness in taking measures to stamp out hatred and discrimination before these malevolencies have a chance to take root, as sadly, they have done elsewhere. The Islamic European Council has been quick to praise the move and called upon the governments of all Islamic countries to take a leaf out of the UAE’s book in light of regional and international changes threatening global peace. The U.S., which permits Islamophobes to burn the Quran and allows the Ku Klux Klan to openly stir up racial tensions with public rallies, as happened recently in South Carolina, should re-evaluate its own hate laws – or rather their absence- maintained under the pretext of preserving free speech. Speech that incites violent clashes or indoctrinates disturbed individuals to go on killing sprees in schools, malls or cinemas can be a deadly weapon and has no place in civilized societies.
Stemming radicalism
The UK is currently overhauling its own Anti-Discrimination Law to stem radicalism. In all honesty, I found it shocking that people walking past Big Ben a few weeks ago carrying the self-ascribed Islamic State’s black flags could not be arrested because they had not broken any laws! Similarly astonishing is the fact that radicals are free to march through the streets of Great Britain distributing terrorist recruitment leaflets while chanting insults to the authorities. Britain is a victim of its own laissez-faire policies, entire areas of the country have been turned into cesspools of hatred spawning terrorist plots against the state which has given shelter to immigrants. And because every action has a reaction, bigoted right wing groups are reaping rewards with new members recruited, especially in areas with large migrant communities. When all around us, hatred manifesting as verbal abuse, sectarian violence and terrorism is winning the day, the UAE has issued a powerful message that the poisons of bigotry and racism will not be permitted to pollute this harmonious land where over 200 nationalities enjoy peaceful coexistence. Individuals and groups out to sow division by turning man against man will not be tolerated.
The state news agency WAM has described the law as providing “a sound foundation for the environment of tolerance, broad mindedness and acceptance in the UAE and aiming to safeguard people regardless of their origin, beliefs or race, against acts that promote religious hate and intolerance”. Those who violate the law – whether verbally or in writing - risk up to 10 years imprisonment and fines ranging from AED 50,000 to AED 2 million. Moreover, it prohibits all forms of blasphemy and anything judged as offensive to God, his prophets, apostles, holy books, houses of worship and graveyards. Most importantly, it criminalizes expressions of Takfiri ideology that considers all those who reject its distortion of Islam, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, as ‘infidels’.
In a perfect world there should not be any need for laws to preserve human decency. Humanity has gained knowledge and every generation is better educated than the one before it. Ignorance, which has often been equated with evil, is no longer an excuse for wrong thinking or wrongdoing. There was once a prevailing idea that the more we knew one another, the less we would fear one another and understand that no matter our ethnicity, skin colour or religious beliefs, we were all members of the same race – the human race which shares the same planet. But, sadly it seems the opposite has happened. Greed, the hunger for power and superiority, has trumped kindness and compassion in some areas of the world. The internet, which once portended greater communication between people of all nationalities and religions, is now serving to exacerbate hatreds by allowing like-minded individuals to get together in what they believe is an anonymous environment where anything goes. The World Wide Web promotes hate on a mammoth scale with its ability to reach mass audiences.
The world, and in particular western democracies, shrink from pursuing internet hate speech that has driven untold numbers of impressionable young people to suicide or made them targets, but not so the United Arab Emirates.
‘Thought police’ Those who take to Internet to spew religious hatred will not be immune from being criminalized under the new law, which comes on the heels of another recently enacted Cyber Crimes Law barring anyone in the country from swearing at someone else online or incur a AED 250,000 penalty, a prison sentence and, in the case of non-nationals, ultimate deportation. In the same spirit of politeness, anyone who transmits offensive hand gestures in the form of emojis (depicting emotions) is liable to be prosecuted.
“Unbelievable but true” was a headline in Britain’s Express newspaper relative to the Cyber Crimes Law. It is certainly groundbreaking, but it makes perfect sense. Why shouldn’t insults that harm the sensitivities of others be outlawed? Hurting others should be a social taboo just as it was in the time of our grandfathers when children were brought up to be courteous. Such behaviour was an absolute no-no in my youth and to preserve society’s mores it is only right that a code of conduct is reinstated.
The bottom line is this. There is no such thing as ‘thought police’ and if people wish to allow their personal hatreds to fester in their own heads, that is up to them provided that they do not soil our homeland with hatred or attempt to infect others. Diverse opinions are welcomed; they contribute to life’s rich fabric. All we ask in the United Arab Emirates is that those opinions be shared in an atmosphere of mutual respect. And anyone who thinks that that is asking too much would be advised to start packing.

What choices after the Iran nuclear deal?
Eyad Abu Shakra/Al Arabiya
Saturday, 25 July 2015/
Most Arab commentary and analysis about the nuclear deal agreed by the P5+1 with Iran focused on its political aftershocks on the Arab World. It was obvious to most analysts and commentators that what looked like a long TV soap opera had two “star” actors: Iran and the United States; the other countries involved were more or less “extras” whose task was nothing more than to give the deal a façade of international legitimacy. All along the real dialogue was taking place between Washington and Tehran. And all those involved realized this fact without having to spell it out. What was especially interesting, in addition to the “length” of the soap opera and claims that there was no guarantee of success, was Washington’s insistence that the negotiations were limited to Iran’s nuclear program, without touching on other political regional problems; and repeating—at the highest level—that the two were separate issues.
The Obama administration has chosen to separate the technicalities of the nuclear deal from the political environment.It is interesting since regional objections to Iran’s nuclear program have never highlighted the geological–seismic dangers of having nuclear installations in a country prone to devastating earthquakes like Iran—although raising such an issue is worthwhile, more so after the Fukushima disaster in northern Japan. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries would be absolutely right to be concerned about possible leaks from the coastal Bushehr nuclear plant. In fact, in November 2013, an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.3 struck Bushehr province. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that 80,000 people experienced strong tremors while several million felt light shaking. The earthquake was felt in many countries around the Gulf, including Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. At least 37 people were killed and an estimated 850 injured as a result of the earthquake.
What really worries the Arab Middle Eastern countries, however, is the nuclear program’s military use in the service of Tehran’s regional policies. These worries are shared by these countries, as well as Israel, and probably Turkey too. But what has been heard and read from top American officials, led by President Barack Obama, points to Washington’s willingness to accept a “nuclear Iran” in the foreseeable future; and what has been achieved is linked to the two elements of trust and goodwill. At this point one might argue that trust and goodwill are necessary in politics, but are not sufficient in the absence of solid guarantees. Indeed, the long history of dealing with Iran’s nuclear program has neither encouraged trust nor shown any aspect of goodwill. Even after the approval of the deal the chants “death to America” and “death to Israel” were resonating in the streets of Tehran in response to rousing Eid sermons. As this was taking place against the U.S. and Israel, the speeches and actions against the Arab states were much more sinister and belligerent.
Parallel to the wars being overseen by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, Tehran’s media—including those in Arabic—are engaged in unabated anti-Arab campaigns of incitement, vilification, and false accusations, intensifying Sunni–Shi’ite sectarian tensions and provoking racial, local, and tribal animosities.
In spite of Washington’s apparent keenness to reassure, first the Israelis and then the Arabs, that the nuclear deal will not adversely affect there relations with the U.S., any wise observer can feel that the element of trust is no more, and that pre-deal relations are different from post-deal ones. Why have we reached this stage? And is the current situation irreversible? The most likely answer to the first question is that what have brought us to where we are now are President Obama’s political convictions. Doing the 'right thing'The U.S. president, a man with a clear-cut ideological identity, is fully convinced he is doing the right thing. He is less influenced by his assistants and advisers than his predecessor President George W. Bush, who was very much the “influenced” party by the Neocons, who had a comprehensive viewpoint of politics and an active and effective team that was then implementing this viewpoint throughout the decision-making positions in Bush’s administration.
The nuclear deal, the subsequent opening of doors to Iran, and the eventual normalization of relations with it, are very much Obama’s brainchild. Thus, expecting any change from his side between now and November 2016 would be absurd. Coming to the second question—on whether the deal is now final and irreversible—well, I believe the answer will come from Iran and not the U.S. Much will depend on how Iran handles the deal, given the nature of its regime, its power structure, its political “dualism,” the internal power struggle between its competing wings, its contradictory doublespeak, and the limits to its maneuvering. This regime, as I am told by someone who knows it more than I do, knows what it desires but not necessarily the best way to achieve it. Indeed, the opposite is true, because being overconfident, the regime infrequently goes overboard, tries to be too clever, and refuses to respect its commitments. Some observers believe Obama’s unreserved enthusiasm for the deal may encourage Tehran to exploit every detail and any opportunity to gain additional political, strategic, and financial concessions without fear of being thwarted.
Marketing the deal
In the meantime, Washington is now working hard to “market” the deal through a kind of PR campaign, directly as well as through international friends such as the UK, who are attempting to sugarcoat the deal for Israel. Regarding the Arab countries, however, they are now awaiting the outcome as “the War against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” suddenly takes center stage, while post-1920 political entities are facing collapse under the welter of escalating religious and sectarian conflicts. For some reasons of its own the Obama administration has chosen to separate the technicalities of the nuclear deal from the political environment that surrounds and interacts with it. Yet the people of the Middle East, despite the many problems afflicting them, still possess a good historical memory and enough survival instinct. This means they will try to acclimatize with an unhappy period with minimum losses. But if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far succeeded in bringing his message to the American public thanks to Israel’s powerful friends in Washington, the Arabs can only depend on themselves and defend and cement their national unity.

Nasser’s legacy: Ideologies of expansive visions
Abdullah Hamidaddin/Al Arabiya
Saturday, 25 July 2015
It is July 23, 1952. A white coup topples Egypt’s monarchy and a new republican Egypt is born with dreams for itself and all the Arab countries. But instead it has been sixty three years of one disappointment after another for citizens of this region, especially those who followed Egypt’s revolutionary footsteps. There is of course the exception of the monarchial countries, the ones that survived Nasser’s ambitions; those seem to be faring much better. A new way of thinking about politics and defining interests was born in 1952. The seeds were there much before, but it was 1952 when ideologies of discontent and political authority merged. The region was gradually coming out of colonial control, the air of freedom was still fresh and the possibilities were quite endless. But coups need to legitimate themselves by developing a discourse of discontent; by claiming that everything was bad, that all were oppressed, exploited, abused, worthless and insignificant. Before the coup there was nothing, and after it, or because of it, everything will come about. But that was tied to one condition: unite. But according to Nasser’s preaching, unity meant that the people must have one will, one faith, one heart and must become one man. And under that state of oneness the people must fight a concerted war against their enemies and make a long march to the bright future that awaits them. God Almighty will be with them, supporting them all the way and guiding their path, and Nasser will lead them in their struggle.
A new way of thinking about politics and defining interests was born in 1952
The ideology of discontent by now had new partner; a messianic political world view, where the leader will bring out his people from the desert to the Promised Land: A free Palestine and a United Arab State. The consequence of ideologies of discontent and messianic politics would be revolutions and/or instability across Arab countries: Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan all had their share of either revolutions or political chaos because of Nasser’s messianic dreams. The monarchies that survived Nasser did that at a high cost to their political and economic development. Another consequence of messianic politics was to deflect Arab populations from micro concerns to grand dreams. You can easily imagine someone living in a remote village - with no electricity, schools or roads - using up his emotional bandwidth on the grand causes of Arab unity or freedom of Palestine.
Spirit of Arabism and Islamism
In 1967, the humiliation would only affirm ideologies of discontent and messianic politics. The real message was that we lost. The message the people preferred to say to themselves was: ‘we are indeed victims, everyone conspiring against us; all is now bad but there will be someone will lead us out of this, and we must find him. The difference after 1967 was merely in the language used. When Islamism came about, it did not uproot ideologies of discontent and messianic politics, it just spoke about them differently. The spirit of Arabism and Islamism are the same. Both believe in a messianic political world view where God would support them from the heavens above and a wise big brother would lead from below. The promise of a Caliphate is not too far from the promise of one Arab country from the Arabian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. Both have an ideology of discontent where everything past or present is bad and only the promised future will be good. The ‘Now’ for both ideologies is bad. 1967 could have been the moment when we broke away from messianic politics and ideologies of discontent. When Nasser resigned he was essentially admitting defeat. A moment badly needed to start afresh. Who knows if the fresh start would have been better? But we should have done it. Instead the ‘people’ marched to the streets and insisted that Nasser stay. Denial is less painful than utter and complete disillusionment.
Today - sixty three years on - ideologies of discontent and messianic politics still thrive. Many in the region still believe that there is nothing in the ‘now’ worth preserving, that it is all bad, that the only solution is to revolt. And those are still waiting for that leader who under God’s care and guidance will bring about unity and freedom for Arabs and Muslims. Whether it was Khomeini, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hassan Nasrallah, Mulla Omar or Al-Baghdadi; there is this deep yearning from a significant number of Arabs and Muslims who have been fed ideologies of discontent and messianic politics for three or four generations. This is in my view the most persistent legacy of Nasser.

Water and electricity must not be killing weapons
Yara al-Wazir/Al Arabiya
Saturday, 25 July 2015
In July’s scorching summer heat, electricity and water supplies are being used as bargaining tactics in the conflicts in both Syria and the Gaza Strip. This past week, these supplies have reached a critical state, yet very little international attention is being given to solve the issues at stake. Whether the international community likes to admit it or not, electricity and water supplies are being restricted, and in some cases completely disconnected, as a method of control in war-plagued cities, such as Aleppo and Gaza. Access to electricity and fresh water is a human right, and these supplies must not be used as weapons of war.
Gaza: living in blackout
As if electricity supplies to Gaza weren’t constrained enough as it is, with residents receiving a maximum of 12 hours of electricity a day, the only remaining functioning electricity plant in Gaza has shut down this week. Whether the international community likes to admit it or not, electricity and water supplies are being restricted to Aleppo and Gaza. This is primarily the result of the heavy bombing that the plant experienced during the Israeli bombardment of Gaza 12-months ago, causing severe damage. The Israeli-imposed blockade on Gaza means that the companies and supplies required to repair this equipment are unable to enter the besieged strip. Israel has claimed ‘security concerns’ against Israeli firms going into the Gaza Strip to help provide electricity to the city’s population.
Electricity supply is not a bargaining tactic, it is not something that can be played with, attacked, or turned on and off. Human life is very much dependent on electricity. Hospitals, schools, and virtually every industry depend on electricity for power. From life machines to surgeries to food storage and water heating for cooking and showering, everything requires electricity. Instead, the (mostly unemployed) population now relies on independent generators. Restrictions and prevention of repair efforts are nothing but a bargaining tactic that is used against desperate people in dire situations. It is used to weaken the people of Gaza and damage their livelihoods. This goes on with minimal international attention, because after all, cutting electricity supply isn’t nearly as brutal as bombing civilians and schools.
Aleppo: A bargaining chip
In Syria, Al-Nusra Front shut off the water supply to government-controlled districts within the City of Aleppo during the early weeks of Ramadan, forcing Syrians, including children to drink untreated water. After four weeks of limited (to no) water supply in certain districts in Aleppo, water supply was finally restored this week. At what point did Al Nusra Front decide to reinstate a basic human right to human beings? When it decided that it needed electricity in the districts that it controls, as the electricity supply is controlled by government-controlled districts. Electricity was exchanged for water, but only after 3000 children in Aleppo became victims of diarrhoea, which is the second leading cause of death of children under the age of 5.
Sadly, Gaza doesn’t have a chip to bargain with. Gaza has nothing but people. And right now, these people have nothing to offer the Israelis in exchange for a functioning power plant. There is very little that can be done, and while NGO’s are trying to help villages in Africa connect to the grid, Gaza, once a beautiful modern hub, is now trailing in the stone ages. Since the people of Gaza do not have a chip to bargain with, international pressure on Israel may be the only alternative.

Saudi Arabia: Tough Choices Ahead
Samir Altaqi & Esam Aziz/MEB/July 24/15
The Iran deal, as judged by President Obama, is important to the US. But it represents a substantial challenge to the Saudis. It strengthens a country that is perceived by Riyadh as a source of an imminent threat to Saudi Arabia and the region. Riyadh was busy for some time in a complex project to build a unified regional front that would be able, through an intricate division of labor, to reduce the Iranian threat to the region. Now, with the soon to start tour of Jawad Zarif in the GCC carrying the usual reconciliatory statements, everyone one will listen politely, but will get back to the ongoing preparations once the meetings end.
Yet, the moment the deal was signed, a deep shift was already unleashed in whole Middle East.
Many members of this Saudi conceived Arab front found the Iran agreement persistently emerging in their strategic calculations. The deal is imposing itself on the radars of all regional capitals and compelling them to start a general revision of their priorities. Political solidarity goes only so far. At the end of the day, the word will be that of individual interests and views.
Turkey, for one example, is warming up to receive its share of the expected Iranian bonanza. Shortly after signing the deal, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani to congratulate him. In a Mosque in Istanbul, Erdogan publicly welcomed the deal. “”This will positively affect our bilateral relations with Iran”, he said. Erdogan’s Finance Minister Mehmet Simsek said later that the “Iran unclear deal is great news for Turkish trade”.
Turkish companies are blowing the dust gathered over their old records of their favorite song “We are the Bridge”. In the past, they claimed everywhere in the Arab World, before the Arab spring, that Turkey is the proper trade bridge between the region and Europe. Now the old song is being translated quickly into Persian. Representatives of Turkish companies are lining up to go to Tehran carrying rosy daydreams and nicely written talking points about Islamic brotherhood. They have already rehearsed their speeches and may even remember some of the words from the times they used to say it in Arabic.
The irony is that until just few weeks ago, Ankara, in coordination with Doha, played a significant background role in lining potential recruits for the Sunni Front willing to fight the Iranian influence and took them to Riyadh (Hamas in Gaza and Islah in Yemen). The pressure expected to be placed on the Turkish government by its business sector will force Ankara to be more discrete in its back alley effort and potentially reduce this effort all together. This will create a void in the planned Saudi wall as Turkey will not be as a willing partner as it said it would be.
The same problem extends to another important Saudi ally: Pakistan. Islamabad was cautious from the beginning and chose to play a low profile role in the Arab-Iranian polarization. Yet, it played an important behind the scene role. But now, with the sanction on their way to disappear, Pakistani Petroleum Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi announced that work on the Pakistani part of the Iran-Pakistan pipeline is to start next October and take 30 month to be completed. “The nuclear agreement between Iran and the world will be beneficial to us. We will receive Iranian natural gas in 2017”, Abbasi said.
The US blocked the project for long time in the context of tightening the sanctions on Iran. The pipeline, called “The Peace Pipeline”, will end Pakistan’s chronic energy crisis. Pakistan will get 22 million cubic meter per day of Iranian natural gas.
Furthermore, Tehran is waving the carrot of settling the dispute about penalties’ clauses in the contract for delay of implementation which is $200 million per month. The pipeline should have been operational this year. But Islamabad said it could not manage to raise the funds to complete its portion of it.
In the Arab World, the Saudi mission will not be easier. Some Arab countries did not join the anti-Iran front from the beginning like Oman. Others did, with varying degrees of enthusiasm. These countries are now scratching their heads to find a way to get their share in trade deals with Iran in as minimum noise as possible. Logically, the first task for the Saudis now is to enforce discipline on the Arab camp, if there is such thing as Arab camp to start with. Yet, its leverage to do that is limited in many cases.
This Arab “camp” does not grant all its members equal weight in confronting the expected intensification of Iran’s interventionist policies. Some players are more important than others due to their link to a specific war front, geographical closeness or military capabilities. Jordan is not equal to Morocco for example. So, in fact, it boils down to a fewer than a handful of regional players.
The recent meeting between Hamas leader Khaled Meshal and King Salman in Riyadh in mid-July directed the spotlight to a major country in this few relevant handful: Egypt.
While Riyadh’s project of anti-Iran front is interring a new phase under the effect of signing the nuclear deal, the weight of Egypt will be relatively enhanced with the expected decrease of Turkish-Pakistani role. Yet, to enlist Cairo, Riyadh has to settle the choice offered by the Egyptian President Abdul Fatah Al Sissi: Either Egypt or the Muslim Brotherhood. As Hamas is a branch of the Brotherhood, the Salman-Meshal meeting was a message to Cairo that the Saudi King tilts towards the Brotherhood. The Qatari vision of this anti-Iran Front is taking a hold.
The meeting of Salman-Meshal was planned by Qatar. There is an assumption in many Arab capitals that Doha will provide biased advice to the Saudis and, as long as Riyadh follows some of its own partial national security advisors, it will step into a trap. Whatever the truth is, Egypt’s position should be squarely put, at best, in the category of the less enthusiast partners of the Kingdom.
It should be said that pushing Egyptian-Saudi relations to a crisis level is a very dangerous proposition for both sides at this delicate juncture. Yet Cairo does not seem ready to accept what it sees as strategic trap laid for both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, neither Riyadh seems to be ready to push aside the Qatari advice and accept the Egyptian stand.
It is still too early to measure the degree to which Turkey, Pakistan and other players will reduce their activist role in the mission of building the anti-Iran defensive wall the Saudis are trying to erect. Briefly, the varying distances of Arab countries, if measured by their stand on the Iranian nuclear deal and its consequences, threatens to increase tension within the Arab camp itself. Those who are leading the effort to fortify the Arab World and increase its immunity to Iranian intervention will demand more from those who are not in the front line. And those who may see that dealing with Iran is favorable to their own interests will feel uncomfortable with the direction of the Saudi wind in the post-Iran deal Middle East.
One of the rarely noticed consequences of the nuclear deal is that it made the zero sum games, very popular in the usual crude strategic thought, impossible to conceive. The zero sum game, in this case, should be understood in terms of its regional components and not in any general sense. Simply put, the situation in Syria or Iraq cannot be seen from a Saddamist point of view anymore.
On the general level, the Arabs do not try to interfere in Iranian affairs. It is the opposite. Furthermore, the Arabs do not represent a military threat to Iran. It is the opposite. And the Arabs do not have a revived historical dream of building a regional empire. It is the opposite.
The variable degrees of enthusiasm to play an active role against Iranian intervention will also lead to increasing sectarian incitement. The only way to bring hesitant partners in line is to increase domestic popular pressure on them to confront the “Shia” threat. This endeavors is indeed very risky on a longer term. More assistance to local Salafi groups, vehemently anti-Shia, in hesitant countries can lead to further regional destabilization and will certainly provide terrorism with additional potential recruits. Yet, the Saudis are like anybody else, they do not like to be put in a corner. And if they were, they will fight.
In any case, it is safe to say that the deal is causing a regional shift alright, even if this shift is not seen yet. The question now is: what are the potential scenarios that will emerge as the result of that shift?

The Middle East: Now, Where to Go?
Samir Altaqi & Esam Aziz/MEB/July 24/15
In 1945, President Franklin Roosevelt reached a historic deal with the founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. The deal shaped the US role in the Middle East as much as it shaped the region in many ways. Relations between the Arabs and the US became a cornerstone not only in regional policies, but also in global calculations. Seventy years later, President Barak Obama signed a deal with Iran. It may be still too early to say that the main US regional ally seems to have been replaced. The pages of regional events and the US role there are still to be written. But in as much as could be learned from the past, the coming story will depend on how it begins.
The point of start is already clear. Iran has a substantial military force. The balance of power and on-ground capabilities between the US and Iran, seen from regional angle, promise a totally different relations between Obama and the Mullahs than that which Roosevelt started with the Saudis.
Iran succeeded in preserving its nuclear capabilities. It will enjoy a free movement on a relatively homogenous world theater after lifting the sanctions. It will receive a windfall of money in a matter of weeks. Its proxies are promised a considerable increase in aid in addition to the psychological boost they got when the deal was signed. And the Ayatollahs’ regime did not ever look as stable as it does now.
It appears logical to build a bridge with that country. But the issue has never been the nuclear deal itself. It has always been what it entails. As in any relation between a super power and a regional partner, the question of where to place the borders between the two sides’ opposed national interests in the given region remains to be a challenge. The intrinsic contradiction in the whole picture of the new US-Iranian ties is precisely here. In every step of Tehran’s moves in the Middle East, the US will be questioned about the extent to which it approves the behavior of its new friends in Tehran. It is not a secret that Tehran harbors ambitions to revive its old regional empire as much as Erdogan was openly speaking about a new Ottoman Empire. A leading Mullah was recently speaking about Baghdad being the capital of a revived Persian Empire (We covered that at the time in MEB).
Iran’s regional ambitions will appear more clearly in the future, as a result of the boost it got from the deal, to impose some tough choices on any American administration. If Iran exceeds the norms of legal international behavior, as it already does, the US may be hesitant to take decisive actions for fear that Tehran may resume its frozen nuclear effort, or, seeing American reluctance to use military force, turns to be more aggressive. Even sanctions, similar to those imposed on Russia because of the Ukraine crisis, will be difficult. Such sanctions will be considered, by Tehran, and regardless of their reasons, a preach of the nuclear deal. A resumption of nuclear activities would be expected.
The consequences of the nuclear deal seem to be hanging on a thin thread. The US administration is adamant in confirming that its ties with the Arabs will not be affected by its new relations with Iran. But objectively speaking, where would anybody stand in a crisis like, say, Crimea? Russia or Ukraine? The truth is, when a regional crisis reaches a certain level of maturity, it would be impossible to find some space between the hammer and the anvil. Have we reached similar levels in the Middle East? Yes, we have. In Syria, Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah forces are fighting openly in a country that is not theirs. In Iraq, and according even to official US statements, the Iranian Quds Brigades are present.
The nature of the polarization in the Middle East is really acute. And this is not only a problem for the region, it will be a problem for the US as well from now on. The space between the two warring sides does not allow the US any of the tools of the art of ambiguity. It is either here or there. It cannot keep its ties with the two sides without having to face bilateral periodic tension, if not more, with the other. Such tension in itself is a destabilizing factor in the Middle East.
Yet, there is quite a bit of spinning going on in town. Examples of the justification of the logic behind the deal is given by some Washington veteran experts. One of those experts warns us that we should not expect a change in Iran’s behavior overnight. Furthermore, he tells us that integrating Iran into the world and global economy will moderate its regional behavior by virtue of the given incentives. But haven’t we heard that before about Russia?
The expert warns us also that Iran will follow its national interests anyway, and that sometimes these interests will conflict sharply with US policies. Well, we heard the story of the idiot who put one foot on a boat and the other on another boat and assure every one that he is “very stable” while each boat is drifting away from the other. Now, let us assume that Iran interfered in Bahrain for example due to its own national interest calculations. This should not surprise anyone. Khamenei has just threatened the tiny island immediately after signing the nuclear deal. But thanks to this expert’s early warning, we are already prepared not to expect a change in Iran’s behavior overnight anyway. After all, as he says, it will take time to moderate Tehran’s behavior. But, even if we agree with this view, what could happen during this promised undetermined time? The boats will keep drifting away of each other.
Another benefit, stated by the expert, is that the “Iran funded militias in Iraq”, using his words, are the most effective force on the ground in fighting ISIL. Well, would they be more effective than the US forces which were sent to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq during President George Bush’s surge? It was said that Al Qaeda in Iraq was “defeated” and the mission was “accomplished”. But it wasn’t. Al Qaeda came back in the form of ISIL.
It all depends on how that expert, or others like him, define the word “defeat”. Defeating terrorism is either defined along the creative explanation of President Clinton to the word sex, or by going after the Hydra in its cave. We believe that when the US forces left Iraq, it left behind an unfinished job: building an inclusive political structure that addresses the plight of Sunnis and all other minorities in Iraq. So long as the Sunnis and others will remain excluded and treated like second class citizen, new violent groups will keep emerging among them after “defeating” the old ones.
Prime Minister Haider Abadi and other true Iraqi (in the inclusive sense of the word) Shia leaders like Muqtada Al Sadr and Ammar Al Hakim, understand this very well. But guess who is preventing that from happening? It is the “Iranian funded militias” that the expert talks about. He should have only followed the news of Iraq closely before writting about what to expect from the “the Iran funded militias”.
Obviously, the expert has already found some undiscovered beauty in the Iran nuclear deal. But Iran’s role in Iraq will not lead to defeating ISIL, it will lead to its long term regeneration. What will lead to a real defeat of ISIL there is a political solution that grants all Iraqis, regardless of sect, religion, nationality, and all else, equal rights. The only ray of hope, faint as it is, is the few brave Marines training Arab tribal volunteers in Taqaddum base to establish a base for what hopefully will be an ISIL immune central Iraq.
Once ISIL is “defeated”, the way the expert defines this defeat, it is certain that the “Iranian funded militias” will turn against any Sunni tribal force and will not leave the major Sunni urban centers it “liberated” on behalf of Tehran. Wouldn’t that regenerate ISIL? Is this the expert’s definition of “defeat” of ISIL on the hands of the “Iran funded militias”? Victory sometimes comes void of any real victory. The problem in Iraq is political first, military second, not the opposite.
In a way, the Obama administration sincerely believes that the nuclear deal is a victory. It stopped Iran from obtaining the bomb, it helped avoid a war and it opened new frontier to the US foreign policy. But these arguments reveal, in and by themselves, a misconception of how the Middle East work.
The truth of the matter is that President Obama accepted to trade a more dangerous Iran (a nuclear Iran) with a less dangerous, yet still very dangerous, Iran (a quasi-nuclear Iran). Now, Americans have to consider the less dangerous Iran an ally. They have to find a place for their regional policy somewhere in the Obama magic space between the hammer and the anvil.
But if the President admits that Iran is still dangerous, as he indeed does, he better be prepared to explain the reasons why his administration turned its face to the other side when it saw the Iranian Quds Brigades-a US designated terrorist group-fighting in Iraq and Syria. He also better be prepared for what will the US do when the space for verbal spinning and strategic ambiguity is reduced to almost zero. Eloquent speeches do not help much in times of war.
It is said that the US measured its actions in the Middle East to avoid upsetting the Iranians during the negotiations. The professional spinners will deny that of course, though there are many circumstantial evidence showing that the administration did indeed caliber some of its decisions to avoid annoying the Mullahs.
Here is the deal that President Obama got: The President lost the Arab trust to gain a dangerous Iran. And by the way, Iran will be difficult to adapt to international norms. In Tehran, we have a mix of nationalist supremacy, rigid religious beliefs, and old images of a great empire that the time of its resurrection is upon us.
Is it a good deal? The President is convinced it is.
The President, in fact, won a battle in the Middle East but lost the war there. The problem is that he celebrates his victory in this battle without seeing that he has just lost the war. The nuclear deal shook the foundation laid by President Roosevelt. It will put the US in a camp with a country that has uncompromising ambitions which contradicts every single part of the US interests in that region. If the President believes he can hide in the gray area of ambiguity by emphasizing the “solid” ties with the Arabs and the “unshakable” commitments to their security, it may be helpful to remind him that no one in the Middle East buys this stuff anymore.

Between ISIL and the Kurds: Where Will Erdogan Go
Samir Altaqi & Esam Aziz/MEB/July 24/15
The explosion of July 20 outside of the Amara Cultural Center in the Turkish town of Suruc marks a turning point in ISIL-Turkish relations. The suicide attack killed 31 youth, mostly Kurds, gathering in the beginning of their journey to Kobani carrying aid to reconstruct the city. ISIL-Turkish relations soured lately due to what the organization perceives as a change in Ankara’s policy of turning a blind eye to its activities.
Indeed, Turkey is finally changing its position on ISIL. The change came after obtaining clear commitments from the US to oppose any drive by the Kurds to establish an independent state in Syria so long as this nation remain one. On July 7, a large US delegation which included Undersecretary of Defense Christine Wormuth, Special Presidential Envoy Gen. John Allen and military and intelligence officials, visited Ankara and met with high-level Turkish officials from the Foreign Ministry, Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) and the National Intelligence Organization (MİT). The meeting which lasted for two days witnessed “very frank” exchange of views on Turkey’s role in Syria and Iraq and its position on ISIL.
The consequences of the deals reached in the meeting did not take long to appear on the ground. Just one week after the conclusion of the meeting, Turkish authorities started a sweeping crack down on ISIL active cells in Turkey. Ankara blocked web sites belonging to ISIL, launched a raid across the country to arrest suspect members in the organization and tightened its measures to stop the flow of new recruits through its southern borders. And Turkey may have allowed the US to fly its drones from Incirlik air base. ISIL responded by posting an open threat to Turkish authorities on one of its web sites. However, the verbal response to the Turkish crackdown was measured. The real response came later in the mainly Kurdish Suruc. Yet, it was directed against the Kurds.
Turkish intelligence has enough channels with ISIL to investigate the attack. It will not take time before we know from actions on the ground the conclusion of this investigation. Either ISIL denies that the operation was ordered by its senior leaders and promises to punish the perpetrators, or it is, hopefully, an open confrontation between the two sides.
If it is a war, still unlikely however, it will be costly for both sides. ISIL infiltrated the border region of Turkey with scores of networks and members ruining all kinds of logistical operations: Smuggling new recruits, selling oil, laundering money, sending arms and ammunitions to Syria and gathering information. If Turkish authorities clean the region of ISIL presence, that will represent an important setback for the organization.
Yet, ISIL will not set idle while its wings in Turkey are being broken one after the other. The choices of Erdogan will be determinant to the abilities of ISIL in the North of Syria.
The troubles of the Turks with ISIL are not comparable, of course, with their troubles with the Kurds. Erdogan’s game has always been based on using ISIL to abort any Kurdish attempt to expand their presence in North Syria and doing his best to convince the Kurds to fight Bashar Al Assad. After the US effort to interrupt the first half of the equation, that which is related to Erdogan’s Kurdish concerns, a regional players is trying now to interrupt the second half, that which is related to the anti-Assad effort.
Some unconfirmed reports point to recent contacts between the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan-Syria (PUK) and the YPG (People’s Protection Units) which is affiliated to the PKK. The YPG is very active in North Syria. The content of the recent meetings was said to be the future of North Syria and a plan to open channels of contacts between the YPG and Tehran. The PUK is known as an extension of a similar Iraqi entity. The PUK in Iraq is known for its strong ties with the Iranians since its members found refuge in Iran during their fight against Saddam Hussein.
The Iranian proposal conveyed by the PUK to the YPG was allegedly made in Sulaymaniyah between some leaders of the PUK and representatives of the Iranian IRGC sometime late June. The content of the proposal is to coordinate with Assad forces in the North of Syria in return for giving Syria’s Kurds all the support that could be given by the Syrian regime under the circumstances. A promise of an autonomous region in future Syria and of PUK assistance was also given on behalf of Tehran, Assad and the leadership of the PUK. We cannot confirm this information as it could not be verified by independent sources. We were left only with events on the ground to provide any evidence that such a deal was indeed conveyed.
A series of developments which took place after the meeting shed some light on what happened after the alleged meeting. In a first instance, the YPG turned against the Arab Syrian opposition that was fighting with the Kurds in Kobani. Units of the Free Syrian Army in Kobani were told last week by YPG to leave the town immediately.
Another development followed few days later, when both the YPG and Assad forces fought side by side in Hasakah. An officer in the Syrian regime’s forces told AFP that they coordinated their attacks on ISIL positions with the YPG. “The Kurds wouldn’t have been able to encircle the IS fighters without the weapons we gave them,” the officer told the news agency.
What was interesting in this news agency’s report, however, was the following particular part:
“Washington has insisted that the coalition, which began a campaign of air strikes in Syria in September 2014, will not coordinate with President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. But in reality, a YPG officer told AFP on condition of anonymity, “there is coordination on the flights between the Syrian army and the coalition forces. They communicate through a Kurdish mediator.”
It is not clear yet if there is something bigger even than coordination between the coalition air raids and Assad forces. Something like an Iranian dimension in the YPG coordination with Assad forces in Hasaka. But the truth will certainly come out at one point or another.

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