Trump’s failure to accomplish little or any of his agenda during his first 100 days shouldn’t blind us to the vast harm he has done in this comparatively short time to our system of government, especially his degradation of the presidency.

From early in the Republic, we have looked at the office of the president as a focal point for the nation’s values. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and the two Roosevelts exemplified for generations of Americans the moral authority of the highest office in the land. It is not merely what these men accomplished, but how they did it; not just their policies but their positive effects on the institutions of democratic governance.

True, many of our presidents have fallen short of those ideals. But our disappointments in those individuals reflected the high expectations we have had for those who hold that office.

Yet under Trump, the moral authority of the presidency has all but disappeared.

I’m old enough to recall when John F. Kennedy invited the world’s great artists, writers, and philosophers to dine at the White House. The nation felt ennobled.

Donald Trump invites Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent, who once called President Obama a “mongrel,” and we feel sullied.

But it has not just been Trump’s vulgarity.

There have also been Trump’s lies – blatant, continuous, and unsubstantiated even after the lack of evidence has been pointed out repeatedly.

They are not just any lies, but lies that deepen Americans’ suspicion of one another and undermine our confidence in our system of government – such as his repeated contention that “three to five million” people voted illegally in the last election, or that Obama spied on him during the campaign.

Prior presidents have embellished the truth and on occasion have lied about a particular important thing, such as the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But never before Trump have we had a president who chronically lies, whose lies have become an integral part of his presidency even in the first 100 days.

There is also Trump’s vast family business, from which he continues to benefit even though the decisions he makes in office affect what he earns, and the almost certain decisions by foreign governments to curry favor with him by bestowing benefits on his business.

Trump shrugs off such conflicts – even refusing to release his tax returns, even inviting his daughter and son-in-law, each with their own businesses and conflicts of interest, to join him at the highest reaches of the White House.

Some presidents have profited from their presidencies after they leave office through large speaking fees and book contracts. But never before Trump have we had a president for whom conflicts of financial interest during his presidency are so flagrant yet ignored.

The first 100 days has also been marked by Trump’s divisiveness – turning Americans against each other, legitimizing hatefulness toward Mexican-Americans and Muslim-Americans and African-Americans, fueling violence between his supporters and his opponents.

We have had divisive elections before. But after them, other presidents have sought to heal the wounds. Even after the horrors of the Civil War, Lincoln famously asked us to come together without malice.

Trump, by contrast, has fomented the warring camps – calling his opponents “enemies,” suggesting they are plotting against his administration, and staging rallies to encourage and fuel his bedrock supporters.

We have also seen Trump’s cruelty – toward refugees, undocumented immigrants, and the poor among us. He has issued a budget that would deeply harm the least advantaged Americans, and supported a repeal of the Affordable Care Act that would also hurt those most in need.

He has refused asylum to refugees at a time when the world faces the largest refugee crisis since World War II, and unleashed immigration enforcers on 11 million residents of the United States, many of whom have been productive members of their communities for years. He has even deported people who have been here since childhood and know know no other nation.

Other presidents have on occasion been cruel. But Trump’s cruelty has defied reason. It is utterly unnecessary.

There has also been Trump’s affect on the rest of the world – legitimizing crude nationalism and hateful xenophobia. He has promoted France’s Marine Le Pen and encouraged authoritarians such as Turkey’s Tayyip Erdogan, while at the same time confusing our democratic allies and friends.

Finally, there is Donald Trump himself – who in the first 100 days as president has shown himself to be narcissistic, xenophobic, paranoid, vindictive, and thin-skinned; who takes credit for the work of others and blames others for his own failings; who lashes out at the press and journalists when they criticize him, and who demonizes judges who disagree with him.

We have before had presidents whose personality defects harmed their presidencies and tainted the office of the president, such as Richard Nixon. But Donald Trump is in a different league altogether. He exhibits the opposite of every civic virtue ever encouraged in our school rooms, town halls, and churches.

The first 100 days is an artificial landmark for presidents. But it does offer an opportunity to pause and assess what they have done. Too often, though, we think in the narrow gauge of policies and legislation.

With Trump, it’s important to think more broadly. Among the most significant legacies of his first 100 days is his degrading of the moral authority of the office of the president, and, thereby, of America.

Vladimir Solovyev, a host and commentator on Moscow’s Rossiya-1 television station, said today that “terrorist acts could yet play their role and help Le Pen” win the second round in the French presidential race. After all, he continued, “two weeks is a long time” (twitter.com/GraniTweet/status/856534144804945920).

That Vladimir Putin hoped and may still hope for the victory of Marin Le Pen is obvious given her deference to his claims about occupied Crimea, her opposition to Western sanctions for his continuing invasion of Ukraine, and her hostility to key Western institutions like the European Union and NATO.

And it is also true that the Kremlin leader has provided Le Pen with financial assistance via his network of banks and given her additional prominence both by meeting with her and by promoting her candidacy via his state-controlled media and networks not only in Russia but also in Western Europe in general and France in particular.

But while many have argued that Le Pen has benefitted from past terrorist attacks — it plays on the xenophobic fears of her followers — for one of his pocket journalists to speculate about how a future terrorist attack might benefit her, even if he said it in a joking manner, crosses a dangerous line.

At the very least, it reflects a horrifying moral callousness about possible victims; but more than that, it raises the possibility that Moscow might in some way orchestrate just such an attack to benefit its ally and thus itself. That is what Putin did in the 1999 apartment bombings, and so it can’t be excluded that he may now believe he can do something similar abroad.

In the murky world that the former KGB officer operates in, taking such a step or more likely encouraging or failing to stop others from doing so would not be out of character. The French authorities and those of the West more generally need to be on high alert because of this danger.

More than that, Western leaders need to serve notice on Putin that if there is a terrorist incident in France in the next two weeks, he will be far from the last suspect – and that because that is so, there will be real and serious consequences.

The Pentagon’s plan for seizing and occupying territory in east Syria is beginning to take shape. According to a Fox News exclusive:

“The Islamic State has essentially moved its so-called capital in Syria… ISIS is now centered in Deir ez-Zur, roughly 90 miles southeast of Raqqa, the officials said.” (“ISIS moves its capital in Syria”, FOX News )

The move by ISIS corresponds to the secretive massing of US troops and military equipment on the Syria-Jordan border. It creates the perfect pretext for a ground invasion followed by a long-term military occupation in an area that Washington has sought to control for the last 18 months.  Here’s more on the topic from South Front:

“The US military is reportedly concentrating troops and military equipment at the Syrian-Jordanian border. Local sources said that about 20 US Army armoured vehicles (including battle tanks and artillery pieces) carried on trucks were spotted in Al-Mafraq. US troops were allegedly accompanied with the Jordanian Army’s 3rd Division.

The US Special Operation Forces, the UK Special Operation Forces and units from some other countries -have been conducting operations across the Syrian-Jordanian border for a long time. They even had a secret military facility inside Syria where members the so-called New Syrian Army militant group were deployed. However, it was the first time when a notable number of US armoured vehicles was reported there. The US Ro-Ro ship Liberty Passion, loaded with vehicles, had arrived to the Jordanian port of Al-Aqapa few days ago. These moves followed a meeting between the Jordanian King and the US president.

Thus, the US-led coalition could prepare a large-scale military operation in southern Syria. The goal of the operation will likely be to get control over the Syrian-Iraqi border and to reach Deir Ezzor. It will involve militants trained in camps in Jordan and the US-led coalition’s forces.” (“US Military Deployment at Syrian-Jordanian Border, Military Escalation”, Global Research)

Deir Ezzor is a strategically-located city along the Euphrates that the Pentagon needs in order to tighten its grip on the eastern quadrant of the country. Once Deir Ezzor is taken, the US can launch its CIA-backed jihadist militias back into Syria at will putting more pressure on Damascus and eventually forcing regime change. That is the plan at least, whether it works or not is anyone’s guess. The deployment of troops on the Jordanian border suggests that Washington’s proxy-army, the mainly-Kurdish militia or SDF, is either unwilling to conduct operations as far south as Deir Ezzor or doesn’t have the military strength to beat ISIS on its own. In any event, the Pentagon needs fresh troops and equipment to succeed. Here’s more from South Front:

“US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis presented a preliminary version of the new plan to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, said on February 28th. ….The plan submitted by Mattis also includes a proposal to increase the size of the US military contingent to ISIS in Syria… (Note–There are already 400 Special Forces operating alongside the SDF) Without significant US presence on the ground, the SDF will hardly be able to retake Raqqah from ISIS without incurring unacceptable losses….

As to Deir Ezzor, the US can try to use militants trained in Jordan to launch an attack on Deir Ezzor from the southern direction. However, the total failure of this US-backed group in 2016 leaves little chance that it’s able to combat ISIS successfully in 2017. So, the US and its allies will be pushed to deploy special forces units or even ground troops to support the advance there.

The Polish Special Forces have already deployed to Jordan where they will operate alongside their French and British counterparts.  According to reports, the US-led block created a joint command center to coordinate efforts of all sides, which will support the advance against ISIS in the area.”  (“New US Strategy Against ISIS And War In Syria. What To Expect?”, South Front)

Here’s more from Fox News:

“U.S. military drones have watched hundreds of ISIS “bureaucrats,” or administrators, leaving Raqqa in the past two months for the city of al-Mayadin located further down the Euphrates River from Deir el-Zour.”

Let me get this straight:  US military drones located hundreds of ISIS terrorists traveling across the open dessert, but did nothing to stop them. Why?

Is it because the Pentagon needs ISIS in Deir Ezzor to justify a ground invasion?  That’s certainly the most plausible explanation.

More from Fox:  “Questions remain about the hold force necessary to keep the peace after ISIS is uprooted from Raqqa.”

In other words,  readers are supposed to believe that the Pentagon doesn’t already have a plan in place for occupying the cities when the siege ends.  That’s baloney. Check out this excerpt from an article by Whitney Webb:

“The Syrian city of Raqqa – the “stronghold” of terror group ISIS – will be governed by a “civilian council” with the support of U.S. troops following its “liberation” from terrorists….

On Tuesday, the U.S.-allied militias …announced that they had formed a “civilian council” to govern Raqqa after its capture from Daesh militants. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)… claim to have spent six months setting up the council, with a preparatory committee having met “with the people and important tribal figures of Raqqa city to find out their opinions on how to govern it,” Middle East Eye reported.

SDF spokesman Talal Selo stated that some towns near Raqqa had already been turned over to the council following a successful operation to drive out Daesh forces.

The U.S. military had previously hinted that power would be given to rebel groups following Raqqa’s “liberation”…(“After ‘Liberation,’ U.S. To Give Control Of Raqqa To Rebels, Not Syrian Government”, Information Clearinghouse)

Washington has already chosen a group of puppets who will follow their directives when the fighting finally ends.  The leaders will be selected from rebel groups and tribal elders that pledge their allegiance to Washington. The new arrangement will prevent the Syrian government from reclaiming a sizable portion of its sovereign territory or reestablishing control over its borders. A splintered Syria will strengthen US-Israeli regional hegemony and provide the land needed for future US military bases.

But why would Washington opt to occupy another country when previous occupations (like Iraq) have gone so badly?

There’s a two word answer to that question: Nadia Schadlow.  President Trump’s National Security Advisor H R McMaster recently hired Schadlow to join his staff as a deputy assistant to the president for national security strategy.  Schadlow recently published a book that “examined 15 cases in which the United States Army intervened abroad, and the service’s role in political and economic reconstruction.” According to the Wall Street Journal:

(Schadlow’s) “War and the Art of Governance” consists of a collection of case studies, beginning with the Mexican-American War and ending in Iraq. Each examines how the U.S. attempted…to translate battlefield victory into a lasting and beneficial political outcome.
Ms. Schadlow’s case studies tell an often doleful story of America allowing victories to fall apart, leaving behind a suffering populace that should have been rewarded with a better peace. She asserts convincingly that postconflict governance can only be done well by soldiers….

The Army’s Civil Affairs units are the only government entities capable of administering conquered territories, yet Civil Affairs units remain the Army’s neglected stepchildren. … the nation must never go to war again until it can definitively answer Gen. Petraeus’s question about “how this ends.” It ends only when the U.S. Army assumes the mantle of leadership and commits itself to remaining on the field until the lives of the population can be protected, the damage repaired and a political future guaranteed.” (“What Happens After Victory”, Wall Street Journal)

Get it? The woman is an expert on military occupation!

Now answer this one question for me: Why would McMaster hire an expert on military occupation unless he was planning to militarily occupy another country?

The facts speak for themselves.

Notes:
1.  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/21/isis-moves-its-capital-in-syria.html

2. http://www.globalresearch.ca/breaking-video-us-military-deployment-at-syrian-jordanian-border-military-escalation/5584435

3. https://southfront.org/new-us-strategy-against-isis-and-war-in-syria-what-to-expect/

4. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46907.htm

5. https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-after-victory-1491520385

By Lawrence Husick*

(FPRI) — In Greek mythology, the Hydra was a many-headed serpent (accounts range from six to more than 50 heads) which grew back at least two heads for each one lopped off. The Hydra had poisonous breath and blood so virulent that even its scent was deadly. It took Heracles to vanquish the beast in his second labor. It’s a pity then that the less-than-heroic Jared Kushner now has the task of modernizing and reforming the federal government’s information technology (IT) and cybersecurity infrastructure—a hydra-like beast if ever there was one.

Emblematic of the magnitude of Mr. Kushner’s labors, the department of Health and Human Services under Dr. Tom Price is now establishing its own version of the Department of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC). The new Health Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (HCCIC) will become operational in June 2017 and will educate health organizations and consumers about the risks of using mobile applications and data. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid are looking into a similar concept, but have not announced specific plans as of April 2017. Other federal agencies already host similar operations. Almost none of these are directly connected to either military or intelligence units tasked with defensive cyber operations.

Under President Obama, various cybersecurity bills died on Capitol Hill, prompting the Executive Branch to promulgate several frameworks for cybersecurity developed by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). These voluntary “best practices” documents were to have served as a blueprint for government and the private sector, but primarily due to a lack of funding, have mostly been relegated to occupying bookshelf space. Even within the federal government, the most notable cybersecurity actions have comprised strongly slamming barn doors at agencies ranging from the Department of State to the Office of Personnel Management after the livestock has been taken by foreign rustlers.

Federal agencies as diverse as NORAD and the IRS use outdated technology that would embarrass any private-sector CIO. According to a May 25, 2016 Government Accounting Office (GAO) Report, some federal agencies are today still using Windows 3.1 (last supported on December 31, 2001), the decades-old COBOL and Fortran programming languages, and computers purchased in 1970s for which spare parts must now be found on eBay. A backup nuclear control messaging system at the Department of Defense runs on an IBM Series 1 computer from 1976 that uses eight-inch floppy disks, while the Internal Revenue Service’s master file of taxpayer data is written in assembly language code that’s more than fifty years old.  Many other agencies run systems of similar venerable age using ancient technologies. Meanwhile, Congress has cut over $7.3 billion from the federal IT modernization budget since 2010, and the government now spends the vast majority of its budget on operations and maintenance. A January 2013 report from the Defense Science Board concluded that the United States could not even ensure that the IT systems involved in our nuclear triad were safe from hackers.

Enter Mr. Kushner and his new “White House Office of American Innovation.” Among a host of other initiatives (personnel policies and workforce development, combating opiate abuse, and providing universal broadband internet access), the Office will work on “modernizing the technology and data infrastructure of every federal department and agency.” What is not clear, however, is whether such agencies and departments are either able or willing to engage in modernization.

For example, the private sector has largely determined that cloud-based infrastructure and services are more efficient and cost-effective than older client-server or host-based systems. Front-ended by mobile and desktop “apps,” cloud services from Amazon to iTunes to TurboTax show the way, and yet, few government services show even the slightest movement in this direction. It is understandable that we may not want to have the nuclear “football” give way to an Android App that could be activated by a mistake, but the clear benefits of making personal tax return filing as easy as the TurboTax 1040EZ app make such innovations a clear path forward for government. Secure “two-factor” and biometric authentication make this path an even better option for government systems still stuck in the username and password hell of older generation systems that have been retrofitted for marginally better security at the expense of usability.

The GAO estimates that there are approximately 7,000 information technology programs in the federal government (and clearly there are at least an order of magnitude more in the state and local governments around the nation that are beyond both the scope of the GAO report and of Mr. Kushner’s mission.) More than 5,200 IT efforts in the federal government now spend 100% of their funding on operations and maintenance, and have no budget to even think about modernization. There simply is nobody at each of these offices for Mr. Kushner and his team to engage.

President Trump, in appointing his son-in-law to this task, told the nation that, “As a former leader in the private sector, I am proud to officially announce the White House Office of American Innovation, which will develop innovative solutions to many problems our country faces.” For a small office working on multiple simultaneous priorities from a thinly staffed White House, and without an immediate and gigantic budgetary allocation from Congress that reverses the decades-long slide into obsolescence to even attempt to catalog, let alone modernize the federal IT infrastructural hydra is, at best, a pipe dream.

We should expect more “go-it-alone” solutions from executive agencies like HHS, more balkanization, more IT systems held together with “spit and baling wire,” and more exposure of hacked systems until the magnitude of the problem becomes painfully evident on Capitol Hill. We can only hope (because we do not actually know) that it is not already too late for some critical systems.

About the authors:
*Lawrence Husick is Co-Chairman of the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Center for the Study of Terrorism. He is also co-director of the FPRI Wachman Center’s Program on Teaching Innovation and a faculty member at the Whiting Graduate School of Engineering and the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences Graduate Biotechnology Program of the Johns Hopkins University.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

The right wing and harsh Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the sixth president of Iran, gave the West a hard time from 2005 to 2013. During his two presidential terms he denied the Shoah and threatened to wipe Israel off the world map. Since Rouhani took over, the Iranian establishment has cloned him in the image of Khatami, a liberal and a man of peace and stability, in appearance of course.

However, the question is:

1. Is Rouhani the master of his own destiny or just the voice of his concealed masters?
2. Will he be able to walk the whole mile freely or just few yards on a leash?
3. Will he always be under the scrutiny of the Persian Big Brother or not?

Iran A Crafty Player

So far the Iranian establishment has been playing the game of politics in a very crafty manner by alternating between a hardline president and a liberal one, at times threatening the West and its interests in the region and at others calling for cooperation and stability. As a result, since the Khomeini revolution of 1978-79, Iran has stayed permanently in the news.

The world remembers vividly when hardline students, including Ahmadinejad, took 52 American diplomats hostage in their own embassy referred to in Persian as “Conquest of the American Spy Den”, for 444 days (November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981) and humiliated America by using the American flag to carry trash or as a door mat to wipe their feet. But, then, on the day Ronald Reagan, who promised to take a hard stance on this “rogue” country, was sworn in as president, Iran released the hostages and started a new chapter of its relations with the United States.

Will Iran tone down its aggressiveness in the Middle East, now that the Republican Donald Trump is the President of the United States?

Iran is undoubtedly a great game player or rather an astute gambler. They (“Its leadership”?) know(s) how to play, and on which number to put their chips for maximum gain, and so far they have been truly lucky.

But now, the leadership realizes that Syria, one of Iran’s forward defense outposts is done damned. Even if the regime is not toppled, it is going to be weak forever especially after using chemical weapons on its own people, and Iran’s other ally Hezbollah has lost lots of credibility in the Arab World as result of its military support of the Bachar regime in Syria. Iranian leaders have come to the hard conclusion that they could easily be the next target of Uncle Sam, especially now with the populist Trump at the helm of the US.

Does this mean that Iran is about to give up its nuclear program? The answer is, no. But they are, maybe, ready to give guarantees to the Trump administration that they will threaten neither Israel nor the Gulf states and maybe even allow some democracy intra-muros. Is this truly possible? Nobody knows and only time will tell.

If the United States accepts such a possible change of heart, which is only an Iranian realpolitik stance that means it is recognizing the legitimacy of Iran to possess nuclear weapons and become a full member of the nuclear club. Would the US do that and let down Israel and the Gulf States?

In answer, to this intriguing question, there are two possible scenarios to consider:

Scenario 1:

The United States accepts reluctantly the Iranian drive to possess nuclear weapons, as long as these weapons are not to be used to threaten the stability of the neighboring countries i.e. Israel and the Gulf States.

The US might stomach such a hard fact because it has realized that striking Iran will create more problems in the Greater Middle East than it will solve. The Iranian nuclear sites are spread all over the country, and if the US and Israel decide to strike Iran from the air and the sea they will not, probably, be able to achieve much. Iran can retaliate by striking back at Israel, as well as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and by blockading the Strait of Hormuz and sinking a couple of oil tankers to create an environmental crisis.

If the United States wants to avoid this scenario it has to deliver a surprise crippling blow to Iran that would destroy all its military capabilities and plunge the chain of command into chaos and disarray. This is technically impossible because Iran has several chains of command of the army proper, the Guardians of the Revolution and even the Bassidj “popular army” made up of three million volunteers.

Of course if the US really planned to deliver one such a deadly blow, it would not talk any further — but just act. Instead, we know that the US will not risk such an act because the consequences would be dire for Israel. Iran and Hezbollah would direct all of their firepower towards Israel, and human causalities could be very high given that its population is concentrated on a small strip of land and therefore it does not have the geographical depth that Iran has.

Does Israel have a fail-proof shield against such attacks, nobody knows?

Scenario 2:

America has made it clear, in the sternest terms possible, that it would not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and it is ready to go to war for this, and war would mean the total obliteration of the theocratic and autocratic regime and its replacement by a democratic government, once far all. However, the US has expressed its readiness to deal with the present Tehran regime if it accepts to disarm peacefully, allowing it an honorable exit door. The US and its allies have lifted the embargo and are seemingly entertaining normal relations with the Ayatollahs with the hope this will persuade the leadership to take the path of peaceful disarmament.

Realizing that they have no alternative whatsoever and making a good show of Persian pragmatism, the Iranians have accepted the American face-saving offer to disarm with an important proviso that would allow the regime to keep its nuclear program for civilian use under the scrutiny of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

All of this is normal, but there is only one thing that has incensed the Arab countries and that is the American tacit offer to Iran, under Obama, to play the role of a regional power in the so-called Greater Middle East, which is the most controversial part of the whole package. However, things might go a different path now with Trump, who has promised during his campaign to deal harshly with the regime of the Ayatollahs.

Saudi Anger

Prior to the Arab Spring, Egypt played the role of the regional power in the Middle East seconded by Saudi Arabia that happily acted as the sole banker of this arrangement. But with Egypt gone to the dogs, Saudi Arabia aspired to become the regional power and with its money and oil, it believed it could have a say in the region’s affairs, but money alone does not guarantee regional power, it is military might that does and Egypt had it in the recent past

Despite being America’s staunchest ally in the Arab world (offering, when requested, to increase oil production to reduce OPEC market tyranny, financing its wars in the region against Saddam and his regime, putting OIC in the service of American interests in the Muslim world, financing the war against Bachar al- Assad, etc) Saudi Arabia feels that it has been taken for granted by America because it was dumped it the minute the US sensed an overture from Tehran. So much for friendship and strategic alliance.

The Saudi hopes of becoming a regional power and sole spokesman for the Muslim world have been dashed on the rock of American realpolitik. Does this prove that superpowers do not have definite friends but only definite interests?

International politics is not only a matter of amity and gain; it is also a question of stability and peace. America wants peace in a region that is  volatile and that has been sitting on a powder keg for far too long.

But all in all, Saudi Arabia has clearly expressed its dissatisfaction with the American change of heart by refusing to assume its seat in the prestigious UN Security Council for which it was elected for a two-year term in 2013.

“Saudi Arabia … is refraining from taking membership of the UN Security Council until it has reformed so it can effectively and practically perform its duties and discharge its responsibilities in maintaining international security and peace,” said a Foreign Ministry statement issued on state media.

This statement justifies the rejection of the much-sought seat by UN member countries by arguing clearly that:

“Work mechanisms and double-standards on the Security Council prevent it from carrying out its duties and assuming its responsibilities in keeping world peace.”

For the Jerusalem Post of October18, 2013, Saudi Arabia is directing the refusal of this seat to its American ally:

“Saudi Arabia, in an unprecedented show of anger at the failure of the international community to end the war in Syria and act on other Middle East issues, said on Friday it would not take up its seat on the United Nations Security Council. The kingdom condemned what it called international double standards on the Middle East and demanded reforms in the Security Council. Riyadh’s frustration is mostly directed at Washington, its oldest international ally, which has pursued policies since the Arab Spring that Saudi rulers have bitterly opposed and which have severely damaged relations with the United States, Saudi analysts have said. Saudi Arabia has also been angered by a rapprochement between Iran, its old regional foe, and the United States, which has taken root since President Barack Obama spoke by telephone last month to the new Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, in the highest-level contact between the two countries in more than three decades.”

And The Winner Of This Weird Contest Is: Israel!

There is no doubt that the winner of this political shamble in the area of the Greater Middle East is Israel, with the least investment possible.

The investment in question is of course the pressure it has been bearing on its staunchest ally America and by ricochet Europe. This pressure took the form of diplomatic contacts and wheeling and dealing on various important circles in America and elsewhere and the public threat of striking Iran solo.

Realizing the dangers it is risking and putting the survival of the regime as a priority, Iran is ready to give up on its nuclear dreams and settle for some sort of promise of playing the role of regional power instead of Saudi Arabia whose ambitions have been dashed by the new regional arrangements put together by the American power broker.

As result, Israel is winning on all fronts: it is obliging Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions and disarm without having to go on war and face the dire consequences of such an act. It has succeeded in reducing Saudi Arabia to its normal size and by so doing reduce the Arab governments to a bunch of protégé nations grappling with internal uprisings of disgruntled citizenry aspiring for democracy and better living conditions.

Thanks to the so-called Arab Spring, Egypt, the only Arab power capable of being a match to Israel in the region is out of the course for decades to come. As result, Israel wins again the jackpot: disarmament of Iran, power reduction of the Arabs, stability in the region and peace. Now it will devote its time and energy to the achievement of peace with the Palestinians on its own terms and conditions, because Hamas, deprived of the support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the military assistance of Tehran, will soon crumble down and Abbas will emerge as the savior of the Palestinian people and will create a state under the protection of Israel.

Final Casting And Final Word

The Sykes-Picot arrangements and accord are now a thing of the past; long live the Greater Middle East born on the sketch pad of George Bush Jr. and taking life as a super production blockbuster under the direction of Obama. This film, unless it is scrapped by Donald Trump and the chances are he will do, ushers in a new kind of production where the hero is not the real hero. The casting is a follows:

• The narrator of the film is Israel that sets the tone to everything in the film with a voice off;
• The hero is Iran in appearance only, but not in the reality of the film;
• The Arabs will have to content themselves with second fiddle role, no more because in spite of the money and the resources and the expanses of land, they are still tribal and backwards oppressing their people and shunning true democracy.

By Dr. Daud Abdullah*

It is perfectly normal for Palestinians to have political differences with the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), but it is wholly unacceptable for any Palestinian, official or otherwise, to call for the destruction and burning of the Gaza Strip in order to crush the group. Such threats are manifestly shameful and can only result in national disaster.

The fact that they have been issued by officials in Ramallah with increasing regularity reveals the extent to which the Palestinian Authority has become embedded with the Israeli occupation, aside from “security cooperation”. The interests of PA officials, as well as their motives and ways of thinking, seem to be in complete sync with that of their Israeli counterparts. So intertwined with Israel is the PA rhetoric, in fact, that it is almost impossible to distinguish which is which.

Listen, for example, to any of the weekly sermons delivered in Ramallah’s Tashrifat Mosque by Mahmoud Habbash, the supreme judge and presidential adviser on religious affairs; compare their tone and content to statements by Israeli officials and you’ll find one fundamental message: there can be no peace or reconciliation with Hamas, so military confrontation is both desirable and inevitable. It is a truly scandalous state of affairs.

If seen from the point of view of national liberation and independence, instead of seeking to smash Hamas the PA should welcome the fact that the Israeli occupation army can no longer enter the Gaza Strip at will to vandalize and destroy the homes of Palestinian civilians or abduct their children. It should celebrate the fact that there are no Israeli settler gangs in the enclave that can destroy olive groves belonging to Palestinians and steal more of their land. Needless to say, the Israelis do all of these and more on the outskirts of Ramallah without as much as a whimper from the authority. When Palestinian villagers hold weekly protests at the growth of illegal settlements on their land and are attacked by Jewish settlers or Israeli soldiers — sometimes both at once — the PA’s 70,000 “security officers” are nowhere to be seen.

In as much as President Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies such as Habbash would like to change the status quo in Gaza, the PA does not have the military means or capability to carry out its threats. An undertaking of this magnitude would require the help and support of a neighboring power; in this case either Egypt or Israel. Recent history has shown that this is a likely scenario.

The bellicose rhetoric from Ramallah and Tel Aviv has given rise to much speculation about yet another Israeli-led military campaign against the Palestinians living in Gaza. If Habbash’s sermons and fatwas are anything to go by, Ramallah will, on this occasion, be overt in offering its blessings.

As for Egypt, its approval of another brutal Israeli military offensive would be no less forthcoming. For those with short memories, it is worth recalling that Israel’s 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead was launched less than 48 hours after the then Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, stood in Cairo on 25th December and declared that something had to be done about Palestinian rocket fire from the Gaza Strip. “This is something that has to be stopped,” she said, “and this is what we’re going to do.” Two days later her threat was put into effect with devastating consequences for Palestinian civilians.

Fast forward to 2017 and a new wave of threats has reached a crescendo. Israel’s Minister of Defence [sic], the extreme right-wing fanatic Avigdor Lieberman, has vowed that there will be no half-way measures this time; the next murderous onslaught against Gaza will continue “until the other side waves the white flag.”

Despite the widespread public outrage at Habbash’s speeches, President Abbas has refused to distance himself from them, thus conveying tacit support for his vitriolic words. The truth of the matter is that there is no difference between the president’s views and that of his religious advisor. Speaking last week at a conference in Bahrain with the ambassadors of the State of Palestine to Arab and Islamic countries, Abbas threatened to take “unprecedented steps” to end the political division between his West Bank-based government and the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. “These days, we are in a dangerous and tough situation that requires decisive steps,” he declared, “and we are going to take these decisive steps. We are going to take unprecedented steps in the coming days to end the division.”

After decades of diplomatic work on behalf of the Palestinian national movement, Mahmoud Abbas should know that reconciliation of any kind requires favorable conditions to thrive. Threats of fire and brimstone can only poison the atmosphere and perpetuate mistrust. He should remember that that the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are no less Palestinian than those in the West Bank; they too aspire to the same national objective of a free and independent Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital. Why, then, should they be treated as enemies?

By withholding wages due to its own civil servants in Gaza and giving succour to Israeli jingoism, the PA in Ramallah will gain nothing. The only real beneficiary from such misguided policies will be the Occupying Power, Israel. It is high time for Ramallah to engage in an honest reality check and decide which side Abbas is actually on, Israel or Palestine. It’s still not too late.

*Dr. Daud Abdullah is Middle East Monitor Director. Follow him at @abdullahdaud74

Ohio-class guided-missile submarine USS Michigan arrived in Busan, South Korea on Tuesday, for a routine visit during a regularly scheduled deployment to the Western Pacific, the US Navy said in a statement.

“This visit is yet another example of the steadfast ROK (South KoreaO and US naval partnership,” said Rear Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea. “We [U.S. and ROK navies] work closely with one another every day of the year and this well-deserved port visit is a chance for Michigan Sailors to enjoy the wonderful Busan culture that US Navy Korea Sailors experience each and every day.”

USS Michigan is one of four Ohio-class guided-missile submarines. The Navy’s guided-missile submarines provide the Navy with strike and special operation mission capabilities from a stealthy, clandestine platform. Armed with tactical missiles and equipped with superior communications capabilities, guided-missile submarines are capable of launching missile strikes and supporting Special Operation Forces (SOF) missions.

“This crew has displayed incredible professionalism and dedication throughout this deployment,” said Capt. Joe Turk, Michigan’s commanding officer. “Every Sailor understands the importance of our mission and every one of them is dedicated to ensuring that mission is a success. I simply cannot be more proud of their service.”

Measuring more than 560 feet long and weighing more than 18,000 tons when submerged, Michigan is one of the largest submarines in the world.

“We are looking forward to a chance meet up with our [Republic of Korea Navy] partners and learn about the culture of Korea, for the first time for many of us, myself included,” said Turk.

Michigan is the second submarine of the Ohio-class of ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and guided missile submarines (SSGNs), and the third U.S. Navy ship to bear the name. Michigan is homeported in Bremerton, Washington, and is forward deployed from Guam.

During the event to launch the underwater ELLA-LINK telecommunications cable that took place in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil, the Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, explained that the new connection will reduce the time to transmit data by 40%, as well as improve the quality, reliability and confidentiality of communications between Ibero-America and Europe.

Rajoy commented that the new cable is “a necessary connection between Europe and Ibero-America and “an example of public-private cooperation”, in which the European Union has also played a “very important” role, with a contribution of 25 million euros.

Rajoy also pointed out that the new underwater cable, which connects the cities of Fortaleza and Lisbon – to then connect with Madrid – is “a modern connection” with a very high capacity of “no less than 72 terabytes per second”.

According to Rajoy, the new connection between Latin America and Europe “will reduce the time to transmit data between the two continents by 40% and will also help us to improve quality, reliability and confidentiality”.

After congratulating all those who participated in this “pioneering project”, Rajoy recalled that the first underwater cable between America (from the United States) and Europe was laid in 1850, but broke within a year. During the following years, technological progress led to new cables being laid, up to 15, always between North America and Europe.

Rajoy asserted that the ELLA-LINK is “a project that joins two continents”, a union that “symbolizes the special ties that unite Europe and America and that is a manifestation of our shared past” and “a future full of opportunities”.

In short, he added, “it is a project with tremendous strategic value” and with a “vocation to be extended” to the Pacific coast (to connect with the European Southern Observatory in Chile).

Rajoy also stated that the new underwater connection will lead to the parallel development of other projects, such as the Bella Project (a consortium of scientific and academic networks from the two continents), the Clara network (which works to strengthen the development of science, culture, education and innovation in Latin America) and the Geam Network (located in Europe).

It is now prevalently agreed upon that more than nine million Iranians have fled their homeland since the rule of chaos and execution was forced upon their country on February 11, 1979 under the name of the Islamic revolution. It is without question a black mark in the record of any regime when more than 12 percent of its subjects abandon their homes, families and belongings, and choose to accept a nomadic life in order to maintain their dignity and freedom.

Everyday, Iranians flee their country in the hope of protecting their identities, in the hope of maintaining their self-respect, and in the hope of saving their children from becoming religious fanatics, devoid of any human principles and used as political toys in the hands of the religious oligarchy and their revolutionary fundamentalists.

In the US alone, there are estimates that as many as four million Iranians have taken refuge since 1979. However, the Iranian political refugees have received very little attention. International and specifically European trade agreements and relations with Iran, particularly in the past eight years of Obama’s presidency, were considered to be their worst nightmare.

The tyrannical Islamic regime and its few bribed sympathizers around the world are still attempting to deceive the international community by claiming that support for the so-called “reformist” and “pragmatic” President Hassan Rouhani will ultimately, among other issues, bring freedom and democracy to Iran. They try to convince the free world and democratic countries that by appeasing the regime and rewarding it with normalized relations, they will somehow be able to change its attitude and behavior. However, the distinction between “moderate” president and “fundamentalist” Supreme Leader in Iran is a political subterfuge used to mislead the population and perpetuate the inherent corruption of the Islamic regime governing system, and this corruption will not only continue to oppress the Iranian people but also undermine the transparency in business with foreign investors.

Former US President And His ‘Dear Ayatollah’

Over eight years of international effort in preventing the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and two years of negotiations for reaching an agreement to lift the sanctions while Obama was the US president, apparently provided him with a good opportunity to establish a dubious legacy and be proud of it.

During the ugly political chaos in Iran and engagement of Obama with the Republican Congress he decided to make a connection with Ayatollah Khameini, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic regime by sending him several friendly letters.

However, it was an outrageous course of action considering the Iranian people were crying for democracy and American help to support a secular government in Iran. Obama in November 2014 wrote to a Shiite dictator in Tehran and asked his assistance for military coordination in confronting the Sunni Islamic State, and connecting that cooperation to a deal over nuclear activities of Iran. Obama did not mention anything about the disastrous human rights issue in Iran, turning a blind eye to human rights violations, continued terrorist acts in the region, and continuous testing of intercontinental missiles.

But the main issue was lost. Obama, the leader of the free world and core of democracy, for eight years ignored the fact that Iran’s Supreme Leader is the man who is the Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin of the present day. Obama should have established a relationship with the Iranian people, not with today’s Hitler or Stalin.

Clergies in Iran are as murderous as any religious group in history. From the very first day of the Islamic regime’s establishment, they executed many innocent Iranian officials and military officers, and provoked war with Iraq just to consolidate their dictatorial regime. During eight years of bitter war with Iraq and over one million casualties, clergies dragged school children to the front lines, where their little bodies were used as sandbags to clear mine fields. And war was an excuse to execute dissidents and simply anyone who displeased the bloodthirsty clergies; execution on political charges, of minorities, non-Shiite believers such as Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and Bahais. All these killings and unjust acts in Iran have been carried out on command of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini.

The behavior of the present Islamic regime in Iran is exactly parallel to the Fuhrer’s regime in Germany in political psychology and structure. The Nazi regime in the last century was and the Islamic regime today is based on supremacy of one people, “Aryan” and “Shiite”, respectively, over all other people in the world. On the one hand, the Nazis believed in a Third Reich ideology and the destruction of “inferior races.” Similarly, the Shia clergies in Iran have adopted a renascent ancient culture and believe in the destruction of infidels (non-believers). For Hitler, the undesirables included Jews, Poles, political dissidents, gypsies, homosexuals and sometimes Christians. For Ayatollah Khameini, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, the undesirables include Sunnis, Bahais, Jews, Christians, political dissidents, homosexuals and any non-Shiites.

The medieval horrors in modern Iran and Islamic regime’s execution of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians in the past 38 years could therefore clearly be compared to the Nazis’ Holocaust of Jews in Europe. While the Holocaust occurred on a much grander scale, in both cases, innocent people before execution had been and are subjected to the most gruesome tortures imaginable, physically and mentally. The comparisons are horribly obvious, endless, and unbelievable.

President Obama And His Legacy

Now, the question is how the former president of the greatest democracy with the most advanced and distinguished people in the world became the major supporter of a Shiite dictator who is the modern day Fuhrer?

The US Congress’s Human Rights Country Report year after year has maintained that there has been no change in the status of human rights in Iran and since 2013, the beginning of the Hassan Rouhani presidency, the status of human rights unbelievably worsened.

If there is one thing that truly distinguishes the Americans as a great nation, it is the profound respect it has for human rights and decency. How can America reject the behavior of Hitler’s Nazis burning humans in death camps, Stalin’s communist killing fields and ISIS’s Islamist barbarism, yet still believe it can establish a lasting line of communication with a terrorist regime in Iran that routinely persecutes religious and ethnic minorities, tortures and systematically executes political prisoners, and promotes international terrorism abroad? Would America’s conscience accept a relationship with such a monstrous regime? In fact, as long as it behaves this way, the Islamic regime of Iran should not expect to find a respectable place in the contemporary world.

Eight years of Obama’s presidency made one thing clear: when America fails to lead, enemies of freedom like the Islamic regime of Iran and Russia fill the vacuum. After Obama as commander-in-chief withdrew from Iraq, the Islamic regime did everything it could to establish oppression and spread terror in that country, and Russia began focusing on the southern Persian Gulf states. For the past eight years while the US showed weakness, the enemies of America showed strength and did as they pleased. The Islamic regime and Russia have executed their strategy, resulting in more aggression, more terrorist attacks, and more lives lost as has been occurring in Syria and Yemen.

When Obama took office as president, the Crimean Peninsula was part of Ukraine, a country friendly with the West, but now it belongs to Russia, the adversary of America. Hezbollah had no missiles to shoot into Israel. Now they have about 120,000 of them to wipe out Israel. The terrorist Islamic regime in Iran was about to fall during the “Green” uprising of 2009 when it was saved by Obama. He further saved the one-sided Iran nuclear deal which paved the way to releasing billions of dollars as ransom.

New President In US And New World Order

The lesson to be learned, with no doubt, is if America the leader of the free world is unwilling to sacrifice and stand up against dictators and terrorists, they will work together to ensure more people around the world, including Americans, will be victimized, and naturally they will oppose the US at every turn. They no longer fear America, and American allies do not trust and respect America anymore.

With a new president in the White House, it is about time to establish a new world order. Any further support for the un-elected regime in Tehran, be it commercial, economic, diplomatic- such as the agreement to lift the sanctions, without any commitment by the Islamic regime to stop supporting international terrorism and to respect women, minorities, and human rights- should not be continued. The Islamic regime’s violation of human rights, continuing systematic internal tyranny, and external terror have prolonged the suffering of the Iranian and regional populations.

It is time to mobilize universal shame, it is time for the free world to disconnect all unnecessary diplomatic relationships with the Islamic regime in Iran and it is time for the peace-loving nations to support the Iranian people inside the country and the exiled movement in their struggle against this evil Stone Age, blood-thirsty regime.

With the change of power in America, the people of Iran are now in the beginning phases of a full-fledged movement to regain their freedom and rights, and they have come to the conclusion that the only way they can achieve this is by ridding themselves of the Islamic regime, which has been imposing its will upon them for more than two generations.

The hope and expectation of the Iranian people are that Washington will support the Iranian people this time around and advocate the overthrow of the Islamic regime, and not demoralize the growing secular opposition by opening dialogue with the terrorist blackmail school of Shiite diplomacy.

Hopefully, the free world can thus facilitate the struggle of the oppressed Iranian people and the exiled movement overseas, ultimately granting the Iranian citizens the capability of freeing their country of this brutal regime and once again gaining a respectable position in the world community.
*Mansour Kashfi, PhD, is president of Kashex International Petroleum Consulting and is a college professor in Dallas, Texas. He has over 50 years’ experience in petroleum exploration, primarily about Iran. He is also author of more than 100 articles and books about the petroleum industry and its market behavior worldwide.

Dispute resolution mechanisms anchored on economic interdependence and developing mutual economic vulnerabilities has delivered even in case of worst enemies that repeatedly fought for territory. Germany and France twice went to war over mutually contested territory during the first half of 20th century. Both states claimed Alsace-Loraine as theirs and employed military power to settle the dispute. Control over disputed territory switched hands between the two parties depending on the outcome of war. The defeated state that lost territory would prepare for next war to win back and gain territory.

This bloodbath for disputed territory between Germany and France continued until leaders and people in both states realized such territory grabbing approach through military means was not going to settle the dispute forever. The United States helped building peace in post World War II in Europe and developed the Western Europe through Marshal Plan. The US helped create an enabling environment for Western Europe countries that changed the perspective of leaders and people for adopting economic approach for dispute resolution especially territorial disputes. Confidence building measures, resource sharing and joint administration of disputed territories coupled with initiation of economic integration process eventually created mutually accommodating environment that gave confidence to the leaders for making concessions without being termed as traitors.

Kashmir is unresolved territorial dispute involving Pakistan and India. Both states have resorted to war for resolving the dispute. Conventional military force failed to deliver the political outcome that both states expected to manufacture through war. After becoming overt nuclear power states, there can be no rational consideration for war on Kashmir fourth time. Even though there is war mongering attitude by Bharatiya Janata Party government towards Pakistan, the possession of nuclear weapons by Pakistan works to instill rationality in the minds of political and military elite of India. Nuclearization of both states has essentially frozen the territorial status quo prevailing in Kashmir state.

The US has maintained the non-interference stance on Kashmir, encouraging both parties to negotiate directly, but such approach essentially means shying away from moral responsibility that the world leader has for building peace around the world. The US has failed to create enabling environment whereby India and Pakistan could resolve this disputes according to wishes of the people of Kashmir.

While making demands especially on Pakistan for economic integration with India, the US and Western leaders hoped that Franco-German Economic Interdependence Model could eventually lead to bilateral approach that would help resolving the Kashmir issue. The US failed to provide specific economic incentives to both states for moving towards resolution of Kashmir dispute.
China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) provides opportunity to both states for creating enabling environment through economic integration for eventual resolution of Kashmir dispute.

Within South Asia, India is the biggest trade partner of China. Though China has proposed Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIMEC) under One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative, the real incentive for India will be connectivity with Central Asia. For India, relative economic advantage will be degraded by preferring any regional connectivity strategy ignoring Pakistan.

Within Indian Administered Kashmir (IAK) there is popular support for joining CPEC and connectivity with China and Central Asia. Even the puppet government of IAK has given friendly gestures to the idea of IAK becoming part of CPEC.

Detractors of CPEC in India who are hostile to the idea of IAK becoming part of this economic initiative argue that such action will give legitimacy to Pakistan’s control over Kashmir. Such extremist constituency that right wing nationalist political parties have fostered in India ignore the fact as recognized in United Nations Security Council resolutions that Kashmir is disputed territory.

By making offer to India to part of CPEC, Pakistan is not trying to seek any legitimacy for its part of Kashmir. The purpose of such offer by Pakistan to India is improving the condition of people of IAK. Instrument of accession that Hari Singh signed with India is not acceptable because he had ceased to be legitimate rule of the state. The people of Kashmir state through massive indigenous uprising delivered their verdict on the legitimacy of the ruler.

Oppressive tactics that Indian Armed and Paramilitary Forces have been using against the people of Kashmir have failed to break the will of the people to fight for right to self determination that is corner stone of Human Rights Law. Holding Kashmir by India through force is wastage of economic resources and cruel joke with millions of people living under poverty line inside India.

Full potential of transit trade agreement that India has signed with Afghanistan using Pakistan’s land cannot be realized till India starts taking meaningful steps towards economic integration with Pakistan. The Indian designs for connecting with Central Asia can be economically feasible only if there is peace in the region especially in Afghanistan.

Economic development of China offers opportunity to Pakistan and India to benefit from this miracle. With increasing economic stakes in stability of the region, imperatives for peace building efforts by China through economic development projects will increase. Status quo on Kashmir can be maintained while developing economic links between the two Kashmir. With political will, such a framework for visa issuance can be agreed between the two countries that will not undermine the status of the disputed territory.

Pakistan’s offer to India for joining CPEC if utilized can become boon for improving the condition of people of Kashmir. Mutual trust building by enhancing economic development of Kashmir through CPEC can help create right conditions for resolution of Kashmir dispute.

The indigenous movement of Kashmiris for right to self determination has shown to Indians that business as usual cannot continue in IAK. CPEC provides opportunity for demilitarization of Kashmir. Instead of using brutal force against the people of Kashmir, India should give nod to IAK becoming part of this economic mega project. Conflict transformation and improving the condition of the people of IAK through CPEC should be focus of New Delhi. CPEC has the potential to bring peace not only in Kashmir but in Afghanistan as well. The future belongs to regional connectivity, economic integration and regional trade.

*The author works as Research Associate with Strategic Vision Institute (SVI), a think tank based in Islamabad, Pakistan.

By Yossi Mekelberg*

If anything was surprising about British Prime Minister Theresa May’s call for snap elections, it was that it took her so long to make this decision. She was never too convincing in her promises not to do so before the 2020 due date. She almost protested too much.

As appalling and disappointing as it is to witness, once again, a politician who bluntly breaks a promise, one needs to bear in mind that May is first and foremost a politician, and without this crude thirst for power she would have never reached her position in the first place.

I am writing this with sad resignation rather than endorsement. In a very bruising contest within her party, following the Brexit referendum and the resignation of David Cameron, May proved her knack for a political sucker-punch on her way to 10 Downing Street. May has made the transition from a seeming “Remain” supporter to “Brexit is Brexit” with little hesitation — some may say with no compunction — because that is where political power rests.

As with most other modern politicians, it is in May’s DNA to be led by public opinion polls, whether acting according to them serves the country best or not. Asking her to ignore a more-than 20-point lead in the polls, which translates into increasing the Conservative Party’s majority in the House of Commons from 17 to at least 140 MPs, is like asking her to abandon her most basic political instincts. She wants to win, and win big.

In the sorry state of the current British political system, May’s most threatening opposition comes from within her own party rather than from outside it. The main opposition, the Labour Party, is in a state of disarray led by the lackluster and inept Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn is unpopular even among his own MPs, while other parties are too small to mount a real challenge. North of the border in Scotland, the Scottish Nationalist Party is expected to repeat its success of 2015, especially as it campaigns on the ticket of Scottish independence as a vehicle for remaining part of the EU.

It would probably baffle any decent human being how a prime minister could throw her country into an election frenzy, by unashamedly blaming the opposition and the upper chamber, the House of Lords, for doing their job of overseeing the government’s activity on issues which are at the heart of the country’s future. In May’s audacity she questions the legitimacy of the other parties to oppose a future agreement with the EU, as if it is not their duty to scrutinize any future agreement with it.

Truth be told, in the process of triggering Article 50, May’s government got its way almost to the letter. Unless she was, all of a sudden, inspired by Erdogan and the Turkish referendum, disgruntled with having to deal with the opposition, she had a perfect working majority to march on leading the country, including Brexit, until 2020.

If polls are anything to go by, May will retain her position, but reinvigorated and more powerful. The financial markets have also had their say and the pound surged to its highest level this year immediately after the announcement of the elections. It reflects a view that a Conservative government with a solid majority would negotiate Brexit from a much stronger position, using Parliament as no more than a rubber stamp.

Though constitutionally the premiership of May was never in question, there is always a lingering doubt of legitimacy when the prime minister reaches power without leading the party in elections. It is probably a doubt that also was lingering in her mind, which a massive lead in the polls helped to resolve.

Assuming she comes out on top in the elections, May will acquire not only a sizable breathing space from the other opposition parties, but will also be able to assert herself within her own party. She can then reshuffle her Cabinet as a leader in her own right with a mandate from the people.

Waiting for 2020 would have been politically too risky for May, considering a final agreement on Brexit should be finalized by 2019. It would have been too close to the following year’s elections as set by law. This is especially the case if negotiations prove disastrously unsuccessful, or if the agreement reached is significantly inferior to Britain’s current terms of membership in the EU.

May has proved thus far that she is far from being an inspiring leader and is mainly a rather alarming right-wing rhetorician with no great vision. She substitutes the lack of vision by diligently plowing along a very conservative agenda on issues such as immigration and education. Yet she is in charge of the biggest challenge the UK has faced for decades and at one point or another she will have to reveal her cards as to whether she is a soft or a hard Brexiter.

In her about-turn regarding the timing of the elections she proved to be a calculated political operator, but this will not necessarily suffice in facing EU negotiators who resent Britain’s decision to leave the EU, with some even harboring hopes that it will not happen at all. For them, as for everyone else, May’s nine months in office and decision to call elections leave open the question of whether behind an opportunistic politician also hides a shrewd stateswoman.

*Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media.

Singapore’s port depends on the transshipment business, accounting for roughly 85% of overall container volume. Nevertheless, the new complexities in operations and increased cost consciousness of shippers have allowed smaller ports in the region to compete with the maritime hub.

By Philipp Martin Dingeldey*

Overcapacity and  low oil prices have driven freight rates to unprofitable levels, increasing the shipping industry’s pressure to consolidate. The sheer amount of logistics needed to service ultra-large container vessels (ULVCs) and mega alliances these days requires ports to have advanced logistics to stay competitive.

So far Singapore’s port has been more attractive for shippers due to the multitude of services and the comparative geographical advantage it offers. Nevertheless, to stay competitive, PSA International and Singapore authorities have committed to a two-step modernisation plan, led by a strategic shift towards transforming Tuas into a major port hub.

Gearing Up for the Future

The first step is the US$2.6 billion modernisation of Pasir Panjang terminal, raising the throughput capacity to 50 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) by the end of this year. In a second step, the Tuas port project is planned to gradually consolidate container operations from 2021, more than doubling the port’s current throughput capacity to 65 million TEUs.

The Tuas port will specifically cater to ULVCs and alliances with fully automated operations. To speed up transfer and loading times, PSA and the Maritime Port Authority aim to integrate port operations with a truck platooning system.

Additionally, the authorities also want to make Singapore the future LNG hub in Asia, as the number of LNG powered vessels will grow in the coming years. This is due to the International Maritime Organisation’s decision to reduce maximum sulphur limits in marine fuels from 3.5% to 0.5% from January 2020, forcing vessels to either use expensive low-sulphur fuels, scrubbers, or LNG.

The question is whether Singapore’s planned investments will keep it ahead of the competition.

Singapore’s Competitors

Ports in Indonesia and Malaysia are undertaking, or plan to undertake, large scale investments to compete for transshipment and bunkering business. Though not all projects can directly compete with Singapore, the number of competitors might pose problems for Singapore’s port in the long-run.

Singapore’s competitors are currently investing in the following projects:

– The Port of Tanjung Pelepas, west of Singapore on the Malaysian peninsular, plans to invest US$2 billion to double its capacity to 22 million TEUs by 2030. Currently the port serves 26 shipping lines and has made investments to serve Maersk’s Triple-E mega vessels.

– Port Klang Authority plans to invest US$45 billion for a new sea port, west of Kuala Lumpur, with a capacity of 30 million TEUs. Additionally, Malaysia’s multicargo port located in Port Klang, Westports, will raise its capacity to 16 million TEUs over the next decade, while Northport will invest in new equipment to handle ULVCs and lift its capacity to 5 million TEUs by 2018.

– At the Port of Tanjong Priok in the north of Jakarta the Indonesian government plans to consolidate the cargo services of other domestic ports.

– In Johor, east of Singapore, the refinery and petrochemical integrated development (RAPID) project, is scheduled to start operations in 2019. The US$28 billion project will comprise a variety of petrochemical facilities, including LNG regasification and import terminals, as well as a liquid bulk terminal.
New Pressure for Singapore?

The question is whether the competition’s investments add pressure on Singapore’s port, or whether they will have much impact.

As ambitious as these projects are, it is questionable whether the ports of Tanjung Pelepas and Klang can edge out Singapore’s competitive edge. Currently both ports serve only a small number of customers and may face lower international connectivity.

This is especially true for Port Klang, as an alliance of six shipping liners including NYK Line and Hapag-Lloyd, known as The Alliance, will only make one port call on one of its 32 offered routes from April. Additionally, Port Klang’s mega hub plans can only be viewed as long-term project, questioning the port’s growth trajectory, as Singapore may be better positioned to fend off rivals in the transshipment business.

Singapore port has offered equity stakes to major liners, in order to win back transshipment business from its nearby competitors. For example, CMA CGM, a major customer of Westports, has entered into a joint venture with PSA to jointly operate four berths at Singapore’s Pasir Panjang Terminal. Additionally, the company is planning to shift its regional HQ to Singapore, while China Cosco is also increasing its cooperation with PSA in Singapore.

The idea of a China-Malaysia port and shipping alliance has recently gained some traction, especially with Malaysia’s East Coast Rail Line (ECRL) project and several port projects being backed by Chinese banks. Such an alliance would involve 11 Chinese and 6 Malaysian ports to boost the shipping and logistics industries in both countries.

Additionally, the overland rail connection from Malaysia’s west coast to its east coast would allow Chinese and other bulk carriers to circumvent Singapore. Nevertheless, the growth of further port facilities in the Strait of Malacca will likely intensify the intra-Malaysian competition for transshipment business, adding pressure for Malaysian ports.

In Indonesia, officials are confident to compete with Singapore for transshipment traffic. It is questionable, however, whether the investment can be competitive, as the port of Tanjung Priok lacks size and services, and will be limited to routes towards Australia.

Smooth Sailing Ahead?

On top of all these developments, Singapore’s ambition to become the leading LNG bunker hub in Asia could face some serious competition from Malaysia’s RAPID project. Even though Singapore will likely continue to be the bunker hub in Asia in the near-term and is the most advanced in introducing LNG bunkering, it is questionable whether Singapore can compete with the size of the project. For now, it is not even clear whether LNG will be the fuel of choice for the future.

Overall, Singapore has invested a lot into its port to stay ahead of the competition. Due to its experience and connectivity, its service infrastructure, cooperation to bind clients long-term, and its investment in modern port facilities Singapore’s port looks set to stay ahead in the short- to medium-term.

Singapore’s port will have to continuously adjust to market and technological changes. Ultimately, maritime trade and shipping are tied to the state of the global economy. The ability of Singapore to provide an ecosystem of comprehensive and efficient port and bunkering services will be the key to stay ahead of the competition.

*Philipp Martin Dingeldey is a Research Analyst with the Maritime Security Programme at the Institute Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

US President Trump’s pledge to put “America first” looks like it could end up badly hurting Jordan. In a leaked State Department document published by Foreign Policy, the country is scheduled for a 21.7% cut in annual aid. That’s a huge reduction, and would mean drastic cutbacks in services offered by USAID, the US government aid agency.

In 2015, the last year for which full data is available, USAID spent $847 million in the country. A lot of that went to supporting Syrian refugees, as well as trying to improve democracy and essential services for Jordanians.

Why, though, should Americans care about what happens in far away and relatively small Jordan?

The answer comes in four parts:

1. Daesh

Jordan is one of the US’ most important allies in the fight against Daesh, also known as the “Islamic State”. The group is present in two countries that border Jordan – Iraq and Syria – and has sometimes mounted attacks inside the country itself. Jordan was one of the most active Arab partners in the US-led coalition’s airstrikes against Daesh in Syria and Iraq.

Trump has promised to “get smart” in the fight against Daesh and prevent them from attacking the US. In order to do that, the US needs to keep strong – and keep on its good side – its local allies, like Jordan, who are key bulwarks against the group.

Cutting aid could seriously harm Jordan’s will to act in line with the US’s interests outside of its borders. It could also lead to a greater risk of increasing Daesh activity within the country because of the…

2. Economy

Jordan’s economy is not in a great shape. Internal dynamics play a role, but the wars in Iraq and Syria have also closed the borders and cut off some of the country’s key trade partners.

The government is struggling to keep the cost of living down while simultaneously increasing the money in its coffers. Those competing demands led earlier this year to a decision to raise taxes, which caused much grumbling and some rare protests.

Unemployment, a failing economy and public dissatisfaction with the government are all things that could push people into the arms of extremist groups like Daesh. Jordan has long defied gloomy predictions about future instability, but that doesn’t mean the risk of violence in the country isn’t real.

Another key reason for the government’s lack of money is that Jordan hosts a lot of…

3. Refugees

Jordan has been hosting refugees for most of the country’s life. Big numbers: first of Palestinians, then Iraqis, and now Syrians.

While refugees are not only a strain on a country – they also provide cheap and often unregulated labour for a country’s businesses and spend their income in the country – it can’t be denied that hosting them comes with costs for Jordan.

The country has long complained that the international community is not funding enough of the services required for refugees. A big cut in US aid would only deepen that shortfall, putting more pressure on the Jordanian government to find money at a time when it is really struggling to do so.

That, in turn, would be sure to anger the government, and make it much less likely to play the US would like it to in terms of Trump’s…

4. Foreign policy

King Abdullah II was the first Arab leader to meet Trump twice. That had some speculating that he was playing a key role in forming Trump’s attitudes to foreign policy in the Middle East.

Indeed, if Trump is going to do the “ultimate deal” and make peace between Israel and Palestine, then Jordan would be a key partner. It has been reported that Trump wants to mobilize improving relations between Sunni states and Israel to pressure Israel and Palestine into a deal. Jordan would be a lynchpin in those negotiations. The country has an excellent relationship with Israel, and is drawing closer to Saudi Arabia and most other Gulf states.

Jordan will be a lot less likely to do America’s bidding in the region, however, if it feels it has been shortchanged by the Trump administration. While many would be happy to see America fail in its foreign policy aims in the Middle East, Jordan’s stability depends at least in part on aid not only from the US, but also from Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. That aid might be less forthcoming if Jordan can’t help them achieve their foreign policy aims, and there is no doubt that a destabilized Jordan would only serve the interests of extremists.

It could be that these spending cuts won’t actually come to pass. If they do, however, it’s likely that US interests would be severely harmed in Jordan. That harm, however, would be only a fraction of the suffering that the cuts would cause to the vulnerable in Jordan, whether that’s Jordanians or refugees.

High-fat foods are often the primary target when fighting obesity, but sugar-laden “diet” foods could be contributing to unwanted weight gain as well, according to a new study from the University of Georgia.

Researchers found that rats fed a diet high in sugar but low in fat–meant to imitate many popular diet foods–increased body fat mass when compared to rats fed a balanced rodent diet. The high-sugar diet induced a host of other problems, including liver damage and brain inflammation.

“Most so-called diet products containing low or no fat have an increased amount of sugar and are camouflaged under fancy names, giving the impression that they are healthy, but the reality is that those foods may damage the liver and lead to obesity as well,” said the study’s principal investigator, Krzysztof Czaja, an associate professor of veterinary biosciences and diagnostic imaging in UGA’s College of Veterinary Medicine.

“What’s really troubling in our findings is that the rats consuming high-sugar, low-fat diets didn’t consume significantly more calories than the rats fed a balanced diet,” Czaja said. “Our research shows that in rats fed a low-fat, high-sugar diet, the efficiency of generating body fat is more than twice as high–in other words, rats consuming low-fat high-sugar diets need less than half the number of calories to generate the same amount of body fat.”

Over a four-week period, researchers monitored body weight, caloric intake, body composition and fecal samples in three groups of rats. One group of test subjects consumed a diet high in fat and sugar, another group was fed a low-fat, high-sugar diet and a third group was given a balanced or “normal” diet.

Both the low-fat, high-sugar and high-fat, high-sugar groups displayed an increase in liver fat and significant increases in body weight and body fat when compared to the balanced diet group. Liver fat accumulation was significant in the high-sugar, low-fat group, which Czaja said “is a very dangerous situation, because the liver accumulating more fat mimics the effect of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.”

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is caused by fat buildup in the liver, and serious forms of the disease can result in liver damage comparable to that caused by heavy alcohol use.

The unbalanced diets also induced chronic inflammation in the intestinal tract and brain. Former studies in rats conducted by Czaja have shown that brain inflammation alters gut-brain communication by damaging the vagus nerve, which controls sensory signals, including the brain’s ability to determine when one is full.

“The brain changes resulting from these unbalanced diets seem to be long term, and it is still not known if they are reversible by balanced diets,” Czaja said.

This study expands upon the researchers’ previous work that determined high-fat diets alter the gut microbiome, the collection of bacteria, viruses and other microbes that live in the digestive tract. The recent study found that the unbalanced diets decreased the microbiome’s bacterial diversity, and the low-fat, high-sugar diet increased gut bacteria that are associated with liver damage.

Chinese authorities in the northwestern region of Xinjiang have banned dozens of baby names with religious meanings that are widely used by Muslims elsewhere in the world.

Sources in Hotan, in the southern part of the region, had previously detailed a list of banned names in 2015, but the ban now appears to have been rolled out region-wide, Radio Free Asia reported.

Islam, Quran, Mecca, Jihad, Imam, Saddam, Hajj, and Medina are among dozens of baby names banned under ruling Chinese Communist Party’s “Naming Rules For Ethnic Minorities,” an official confirmed last week.

An employee who answered the phone at a police station in the regional capital Urumqi confirmed that “overly religious” names are banned, and that any babies registered with such names would be barred from the hukou household registration system that gives access to health care and education.

“You’re not allowed to give names with a strong religious flavor, such as Jihad or names like that,’ the official said. “The most important thing here is the connotations of the name … [it mustn’t have] connotations of holy war or of splittism [Xinjiang independence].”

Asked if names of Islamic scholars were acceptable, the employee replied: “Get him to change it; it’s the sort of thing that [could be regarded as] promoting terror and evil cults.”

Asked if Yultuzay, a reference to the star and moon symbol of the Islamic faith, was acceptable, he said: “Actually the star and moon are a pagan symbol.”

“[Mecca] would be a bit over-the-top … I don’t think you could call someone Saddam, either,” he said in response to queries on those names.

By Mohammed Al-Sulami

Makkah Gov. Prince Khaled Al-Faisal inaugurated the Al-Dweihi gold mine and factory, and some basic mining projects in Makkah, in the presence of Prince Faisal bin Turki, adviser at the Ministry of Energy, Industry and Mineral Resources, and Maaden CEO Khalid bin Saleh Al-Mudaifer.

Those present were shown how gold bullions are made, marking the launch of the mine.

Prince Khaled expressed satisfaction with the inauguration of the mine and related projects in Makkah, which “will benefit our homeland during the blessed reign of King Salman, and aims to achieve a stable development in all parts of the Kingdom,” as part of the national development strategy which is the focus of great attention in the Kingdom’s Vision 2030.

Prince Khaled also commended the efforts of the Ministry of Energy, Industry and Mineral Resources and of Maaden industrial projects, which are going to have a positive impact on the people of Makkah.

Prince Faisal bin Turki thanked Prince Khaled for lending his patronage to Al-Dweihi gold mine and factory, a major project that helps develop mining in the province.

Prince Faisal said opening Al-Dweihi and Al-Souq mines in this region rich in gold reserves conforms with the Vision 2030, and the goals and initiatives of the National Transformation Program (NTP) 2020 related to energy and industry.

The mining sector is a promising industry that is bound to create more job opportunities and have a substantial contribution to the national domestic product.

According to Prince Faisal, one of the initiatives that will help achieve these goals is the establishment of gold centers in the central and northern areas of the Kingdom.

Prince Faisal stressed that increasing the wealth of Saudis is one of the most important goals of the Kingdom’s leadership, and pointed out that the Saudi mining sector has a great contribution to the industrial sector.

The projects in Ras Al-Khair and Waad for mining industries are examples of what the Kingdom can achieve as a result of the cooperation among the various state establishments in this field.

Maaden chief Al-Mudaifer thanked Prince Khaled for inaugurating the project, stressing that it is an honor for the company’s 700 employees to have the patronage of the Makkah governor.

He said Maaden’s move to develop the Kingdom’s gold reserve is one of its priorities. Together with other leaders in the Saudi mining sector, including phosphate, aluminum, copper and industrial minerals, the gold-mining sector will contribute to achieving the Vision 2030 and the goals of the National Transformation Program (NTP) 2020.

He said “the company’s administration is proud to manage six gold mines,” foremost of which are the historical Mahd gold mine, Balghah, in Madinah, Al-Skheirat, in Al-Qasim, Al-Souq, in Makkah, Al-Amar, in Riyadh and Al-Dweihi.

While the self-proclaimed Islamic State has spread its wings in Southeast Asia, the danger posed by Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) cannot be ignored. It has been in a state of preparation to strike when the moment is ripe.

By Bilveer Singh*

While national, regional and international attention has been focussed on the self-proclaimed Islamic State, the dormant Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) has found the environment conducive for its own growth and expansion. By 2010 and 2011, there was some satisfaction in Southeast Asia that JI had not only been crippled but was also largely defeated. Its key military and ideological leaders were either dead or detained. They included Abu Bakar Bashyir, Aman Abdurrahman, Abu Rusydan, Al Aqaeda operatives Hambali, Dulmatin, Umar Patek, Abu Dujana as well as Malaysian fighters such as Nordin M Top and Dr Azahari Husin.

However, even though the last JI bombing in Indonesia was in 2009, it did not mean that the group had renounced terrorism. On the contrary, it had adopted a strategic decision to lie low in line with the concept of I’dad that advocated in-depth preparation to participate in a future jihad. This partly explains the intermittent reports of JI members being arrested or detained ever since, including the four that were detained in Indonesia in December 2016.

Post-2009 JI: ‘No-bomb’ Policy – for Time Being

A major factor for the change in strategy of the first Southeast Asia-wide terrorist organisation was due to the robust counter-terrorism policies adopted by governments in the region. By 2016, in Indonesia alone, more than 110 JI leaders and members had been killed in operations. About 1,200 were languishing in prisons. The JI organisation was also fragmented.

JI’s ‘pro-bomb’ policy was also a consequence of divisions within the organisation between the ‘pro-bomb’ and ‘bomb-now’ group versus the pro-dakwah and ‘bomb-later’ faction. The division also had the effect of weakening JI, especially as most of the ‘pro-bomb’ leaders and members were either killed or detained.

Partly due to the weakening of the ‘pro-bomb’ faction and the negative reactions of the public at large to JI bomb attacks, which killed many innocent Muslims, by end 2010 and the beginning of 2011, the decision was made to adopt a ‘no-bomb policy for the time being’. This was also in line with the strategic concept of I’dad, of rebuilding one’s strength in time of weakness and striking when it was ripe to do so.

This was made explicit by Chep Hermawan, the leader of GARIS, the Indonesian Reform Movement. At a congress of leading jihadists and radical ideologues in Cipanas district, West Java, in December 2010, it agreed to adopt a non-violent approach to campaign for Sharia Law and an Islamic state. Hermawan also argued that bombings that mostly killed innocent Muslims were counter-productive as these had lost the organisation much public support and sympathy.

Strategic Resilience of JI

In the author’s recent interview with the former Emir of JI, Abu Rusydan, and the former leader of JI Mantiqi-3, Nasir Abbas, it is clear that the organisation remains alive and intact. Terrorism expert Sidney Jones even argued that its membership may have expanded to more than 2,000.

For Rusydan, four factors accounted for JI resurgence and continued resilience. These were its ideology, organisational structure, the role of history and the sense of belonging among its members. Rusydan argued that only one factor had changed since October 1999, when the group’s founding Emir, Abdullah Sungkar, died.

Since then, there had not been an instance when the Emir was elected according to Syariat Islam or the organisation’s constitution, the PUPJI. This was despite the fact that JI continued to organise various military operations from 2000 to 2009.

There were also other Emirs who succeeded Sungkar, such as Abu Bakar Bashyir, Abu Rusydan and Zarkasih. Some have even argued that the current Emir is Abu Rusydan. However, Rusydan argued that Sungkar’s successors were elected by elements (anasir) within JI and not by all its members through consensus as was enshrined in the PUPJI.

Neo-JI?

Still, other factors have ensured JI’s continued survival today. Rusydan argued that the group is as relevant today as it was in the past and he was definitely one of its members. However, his focus today is on dakwah and not violence. JI is concentrating on Indonesia and not the region. However, he warned that his group would only be peaceful ‘up to a point’.

He hoped that the Indonesian authorities would not create a situation that would force him and his group to resort to violence, as was undertaken in the past between 2000 and 2009. He also dismissed the notion of ‘neo-Jemaah Islamiyah’ as the work of ‘fertile minds’ in branding the organisation.

Nasir Abbas also argued that JI has been adroitly staying below the security radar, expanding and developing organisationally. This was evident from its membership expansion, collection of funds, knowledge building (studying tactics and strategies), regular gatherings and planning sessions to decide on what needs to be done to ensure its future success. For JI, this has been an opportune moment as it has a pool of experts experienced in combat and where the security apparatus is focussed on the ISIS threat.

Factors Behind a Resurgent JI

Apart from its expanding membership, various other factors have facilitated the steady resurgence of the organisation. First is the existence of Al Qaeda Central, which continues to inspire JI and its members. This is especially since Al Qaeda has been expanding in the last few years. Second, JI leaders continue to be active in proselytising activities in Indonesia, including ideologues such as Abu Rusydan, Abu Jibril and Abu Tholut.

The JI networks have remained intact, including mosques, madrasahs and publishing houses. The mission to create an Islamic State has remained a key driving force of its members. The restraint shown by JI members and leaders shows they have learnt from their past mistakes and failures.

Finally, while the group remains peaceful in Indonesia, some members have supported violent jihad abroad. Abu Jibril and Imam Samudra’s sons died fighting in Syria for the Al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra in 2015.

Whether it is the low-key competition with Abu Bakr Baghdadi’s so-called Islamic State or the mission to set up an Islamic State in Indonesia, ignoring the JI would be premature and a grave error. Having weathered various security challenges and with many of its members expected to be released from detention in the coming year or so, JI is poised to play a major role in challenging the security architecture of Indonesia which is bound to have serious consequences for the Southeast Asian region.

*Bilveer Singh is Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science, National University of Singapore and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Centre of Excellence for National Security, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

The US military has moved elements of the THAAD anti-missile complex to its deployment site in South Korea, causing anger and discontent among the locals, some of whom reportedly clashed with police guarding the convoy.

Residents of Seongju county in South Korea clashed with police after US personnel moved the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system onto a golf course in Seongju, North Gyeongsang Province.

Clashes with local villagers, who have been protesting against THAAD deployment for months, erupted when six trailers carrying the radar and other hardware equipment for the American missile defense system entered the installation site at the golf course in South Korea early Wednesday, Yonhap reports.

Scuffles erupted when police tried to stop some 200 residents at the entrance to the golf course. Police had to mobilize additional forces to control some 8,000 people in the area and the traffic on the 905 provincial roads leading to the Seongju Golf Course.

Local activists have been very vocal about the deployment of the US system, saying the presence of THAAD would make them a prime target for Pyongyang and Beijing. The protesters also said the system poses health and environmental problems.

As police tried to control the crowd, the US military moved all of the car-mounted mobile launchers, radars, interceptor missiles, and combat control stations that have arrived in South Korea in March.

In March, the US military announced that the “first elements” of the THAAD system had arrived in South Korea.

“We know that the two launchers kept in the US Army unit of Wakgok-gun, Chilgok-gun are surely deployed,” a South Korean official told Yonhap on Wednesday morning. “We know that radar, interceptors, generators, coolers, etc., other than mobile launchers, are moved from Pusan to trailers.”

Last July, Seoul and Washington agreed to install the THAAD system in the southeastern town of Seongju as a “necessary measure” to thwart North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats.

While South Koreans remain split over the THAAD issue, the US weapon’s system deployment prompted a strong backlash from regional players, particularly from China.

Beijing has repeatedly spoken out against THAAD over fears that it will undermine its own deterrence capabilities, and previously urged Seoul and Washington to reconsider their plans.

Russia has also voiced concern over the effectiveness of THAAD’s deployment in South Korea, urging those involved to consider the inevitable escalation of tensions it will cause.

By Die Morina, Kaltrina Rexhepi

Politicians from Kosovo’s ruling coalition predicted that the ruling alliance of parties could split soon and that there could be snap elections in the country.

Shkuri Buja, an MP with the ruling Kosovo Democratic Party, PDK, which is currently in government with its junior partner, the Democratic League of Kosovo, LDK, told BIRN on Tuesday that the break-up of the coalition is near.

“There are such tendencies and I hope that the PDK leadership will consider it by the end of this week or next week and make a decision to break up the coalition,” Buja told BIRN.

“I am inclined to believe that the Democratic Party will soon make decisions for the country to go to snap elections,” he added.

Asked to comment on the possibility of snap elections, the deputy head of the LDK, Lutfi Haziri, told BIRN that this week will be “interesting” for the country, but did not specify what he expected to happen.

“This is an interesting week and we will see how it will end, there will be interesting developments involving demarcation,” Haziri said, adding that the LDK hadn’t been asked about snap elections by the PDK.

The long-contested agreement on border demarcation with Montenegro, which still needs to be ratified by parliament and is being pushed by the EU as a top-priority issue, may well decide the fate of the ruling coalition under Prime Minister and LDK leader Isa Mustafa.

This because the current ruling alliance may not have enough votes in parliament to ensure the deal is adopted. It needs 80 out of 120 MPs’ votes in favour.

The European Union has put ratification of the controversial border agreement with Montenegro at the top of its conditions for visa liberalisation.

Prime Minister Isa Mustafa travelled in Brussels on Monday, hoping to be granted some more time to postpone the vote parliament, but once again was urged to finish the process as soon as possible.

A joint statement from EU Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos and Mustafa after their meeting in Brussels on Tuesday said that the Brussels official “encouraged Prime Minister Mustafa, his government and the political parties to proceed with the vote in the Assembly soon”.

Opposition parties have so far prevented the agreement from being adopted.

Three opposition parties, Vetevendosje, the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo, AAK, and NISMA, fiercely contest it, claiming it deprives Kosovo of thousands of hectares of land.

The deal was set to be put to a vote in parliament last September but, amid opposition protests outside the building, Mustafa withdrew it from the agenda.

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

On April 13, 2017, a 21,600-pound Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), also commonly known as the Mother of All Bombs, dropped by U.S Forces killed at least 94 terrorists affiliated with the Islamic State (IS, formerly, Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham, also Daesh) in a Daesh base in the Achin District of Nangarhar Province. Three tunnels used by Daesh fighters and as reservoirs of weapons and other equipment were destroyed in the attack. Later, the Nangahar Provincial Government disclosed that at least four key leaders of the group identified as Hamza Abu Bakar, Mohammad Ibrani, Hamid Kunari, and Walkin, were among those killed.

On April 12, 2017, the Nangahar Provincial Government stated that at least 49 Daesh terrorists, including three ‘commanders’, were killed during the preceding 24 hours in the vicinity of Achin District. Several weapons and other military equipment, including explosives, were also destroyed during the operations.

On April 10, 2017, at least 13 terrorists affiliated with Daesh were killed during the ongoing “Operation Hamza” in the vicinity of the Pekha area of Achin District in Nangarhar Province.

The 10-day “Operation Hamza” was launched on April 10, 2017, by Afghan Special Forces, in cooperation with foreign troops, to fully eliminate the insurgency led by Daesh terrorists and other insurgent groups, including Taliban, in Kot and Achin Districts of Nangarhar Province. Earlier, in another operation codenamed “Operation Shaheen-25” launched on February 10, 2017, to suppress the growing Daesh dominance in the Nangarhar Province, at least 150 loyalists of the group were killed or wounded over ten days.

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), 884 IS terrorists, including 768 in Nangarhar, 94 in Zabul, 15 in Uruzgan, five in Kandahar and two in the Herat Province, have been killed since the beginning of 2017 (data till April 16, 2017).

Reports of Daesh making inroads into Afghanistan had started soon after the June 2014 release of the terrorist formation’s ‘world domination map’, which included Afghanistan in the projected ‘Islamic region’ of Khorasan’. In his address to the United States (US) Congress on March 25, 2015, Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani had warned, “From the west, Daesh is already sending advance guards to southern and western Afghanistan to test for vulnerabilities.” Daesh reportedly carried out its first terror attack inside Afghanistan on April 18, 2015. At least 33 people were killed and another 105 were injured in a suicide bomb blast outside a bank, where Government staff and military personnel were collecting their salaries, in the city of Jalalabad, the Provincial capital of Nangarhar Province. An April 14, 2017, media report put the number of Daesh fighters in Afghanistan at 600 to 800, most of them embedded in Nangarhar Province. US and Afghan militaries have overwhelmingly targeted Daesh Forces since their early emergence and consolidation in the region.

Within days of the declaration of the ‘Caliphate’ by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi on June 29, 2014, a splinter of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) announced itself as the Tehrik-e-Khilafat and declared allegiance to Daesh. In January 2015, Hafiz Saeed Khan Orakzai, a former TTP ‘commander’ and member of its Majlis-e-Shura (governing council), after a protracted leadership struggle within the organization, claimed to have been appointed as the head of Daesh’s Khorasan chapter in Pakistan and Afghanistan. [Hafiz Saeed Khan was killed along with 30 other fighters in an airstrike in Afghanistan’s Jalalabad province in July 2015]. Quickly, with no pattern or apparent material support, Daesh supporters in Pakistan announced themselves in Peshawar, Bannu, the Northwest, and Quetta, the provincial capital of Balochistan. Jundullah, another TTP fragment, also broke away and announced its support for Daesh on November 17, 2014. On July 31, 2015, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), with a powerful presence in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, declared fealty to Daesh. In Afghanistan, various splinters of the Taliban broke away transferring allegiance to Daesh, including the Heroes of Islam Brigade on September 30, 2014 and al Tawheed Brigade on September 23, 2014.

IS-K found initial and substantial support among disaffected Taliban and TTP cadres, establishing dominance in the Nangarhar Province, as well as a significant presence in Kunduz and Helmand, in Afghanistan. Wilting under the heat of operations by the Taliban, the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), private tribal militias and US Air support, IS-K was squeezed out of four of the Province’s seven Districts, retaining a weakened presence in Achin, Nazyan and Deh Bala, and pushing into the neighbouring Kunar District under pressure. Daesh fighters were seen fleeing to the Kunar and Nuristan provinces along Afghanistan’s western border with Pakistan, where they were just “trying to survive” at that stage.

After gaining early momentum in the eastern parts of Afghanistan, Daesh’s capabilities and territorial dominance began quickly to wane, both as a result of disproportionate focus by the Afghan and Coalition militaries, and because the group, unlike the Taliban, is not seen as an indigenous entity, and has consequently failed to consolidate local support. Moreover, Daesh’s practice of accusing fellow Muslims of apostasy for deviating from its own violent interpretation of Islam does has found few takers in Afghanistan’s tribal cultures. Further, the Daesh leadership – whether its core in Iraq and Syria or its offshoot for Afghanistan and Pakistan – are not Afghans. Daesh was formed by breakaway members of the TTP, an alliance of extremist groups fighting to overthrow the Pakistani Government, and other foreign fighters. Daesh is consequently viewed as an outside force, and this perception has been compounded by its demonstrative brutality, as well as its ill-treatment of the local people and the lack of respect for their culture and history.

Some of Daesh’s recent and major attacks include:

On April 12, 2017: A suicide attacker detonated explosives near the Administrative Office of the President and the Ministries of Defense and Finance in the Afghan capital, Kabul, killing at least five civilians and injuring 10. Daesh claimed responsibility via a statement released by the group’s media wing, Amaq News Agency.

On March 8, 2017: Gunmen dressed in white lab coats stormed the Sardar Daud Khan Hospital in the centre of Kabul, firing shots, detonating explosives and then battling Security Forces for hours, resulting in the deaths of more than 40 people. Daesh claimed the attack.

On February 8, 2017, six employees of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) were shot dead by Daesh terrorists in the Qoshtapa District of Jawzjan Province. After the killing, ICRC suspended its operations in Afghanistan on February 9, 2017.

On February 7, 2017, at least 22 people were killed while more than 41 were injured in a suicide attack outside Afghanistan’s Supreme Court complex in Kabul. Later, in a post on Twitter, Daesh claimed responsibility for the attack.

On November 21, 2016: IS carried out a suicide bomb attack inside a mosque in the sixth Police District of Kabul, which killed at least 30 people and left more than 70 injured. Children and women were among the victims.

On March 17, 2017, Esa Khan Zawak, the District Governor of Achin District, observed “Daesh was still firmly entrenched in the area where they had military bases, training centers, prisons and even a court. We are in offensive status and do not feel serious threats, but almost 80 percent of the fighters are foreigners.” Earlier, on February 14, 2017, Nazifullah Salarzai, Deputy Permanent Representative of Afghanistan at the United Nations, speaking during a meeting of the United Nations Security Council noted, “The ongoing cycle of violence in Afghanistan is not, by any means, a homegrown phenomenon. Its roots lie elsewhere, outside Afghanistan,” and added that the roots of violence emanated from a strategic design crafted “from within our region to advance an ill-fated political agenda, which serves no one, defies international law and constitutes a blatant violation of the very spirit and tenets of the UN Charter, including relevant counterterrorism resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council.”

Significantly, on May 30, 2016, the Afghanistan National Security Council (NSC) chaired by President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani approved, in principle, the strategy to fight Daesh, as loyalists of the terror group were attempting to expand their foothold in the country. Further, on March 23, 2017, the Foreign Ministers of the Global Coalition against Daesh declared, “We commend the efforts of the Government of Afghanistan, along with its National Defense and Security Forces, in the fight against ISIS and in implementing its National Strategy against ISIS.”

Reaffirming support to the Afghan Government and Security Forces, on March 18, 2017, the UNSC extended until March 17, 2018, the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), a political UN mission established on March 28, 2002, at the request of the Government of Afghanistan to assist it and the people of Afghanistan in laying the foundations for sustainable peace and development. Separately, reaffirming North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)’s continued support until peace and stability is ensured in Afghanistan, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, during a press conference following the NATO Foreign Ministerial meeting in Brussels, declared, on April 1, 2017, “NATO already plays a key role in the fight against terrorism. We have to remember that our biggest military operation ever, our presence in Afghanistan, is about fighting terrorism. It’s about preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for international terrorism.” Similarly, reaffirming the US support to the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also observed, “NATO’s work in Afghanistan remains critical. The United States is committed to the Resolute Support Mission and to our support for Afghan forces.”

The spread of Daesh was an ominous development for Afghanistan, which is going through a phase of increasing turbulence. There are several concerns over Daesh’s presence and impact in Afghanistan. While the Taliban remains the Afghan Government’s most pervasive foe, Daesh’s presence has created another major challenge for the Afghan Forces.

* S. Binodkumar Singh
Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management