Mid East Matters Online

No one can hear a ticking bomb when the music is deafening. Even if the bomb is visible in plain sight, the wires connected, the detonator displayed, and the arms of the clock racing in the direction of the hour ‘H’. The surrounding cacophony can mask the inevitable danger. Then, there is more than the loud music! Look out for the ‘trompe l’oeil’ artists who are disguising the bomb to look like a weird robot, or an old pressure-cooker ware, or even some sort of a futuristic decoration that only the initiated could appreciate. When the eyes and the senses are distracted from a ticking bomb, the lesser are the concerns of people standing nearby. But ignorance of risk is no shield from it.

This bomb, if it goes off –and it will, unfortunately- will engulf an area of 10,452km2, and will ruin the lives of some 4 million people, not counting 2 million additional non-invited guests (or unskilled, dangerously armed or seriously angry refugees, for those who are politically correct).

This bomb is deeply seated into the banking and monetary system of the country. Its nature is no mystery to wit, a mountain of ‘bad debts’ with no chance of repayment. Relative principles of public finance apply to corporate finance. If your assets are less than your liabilities, you are in trouble. If your cash flow cannot cover your debt repayments, you risk default. If you are borrowing to service your existing debt –whether public or private- you already are technically insolvent. Now, at the opposite of private sector entities, a State has few privileges. One is that the government can create new sources of revenues either from selling some of its income-generating assets (this process is called privatization), or from raising taxes (this process is called legalized theft, especially in countries where taxation is totally divorced from any public services offered in exchange to the taxpayers.). However, when your income-generating assets (e.g., airline, telecom companies, casino, tobacco monopoly) are being used by the political class to fill its coffers and employ its clients-voters, a sale of such assets is out the question. We turn to taxes. In a country where taxes are levied on an ever smaller portion of taxpayers, adding new ones would not solve the issue. Theft, corruption, smuggling of goods, and wastage of public funds are further ailments capable of sucking-in any additional funds, or taxes or revenues that the State can muster. But wait a minute! The government has proven energy resources that it can explore and exploit. So does Nigeria, but the funds end up with the multinationals and with the political class that is paid-off to ensure an uninterrupted and unchallenged flow of energy out of the country without necessarily a reverse flow of revenues.

Finally, one could counter that a State –unlike a company- cannot go bankrupt, be liquidated or disappear! True, but it can become insolvent, its currency cheapened by ultra-inflation, its assets fully depleted and its most valuable resource: young, energetic and talented humans, migrating to more prosperous lands.

Wait a minute, say the nay-sayers, this system has worked through thick and thin and never got a serious dent, or faced a national crisis level, or brought the collapse of the entire monetary and economic system!

We have regulators of the highest caliber, tried and tested bankers, the most conniving politicians in our region by far, a track record of both civil and regional wars, ethnic cleansings, refugees’ fluxes, power and water shortages, and (a bit of) terrorism, and nothing has been able to shake the foundations of this great country. We have been doing very well so far, thank you.

Funny that it is a fellow countryman who wrote a book called the ‘Black Swan’, where one of its most interesting quotes should make us pause and think. The quote says “It has been more profitable for us to bind together in the ...

Reportedly prior to the first Gulf war, April Glaspie the US Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam Hussein that the US had no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like his border dispute with Kuwait. A short while after their meeting, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait causing a regional conflict with international proportions. Glaspie’s words, rightly or wrongly, have been interpreted as a ‘green light’ to Saddam to invade its Arab Gulf neighbor.

Same happened with President Obama with his infamous ‘red-line-crossing’ warning to Bashar Al Assad, after which the latter generously dispensed chemical agents against the opposition forces in Syria. When the US strikes did not materialize the sarin gas was sprayed, again and again, on among others, civilians throughout the countryside. But to blame the Obama administration of such disastrous outcome is neither novel nor shocking. Such administration has wreaked havoc across the Middle East from its ill-fated nuclear deal with Iran, to supporting the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, to leading from the rear in Libya that yielded the Benghazi massacre, to the Yemeni hell, and finally to the descent of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon slowly but surely into the abyss of an Iranian Anschluss.

What is more disturbing, has been a similar pattern by the Trump administration, one that supposedly swears to get tough on Iran and its acolytes. How then could one interpret the very words of Nikki Haley the US Ambassador to the UN when she proclaimed only last week that the removal of Assad is no more a priority for the US? How did she think Assad would understand such message? As a mere list of priorities, or a sign of accepting the status quo, or seeking a rapprochement with Putin or something else altogether? What predictably followed was sarin gas diplomacy unleashed by the Assad regime emboldened by yet another ‘green light’ from the White House. The Assad regime is a calculating machine, and has proven its astuteness in taking advantage of any slippage of a tongue, any slight confusion or retrenchment on the part of the Western alliance and especially the US. What did Nikki Haley and her boss Tillerson, and her boss’ boss President Trump expect from such disgraceful statement? An honorary seat at the Syrian peace table, a concession from Russia, a caving-in by Iran or a change of heart by Assad? Such words coming from Washington or New York are simply baffling. They have sent the heads of Arab diplomats spinning after a show of support by their respective countries to this very same administration. That, despite its ambiguous statements regarding the two–states solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the travel ban that hit a number of Arab countries, including Iraq in its first version.

Then came the finale with the statement of President Trump, during the joint press conference with King Abdullah of Jordan, that the latest sarin gas attack in Syria crosses many lines for him. What next? The usual no-action movie from Washington and the sequel of another gas horror show by the Assad regime in response to rhetorical bombs hurled from the bully pulpit? Or, a much awaited but significantly limited military strike by the US that would have to take into account the realities on the ground including, massive Russian forces and their much feared s300 missile defense system?

The US President has effectively used his Twitter account to whip the loyalty of his supporters and to sometimes call out the hypocrisy of his opponents, but when words carry a life and death sentence to thousands of people including infants, one should abstain from talking unless a big stick is about to be decisively used, not only carried around. Otherwise fake words would become more popular than fake news in Washington’s circles.

Out of the many challenges that the new US administration faces in its formative days, the ongoing war in Syria is the thorniest. Ironically, this topic is muted from on all the Sunday talk shows. Neither President Trump, nor Secretaries Tillerson or Mattis nor anyone else has offered any clues on this front. Notwithstanding, Syria will be the one crisis that tests the mettle of the new President in asserting America’s peace stand from a position of strength. For Syria includes all the ingredients of an international quagmire soaked in the stained waters of human rights’ abuses, use of chemical weapons, Radical Islamic Terrorism, tyrannical rule, and much more. In short, a best movie for the horror category, with additional nominations for drama, action, and foreign film. At this theater of operations, the actors do not trade jibes or liberal jokes, but rather bullets and large doses of the nerve agent sarin.

ISIL is running amok in Syria’s country side and in the suburbs of the larger cities, still undefeated and unchecked. Iran and its proxy militias, from Hezbollah of Lebanon to the Hazaras of Afghanistan, are ruling supreme. Russia, after its air force leveled Aleppo to the dimensions of a huge football stadium, is playing match maker between warring factions in a sham peace forum that lacks both effectiveness and credibility. Turkey is at the apex of confusion, lost between fighting ISIL halfheartedly and eliminating the Kurds with full vindictiveness. Finally, the Syrian regime is calmly reaping the benefits of other people’s toils, tears and blood in the hope of clinging to the vestige of its former power, albeit in the transmuted role of an Iranian puppet or a Russian stooge. Did we miss anyone? Ah yes, the US.

The pathetic and cynically minimalist diplomacy of the Obama administration is over, but the new plan is not yet in. Too early would argue some, too late would retort others who have seen Syria overtaken by Iranian influence, Russian occupation, and Turkish border infiltration, whilst ISIL remains bruised but not yet out. The new administration has few months at best, to decide how to go about reinstating much needed stability to the Middle East, restoring its seriously wounded prestige as a world power, and imposing –through effective diplomacy backed by gunships- a peace settlement between the various protagonists.

Keeping Assad in power, as an option, would alienate the opposition groups and the Sunni Arab nations whose role in and endorsement of, the mortal combat against ISIL is primordial to the US. This scenario would also embolden Iran and provide Russia with new opportunities to attract tyrants who feel secure in its newly crafted zone of unchecked influence. But equally, working for the removal of Assad without a viable replacement plan is another disastrous outcome, much like the Libyan and Yemeni failed experiments.

The Trump administration, working with its European allies, Turkey (which I think is till part of NATO) and the Sunni Arab nations (Egypt, Saudi, UAE, Jordan) should chart a new course. Starting with the creation of safe zones along the borders of Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Safe zones would necessarily mean no-fly-zones that must be implemented vigorously except for permitted strikes against ISIL. Then, moving refugees back into such encampments –from both within and outside Syria- would be the decent thing to do as well as the right thing. This should be followed by the formation of a regular army –from refugees’ able men and women- to face up to ISIL, and to counter-weigh the regime and its cronies. Russia would act on behalf of the regime and the US (and its allies) on behalf of a non-radicalized, but militarized opposition to secure a compromise. A compromise would undoubtedly include a federated government, maximum autonomy to provinces divided (inevitably) along sectarian lines, the reduction of presidential powers and the inst...

Lebanon’s newly elected President has made, when speaking to an Egyptian TV channel last week, the most explicit statements in support of Hezbollah as a surrogate army of Lebanon. The President, being the supreme commander of the armed forces, said that Lebanon’s army was weak and not ready to confront the threats posed (ISIS and Israel). Thus, Hezbollah has been officially anointed as the parallel army of the country as is already the case with the Revolutionary Guards in Iran and the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq. Such statements from Gen. Aoun, a President in his first 100 days in office, were not surprising one bit. Gen. Aoun has entered into a protocol with Hezbollah in 2006, pursuant to which he would give Hezbollah political cover and Hezbollah would provide him with political muscle. The cover that Hezbollah needed was against the 14th of March movement, a coalition of Christian and Muslim leaders opposed to the “Axis of Evil” represented by Iran and Syria. That movement was aligned with the more moderate Arab countries, and, by definition, closer to the US and EU. By having Gen. Aoun –a Christian Maronite- as an ally, Hezbollah has optically deflected the attention from a fierce Sunni-Shia rivalry, without relenting the pressure. In exchange, Gen. Aoun received all the support he could dream of from his newly found ally. Votes in the parliamentary elections that occurred in mixed districts (where Shia voters hold sway), ministerial posts, and the boycott of the presidential elections. The electoral boycott went on for more than two years till Gen. Aoun, as a sole candidate, was accepted albeit coercively, by all other components of Lebanon’s political establishment. As noted earlier, trading favors between allies (irrespective of the rhyme or reason for such an alliance) is a natural course of action.

What was surprising in the aftermath of the fiery statements of the President of the Republic –in which he praised a mono-religious paramilitary group and demeaned the country’s multi-religious army- was the silence of the lambs. Almost all of the political leaders of the former 14th of March movement, their baritones and even their allied media outlets went mum, and still are basking in a gaze of speechless stupor. For more than a decade said politicians made it their chief business to proclaim the sovereignty of the country, above all else, and the monopoly of force in the hands of the government, at the exclusion of all. The price paid by the March 14 Movement was steep. The assassinations of PM Hariri, of Minister Fleihan, of MP, Minister and Christian leader Pierre Gemayel, of MP and journalist Gibran Tueini, of journalist Samir Kassir, and the list is long and bloodied.

But what a difference a 100 days make. At present, the politicos of such a defunct movement are in government, secured in cushy positions and assured of seats at the upcoming parliamentary elections, whilst the government concocts a law that is based on super-gerrymandering. The manipulation of political boundaries of districts and provinces in Lebanon is ongoing, publicly, unashamedly and in a manner where parties are confident of the upcoming results. Apart from ‘political bribes’ the politicos of the erstwhile nationalist movement have also been –allegedly- basking in the spoils of the public coffers including, but not limited to, the division of proceeds from future gas revenues, after the government hastily enacted decrees for gas exploration.

What would a politician ask for more? Government positions, parliamentary seats, and financial rewards (they hate the word bribe or graft), whilst only giving in exchange national sovereignty, personal integrity and political consistency. Whether Iran or Syria or Hezbollah take over the defenses of Lebanon, what could a mere politician do, except to clap and walk away from his or her responsibilities and let the devil take the hind most.

The US cannot defeat ISIS with weapons only. Russia has attempted to do just that, but after literally turning Aleppo into rubbles, it realized that ISIS, with pockets of resistance, was still alive and well. While a physical ISIS sanctuary is easily destroyed by drones, its ideology that can command the hearts and minds of “lone wolfs” in cities from Miami to Madrid, needs more than just gunships and smart bombs. Therefore, and in addition to the US and Russia, the direct and explicit involvement of the Sunni nations at the forefront of this war is crucial. To name but the key nations, one could list: the UAE, Jordan and Egypt. Egypt with Al Azhar, the world’s Sunni equivalent to the Pontifical theology schools of Rome, can de-legitimize the radical and terrorist Islamist rhetoric. Banning the killings of innocents, repudiating the Caliphate of ISIS, expressing outrage for slavery, sex abuse, and child labor, and respecting all religions, could be a start. On a more earthly level, the UAE and Jordan have terrific intelligence services that have cooperated with the US and other Western counterparts over decades, and have successfully foiled many an Islamic plot on their own soils and abroad.

However, eradicating ISIS from the face of the earth is not sufficient if Iran’s own brand of radical Islamic terrorism (which is disguised in liberation, popular mobilization, and resistance movements) is not put on the same footing. Otherwise, the Sunni nations would view this war on ISIS as one-sided, aimed at Sunni Islam itself, and chiefly rewarding the Mullah-led regime of Tehran. The Obama administration never got that one right. The Trump administration and its NSC do.

Once the Sunni nations are ‘re-checked’ onboard, the US then needs to drive Russia away from Tehran. At face value, the Russo-Iranian alliance seems sacred and long-lasting. In reality, it is not. The Russo-Persian relation has oscillated -over centuries- between uneasy cooperation and fierce rivalry over the Caucasus. More importantly, Russia is suspicious of any Islamic movement –whether Shia or Sunni- on its borders or within its zones of influence. Coming to the aid of the beleaguered regime of Bashar Al Assad, Russia did not aim to shore up a Alawite rule against its majority Sunni population, or to impose Shia-dominion over Syria, or to further the strategic interests of Iran in the eastern Mediterranean. Whomever misses on such strategic fine points has a blurred view of Russia’s true aims in the Syrian conflict.

Russia wants to achieve few key goals from its Syria adventure.

Russia wants to maintain and grow its military presence through the three bases already erected in Syria for its naval, ground, and air forces. Any government of post-war Syria would need to legitimize this presence and shall necessarily require the Sunni majority’s vote (not Iran’s approval) since they represent the largest part of the country’s population.

Russia yearns for a seat on the negotiation table of any future Arab-Israeli peace accord. All previous US administrations have denied it this honor, but this might change under the current one. Russia could bring to the fore a dominated Syria, and a domesticated Palestinian Authority whilst offering comfort to Israel as it did throughout the Syrian conflict. Putin could even dream of a Nobel Peace Prize.

Russia is bent on controlling all gas flows from the eastern Mediterranean into Europe. So exports from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Cyprus could be coordinated through an Opec-like cartel led by Russia. As a result, Europe would be caught in a pincer movement, giving Putin greater hold on the continent than any armored division deployed on the eastern front.

The Trump administration finally stands a true chance to pick up from the failure of the Obama policy, by galvanizing the Sunni nations and incentivizing Russia to bring Radical Is...

Russia’s fierce re-engagement in the Middle East has more than one strategic goal in sight. Apart from filling-in the vacuum left by the Obama administration’s disastrous policies towards Syria, Yemen, Iran and Libya, Vladimir Putin has more gains in mind. The prize goes beyond resetting the balance of power in Europe over Ukraine or halting NATO’s expansion, or even re-gaining a seat at the superpowers’ table, which has been occupied by China. Rather Putin is stitching together an organization of natural gas exporting countries or ONGEC along OPEC’ lines. The new cartel will comprise Iran, Qatar, Algeria, Egypt, Kurdistan Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Cyprus. Israel would be deliberately left out for tactical reasons. Future coordination with Israel will be a must, but public stance and political charades would prevent any overt cooperation.

The features of such cartel-in-the-making are appearing at flashing speed. On December 10, 2016, Russian giant Rosneft oil company has expressed readiness to invest in Iranian oil and gas projects that could reach $10 bln. On December 10, 2016,Glencore PLC and Qatar finalized a deal to take a one-fifth stake in Rosneft for about $10.8 bln, sealing a deal that will bring much needed cash to Russia during an economic crunch. On December 12, 2016, Rosneft agreed to buy as much as 35 percent of a natural-gas project off Egypt, a country not on speaking terms with Qatar, joining Eni SpA and BP Plc in the largest discovery in the Mediterranean Sea. With its grip firmly on Syria, and by extension, on Lebanon, and with its economic hold and Orthodox influence over Cyprus, Russia aims at controlling all gas production in the Eastern Mediterranean, save for Israel. The recent courting of Gen. Khalifa Haftar of Libya by Russia is part of its reach into North Africa, where Algeria is another willing partner ready to join the would-be cartel. All told, Russia would be in control of billions of cubic feet of the natural gas produced outside the Western Hemisphere and by consequence, all gas supplies to Europe and partly, to Asia.

Europe would be caught-up in a stranglehold between Russia and ONGEC’s gas resources. Dictating supplies, setting prices, and determining the flow levels to all of Europe’s residential, commercial and industrial sectors would be charted by Moscow. As a result, Russia would be holding Europe hostage over its gas supplies and rattling the most powerful sabre ever brandished in its face since Napoleon or the Third Reich. Even if NATO were to expand to the farthest edges of Russia’s territory what could more tanks or troops or advanced weaponry do in the face of a mighty energy cartel? If Russia decides to cut-off gas supplies into Europe, the latter would be left with two options: freeze or yield. Russia has –by extending its influence over the Middle East- become the de facto arbiter of OPEC, and soon, the de jure partner of the future ONGEC.

President Trump needs not focus on the battles being raged in the Syrian countryside after the fall of Aleppo or whether cluster bombs are being used in Yemen by the Saudi coalition. Even the Iranian situation, which is much alarming could be set aside and dealt with at a later stage. What cannot suffer delays and does not need daily intelligence briefings to figure it out, is the unprecedented influence that Russia is gradually and surely having over the global energy markets. A role reserved to the US since the end of World War II. The A-Team assembled by President Trump including ‘T-Rex’ and ‘Mad Dog’ are uniquely positioned to weigh-in and advise on the next strategic (energy and military) steps, that are quintessential to averting such outcome.

Aleppo is in rubbles, so was Homs before, and Mosul soon after. Beirut has been taken over through a staged presidential election. Yemen is at war with battles raging in the air, sea and on land. Bahrain is in a state of siege. Libya is fast racing down the Inferno staircase. Did we forget something? Iran’s victory lap must be complete this time of the year. All of its threats have been neatly destroyed or eliminated either by the US (the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam in Iraq, ISIS, in Fallujah and Mosul) or by Russia (ISIS in Syria). Iran’s cronies are reigning supreme at present from Baghdad to Beirut. But bless their hearts, Arab Leaders have snapped into action. They held a GCC meeting with no else than Theresa May! How astute and shrewd a move this must have been and how impressed were their protagonists from Teheran’s Mullahs, to Obama’s inner circle, to Putin. All must have lost sleep on the day when the British PM, now the leader of a lonely Island off the coast of Continental Europe, set foot in the Gulf. What was discussed at such summit, one might ask? The flow of immigrants into the UK, or the role of the City’s banks in post-Brexit Europe, or Boris Johnson’s criticism of Saudi’s foreign policy? I reckon some sales of Rolls Royce engines, BAE aerial defense systems, and other meaningful subjects were on the agenda, apart from the usual love of falconry, Harrod’s holiday shopping, and the worrying prices of Mayfair’s real estate.

Clearly Arab heads of States have failed to show their leadership traits at each crisis or major event that hit their shores in the past years. No Arab League meeting was held to denounce the killing of civilians in Iraq or Syria, or to disavow civilian collateral casualties in Yemen even if the Arab coalition’s planes were the cause of such unfortunate incidents. No statement from the Arab League condemned Russia turning Aleppo into Grozny, or protested against Libya’s descent into total chaos, or disapproved of the coerced presidential election in Lebanon. Their idea of leadership is to duck when things are in transformational mode. To avoid staring problems in the face or finding solutions, even if incomplete or less than perfect.

The only efficient diplomacy that Arab leaders have engaged into in the past years is the one relating to OPEC. Judging from the latest agreement on production cuts, such a pragmatic approach could bear fruits if applied to the world of realpolitik. The OPEC diplomacy was not based on mutual trust but on an alignment of interests. So why not practice such policy for the current woes of the region. If Iran’s expansionist drive is the cause of all troubles then curtailing it must be practically pursued. In Syria, the majority Sunni opposition, which is beholden to Saudi, Qatar, and partly Turkey, must offer an olive branch to Putin. Such as permanent naval, ground and air bases in Syria, a simile Marshall Plan for reconstructing the country, and a deal for Gazprom or Rosneft to exclusively develop oil & gas resources, both onshore and offshore. In exchange Bashar Assad would go into exile, a Triumvirate of Sunni technocrats and Alawi militaries will be in charge of the next government, and Iran’s influence eliminated. Saudi itself must apply a better treatment and offer equal rights to the Saudi Shia population. They are Saudis after all, and are the responsibility of their own government not of Teheran’s. In Bahrain, the long serving PM (in his mid 80s) should be excused and the more open-minded crown Prince (in his mid 30s) invited to forge a lasting governance scheme with the opposition. In Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, the renegade President who was for years on Saudi’ payroll should return in exchange for curbing the influence of the Houthi rebels in the country. The GCC has dealt with Saleh before, and it is materially cheaper to deal with him again, instead of prolonging a war of attrition on its very borders.

Let us walk through the streets of the Arab world -from glitzy downtown Dubai to the slums of Cairo- to conduct an insightful, albeit theoretical, poll. The results might be astonishing. If the drill question is: “who is the traditional enemy of the Arab world?”, a loose term meaning the majority Sunni States, the predictable reply would be: Israel. But if the question is: “who would you consider an immediate threat to your country?”. The unequivocal answer would be: Iran, not Israel.

The commentary of armchair Middle East experts would be as patterned as the answer to our first question in the ‘virtual’ poll. Pundits would posit that such animosity towards Iran is due to the Sunni-Shia’s rivalry that ensnarls the Middle East. Others would trace such enmity back to the Persian-Arabian clash of civilizations. While such arguments have merits, they fail to grasp the gravity of the second answer to our ‘virtual’ poll. The fact that Iran has wrestled the top spot for Arab hostility from Israel, a spot held firmly since 1948.

Let us analyze this for a moment.

For decades, the Sunni-Shia’s divide did not prevent the Arab world from cooperating with Iran. Saudi Arabia established diplomatic relations with Iran in 1929. Late King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and the Shah closely collaborated on the establishment of multinational Islamic institutions, including the Organization of the Islamic World Congress, the Muslim World League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. On another level, whilst Arabs and Persians have clashed since the Sassanian Empire (224-651), they equally have interacted and cooperated for centuries. Reading the same Iranian poetry of Khayyam and the philosophy of Al Farabi and Al Ghazali, and relying on the most prominent grammarian of Arabic, the Persian-born Sibawayh (an ancient Noah Webster) to conserve the purity of their words. Persian converts to Islam naturally turned to the script of the Koran and finally, Pahlavi alphabet has been abandoned in favor of the Arabic.

Undisputedly, the Middle East has been the ‘bête noire’ of international diplomacy starting from the second-half of the 20th century. The region’s complexities have dogged experts from the UN Security Council to the US Council on Foreign Relations, and every foreign Chancellery in between. In their midst, regional conflicts have generated numerable preconceived ideas that have the ring of dogma. One such canon is deeply-rooted sectarianism that plagues the region’s different ethnic components. “They hate each other’s and they have done so for thousands of years”, is some sort of conventional wisdom not an informed analysis. But hatred between religious or ethnically diverse groups is a sad reality hardly confined to Sunnis and Shia’s, or to Persians and Arabs for that matter. It is a recurring theme from the high plateaus of Kashmir, to the Venus island of Cyprus, and from the street alleys of Northern Ireland to the neighborhoods of Marseilles, Birmingham, and Beirut. Undoubtedly, religious antagonism causes severe frictions between varied groups living side by side, but it cannot warrant an all-out war between nations. Surely, more is at stake.

What is really at stake?

The Arabs’ legitimate fear of today’s Iran –more than Israel- is premised on a myriad of reasons unswervingly related to the latter’s expansionist plans, not to its Shia branch of Islam.

The Nuclear Threat. Since the mid-1960s Israel has had a nuclear device with which it did not menace its Arab neighbors, even at the apex of Arab-Israeli wars. Conversely, Iran has frequently threatened to ‘wipe-out Israel’ and flaunted its nuclear capability to bully Arab neighbors into submission. Iran has a uranium stockpile to create eight to ten nuclear bombs. According to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) signed on July 14, 2015, Iran must reduce its uranium stockpile below the enr...

The 9th of November will be remembered by liberals in Western democracies as the Bastille Day that crushed the dungeons of limitless migration, political correctness, the educated classes' snobbery over working classes, CNN’s supremacy over the airwaves, and the pollsters’ exactitude in predicting the outcome of mass events. On Ivy League campuses all around the country, in DC think tanks and in news rooms across all major US cities, people where literally chattered as their dream of liberal politics was cut down to pieces not by another establishment contender (Bush, Cruz or Rubio), but by a loud mouthed billionaire outsider. A Berlusconi moment of some sort that unsettled the cozy cohabitation of two antiquated ruling parties. A Brexit era of many sorts with trade, healthcare and migration consequences beyond the national soil.

Suddenly, Democrats woke up to new demographics and a new geography: the “Fly over States”. All that swath of land that stretches between NY and LA, that is inhabited by decent, God fearing, working masses that produce more useful goods than just CDOs and Blockbuster movies (sorry Goldman and Disney, no insults intended). That sees jobs going out, migrants coming in, infrastructures going down, taxes going up, trans genders storming toilet spaces, only Black lives mattered, police departments maligned nationally, Jay Z having political opinions, Beyoncé too (!), veterans denied proper care, a US Ambassador killed in cold blood in Benghazi few blocks away from ready-to-act military personnel, sensitive emails containing drone strike details handled by a Huma Abedin (?) on a private server set up for Hillary, and American products declining in the export charts despite low wages, low rates and a low USD.

Is this a cliché view? Wait till we get to real politics.

Domestically the Clintons turned political access into a pay-to-play scheme. Pay to the Clinton Foundation and you shall be granted access to the US Secretary of State (and her husband too) where you can voice your grievances in private and get personal assurances of them being resolved. Would that still be the US or more likely Angola, Guatemala, Syria, or even Italy or Greece? Several nations with stark record in human rights, in the treatment of women and of migrant workers, and in their carbon footprint became main donors to the Clinton Foundation, which incidentally, championed all such noble causes. How can such schizophrenic behavior ever be reconciled, except if one adds a large dose of greed and nepotism? The paid speeches of Hillary to Wall Street barons praised bankers, shunned regulators and made little if any, of the plight of millions of unemployed or of trade deals that were not stacked to the benefit of US workers. All part of the wealth-amassing frenzy that the Clintons embarked on. Within the Democratic camp none mattered more than Hillary. Even a firebrand such as Bernie Sanders was not provided a proper platform or given a fighting chance by the DNC operatives. His policies -that made total sense to disillusioned liberals and lefties- were set aside as the political machine of the Democratic Party crushed him under the weight of Hillary surrogates (including Barrack & Michelle, the odd couple) and dirty tactics. Hillary reigned supreme, faked few smiles, stumbled on few steps, and called more than 50 pct of Americans: deplorables! Not enough?

On the international scene, the US under the Obama administration and Hillary’s gazing eyes went from turbo power to wind power. The pivot to Asia, that signature piece of foreign policy, failed miserably. Even the Philippines, a US colony all but in name, decided to distance itself from the Obama presidency. North Korea mocked the vague US threats of retaliation whilst conducting nuclear tests, and China built more man-made islands in the South China Sea than a busload of agitated kids playing lego.

The Iranian revolution that started in 1978, has claimed its first democratic victory in 2016. The upcoming presidency in Lebanon. Iran has engaged in a destructive war with Saddam’s Iraq, and waged numerous paramilitary operations in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and few covert missions in Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain and as far away as Eastern Europe and Latin America. But never did it claim a territory except through bullets. Lebanon fell without one being fired, and the country will be consecrated an Iranian dominion through the ballot box, in the upcoming presidential elections on October 31.

The sole assured candidate in such election is former General Michel Aoun, a Christian Maronite whose allegiance is dictated by expedience. He was an ally of Bashir El Gemayel, the late Maverick president of Lebanon, and a foe of his brother Amine, another president. He was both a sworn enemy and now an avowed partner of Samir Geagea, another of Lebanon’s Christian warlords-turned-politician. He was at war with Syria under Hafez Al Assad and a partner of Syria under Bashar Al Assad. He was a patriotic Lebanese Army officer and now a staunch supporter of Hezbollah who controls a large paramilitary force outside the boundaries of any legitimate army. He is the perfect candidate for Iran, and for today’s Lebanon too.

Today’s Lebanon has been domesticated, not to use another word with same phonetics, by Iran via Hezbollah. The power of terror is too much to fathom and too great to bear by most of the political establishment in Lebanon. Politicians from cross-the-board would rather settle old scores, trump rivals, accept lucrative ministerial posts to fill-in their pockets with graft money, than defend the principles of the republic. Whilst, to justify it all, each gives extended lectures in patriotism and nationalism.

Under the pretense of unifying the Christian voice, Geagea has supported the candidacy of Aoun. In truth, he is only vying to inherit the political legacy of Aoun who is 83 years old. Geagea wants to claim dominion onto the Maronite flock hoping to preempt other Christian political clans, or families as we and the FBI call the mob, from dividing up such legacy. There is no much patriotism in this calculation though it has loads of opportunism and short-termism. Long gone are the days when Geagea vowed to fight illegitimate armed groups on Lebanon’s territory from the PLO in 1975, to the Syrian occupying army in 1978, to Hezbollah since the 1980s. All this is swept aside, and meticulously hidden in the forgotten objects’ basket, for the convenience of gaining, maybe, more sectarian power and provincial authority. A petty calculation.

Under the pretense of preserving the economy and averting a downfall of Lebanon’s financial, real estate and commercial edifices, Saad Hariri, the son of a former Prime Minister assassinated by Syria and Iran, gave his support to Aoun’s candidacy. In truth, he is bankrupt both personally and politically. A promise of being named Prime Minister in the new regime is his only hope to regain both personal and political fortunes. A young man with tons of energy but not one ounce of charisma, Hariri has been oscillating in the wind since Saudi Arabia’s young Princes have taken a different approach to his patronage of the Sunnis in Lebanon. Rejected by his patrons in Saudi, upstaged by some of his former supporters in Lebanon, and hounded by creditors everywhere, Hariri found in Aoun’s candidacy the salvation for his survival. Long gone are the days where Hariri’ slogans for freedom, truth, justice and a strong State resonated in all of his political rallies, TV and radio campaigns, and national agenda. Another pettier calculation.

The 14th of March Movement was the name bestowed upon circa 1 million people who in 2005 descended on Beirut’s main square, and forced through mass demonstrations the exit of Syria’s army from Lebanon.