Mid East Matters Online

The departure of Sultan Qaboos of Oman in the early days of 2020, marks the end of an era in the Arab world. Many founders of republics, kingdoms and sheikdoms have departed before him, to the great loss of their nations. To name but a few one would remember Presidents Qudsi, Khoury and Chehab in Syria and Lebanon, as well as, King Faisal in Saudi Arabia and the late Sheik Zayed in the UAE. But nations do not die with the passing away of their leaders, they either forge ahead with their national projects or slip back into the chaos of internecine struggles. On the one hand, the Levant has been disappointingly rich with such failures. Except for Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are worse off under their current leaders than at the turn of the previous century. On the other hand, the Gulf has been surprisingly rich with better alternatives. Young, educated, forward looking leaders have taken the reins of power and instead of scanning the past for answers they are looking to the future for better prospects. The more astute political class in the Levant, who received higher education before the rest and, tackled the end of the colonial era few decades prior, has always acted with arrogance and some disdain towards its Gulf counterpart. Although dependent on the Arab Gulf for jobs, opportunities, and financial support the Levant's intelligentsia (a false noun) has derided the leaders of the Peninsula for their tribal manners both in governance and social behavior. History has proven that wearing a tie (or shunning to wear one) does not make the man. Education without a culture of fairness, social justice, or respect for basic rights is only a fools' panache. The old rhetoric that has long dominated the waves of Arab media, sounds out of tune in 2020. Boycott policies, Pan-Arab projects, and the creation of a Baathist or more recently, Shia Crescent have failed all too miserably. With the advent of modern communications people now have the means to compare and contrast. What did the Nasser era bring to Egypt? What did the PLO bestow upon the Palestinians? What did Assad, Saddam, Ghaddafi and others offer their people? Except years of misery, ruthless internal security services, momentous failures at regional wars and, the invasions of Chad, Kuwait and Lebanon. Today Syria is a serf State of Russia, just as Iraq and Lebanon are to Iran. Yemen is at war, and so is Libya with more than one regional & international power with its hand in the pie. The answer is not an about face to the old regimes. Although, compared with the iron order of the past, there is a cynical nostalgia for former dictators. Rather, a need for a breed of new decision makers. What is in want is a new class of political activists, secular thinkers and objective journalists, social and grass root groups whose focus is on issues that have eluded all: respect of individual liberties and the death of the centralized State. With individual liberties come a plethora of rights including genuine freedom of speech, freedom of worship and, ownership. As opposed to the present-day nominal elections, religious tolerance (an abhorring word and concept), and kleptomaniac capitalism. The centralized State has long suppressed such basic rights because in a truly democratic system feudal families and military juntas would vanish. With the freedom of worship based on mutual respect not just tolerating the ‘other', comes the benefits of a richly diverse society. And, with the freedom of ownership, the yoke of clientelism and modern serfdom, would be abolished. The Arabs have been dealt a poor hand for almost a century. The region's leaders have run out of excuses and the people have ran out of patience. However, the fossilized politicos are capable of fabricating new justifications by the day, if masses only remain willing to entertain their falsehoods. Hence, the change will come from the bottom up in the Levant, while change has already been on the march from the top down in ...

2019 will be remembered for key political events including, the start of the partisan proceedings in the US Congress to impeach Donald J. Trump, the resounding election victory of the Tories in the UK, and the unprecedented democratic protests in HK. Closer to the Middle East, the milestones of 2019 will be split between the financial landmark of the quasi-successful Aramco IPO, the civilian protests in the streets of Iraq and Lebanon, and the saga of repeat-elections in Israel, which are starting to have a twist of the ‘Groundhog Day' motion picture. On that latter chapter of pain and toil in the Levant, the story has just begun and the last weeks of the current year that were punctuated by the dual resignations of the respective PMs in Iraq and Lebanon, the joint naval exercises of Iran-China-Russia in the Gulf of Oman, and the most recent US strikes on Iran's proxy militias in Iraq and Syria, do not bode well for the coming year. In a globalized world, it is difficult to dissociate such events. The US election in 2020 means that the US President will have his hands tied during the campaign. Thus, launching large scale military operations against Iran, as opposed to surgical strikes, will be difficult if not near impossible. The hawkish advisers in the WH such as Steve Bannon and John Bolton, who would have advocated a more robust retaliation, are no more. Add to that, the genuine aversion of this President, despite predictions to the contrary, to forays into foreign lands. He prefers to keep his ‘powder dry' unless he is pushed to using it or is being paid to do so. Ask the Saudis and South Koreans and their answers would be in unison. In 2020, Russia looks to be more active in the Middle East, as it continues to prosecute its war against the opponents of the Assad regime in Syria, without any international recriminations.  Russia will keep the Eastern Mediterranean basin busy with war-like activities as it presses forward with its Nord Stream 2 project and secures its supply of natural gas into the EU. Syria will bear the brunt of Russia's military meddling although the Libyan theater will not remain unscathed, thus reinforcing the views that gas from Russia is the safest and best supply route to Western Europe. From all the nations of the Middle East, the one to worry about the most in 2020, is Lebanon. At such critical time, Lebanon will have to face its demons all by itself: no US support, no brotherly love from the GCC, no EU tangible plan and no national unity to bring the country onto a possible path for recovery. Iran can offer Hezbollah few US Dollars and many missiles, but that is as far as the list goes. The national political class is gripped with apathy, a touch of idiocy and grave complete ignorance about financial matters. The elite class (bankers in its near majority) are complicit or implicated -one way or another- into the financial morass and do not favor any deal that would reduce to ashes their already wiped out equity. This brings to mind what John Kenneth Galbraith said about the Crash of 1929: “The sense of responsibility in the financial community for the community as a whole is not small. It is nearly nil.” Moreover, TVs are crammed with programs that feature self-appointed banking experts, economic gurus and even astrologers who have their own hair-brained plans for getting the country out of the fix. Unofficial spokespersons of the ‘street revolt' are bickering among themselves. They are split between a group of opportunists who see their newly acquired fame a bridge for a ministerial position, and a group of idealists who want to revive the failed dreams of socialism. Ordinary people in the streets are helpless and continue to blame the ruling elite whilst asking for change, but change without a clear & radical transformation in the political culture of Lebanon would not do them any good. Fixing this nation does not start by fixing the financial problems only,

The revolts in the many towns and cities of Lebanon are unprecedented. They are true expressions of a young (and not so young) multi-confessional generation that is fed up with the incompetence and decay of State-institutions and, with the unhinged kleptocracy of the ruling class. People have had enough with false excuses hurled at them over decades to justify the lack of public services, the absence of accountability in public office, and the severe social woes that plague the country. Sometimes we were told that it was all caused by the convenient enemy namely, Israel, other times by the inconvenient neighbor that is Syria, more recently by ISIS, and on a more regular occasion it is sectarianism that is singled-out as the root cause of all ills. Whilst such justifications have a modest ring of truth, they are shallow and insufficient to explain the total subjugation of national interests to private profiteering. The political class in Lebanon (although neither political nor having any class) has ran out of excuses and most importantly, out of cash. The little, borrowed, fuel that was so far used to oil the wheels of the cranky economy -made up of costly deposits and remittances from abroad- has dried up. The wheel has, all but too predictably, stopped while crushing many underneath its heavy structure burdened by a mountain of public debt, acute clientelism, high unemployment rate, and rampant graft. Not only is the present devoid of any signs of recovery from its paraplegic state, even the future of the Lebanese seems mortgaged. Apart from long-term debts that need to be repaid by future generations, the prospects of national wealth from recent discoveries of oil and gas have been reportedly wrecked. These newly found riches have allegedly been usurped via shady deals concluded between multinationals (Total and Eni still need to come clean on this) and local business people connected to the despicable Oligarchs-politicians. With a heavy past, a devastated present and, a grim future, the Lebanese had no hope except to revolt and try to break the chains of their servitude. Rightly so, but alas uniquely, the street demands focus on corruption and the ineptitude of the current breed of politicians. Little is being uttered about the present-day enabler, the facilitator and the protector of such degraded ruling class. We use the term ‘present-day' because at each cycle of corruption stood a different ‘enforcer' who actively assisted and abated the politicians in their fraudulent schemes. Militias during the civil war (1975 to 1991), the Syrian regime of Assad Sr. then Junior in the immediate post-war era (1992 to 2005), and Hezbollah since 2008 to present day. Whilst the political gang in Lebanon needs no mentor in terms of corrupt practices and no special assistance to commit fraud, it nonetheless requires a protector. The role of the protector is to subdue the State and prevent its institutions (army, civil service, judiciary et al) from fulfilling their natural roles as guardians of a frail democracy, and from prosecuting violations of constitutional texts and principles.  The protector -as in any mafia style society- would in return count on the blind loyalty of such political serfs to further its own strategic aims, and as 'protection money', receive part of the spoils. Lebanese protestors are legitimately concerned about putting bread on the table, not spilling blood onto the streets. They also intimately know that any military confrontation with Hezbollah might quickly and irreversibly escalate into a civil war. No such outcome is good for the protestors or for Lebanon, as a whole. However, any change in the political scenery that does not factor-in the pressing demand of de-militarization of the Hezbollah is doomed to fail. Any new government (even if made up of Nobel Laureates) and any future parliament (even if regrouping Saints) that are required to live with a State within a State,

The Bloomberg article of November 7, 2019, on the need for the Rich to get a Haircut (in Lebanon), is pertinent in both its take and approach. But one needs to imagine a more probable (not unique) scenario for a drastic plan to overcome the daunting crisis facing the country. At the outset, one must state that any economic solution without the eradication of the phenomenon of a State (Hezbollah-led Lebanon) within a State (official Lebanon) is doomed to fail. No regional or foreign investor, no regional or international institutions, bank, fund, or monetary authority would lend any assistance to a State when its sovereignty is held hostage by a paramilitary organization blacklisted by the regional (except for Iran, Syria and Iraq) and the international (community). Now, a short historical background seems necessary. Since the early 1990s at the start of the post-war reconstruction era, a diabolical alliance was forged. The deal included a group of Warlords (names known) and carpetbaggers (also well known). The PM would ‘play' a nominal political role but instead concentrate on the reconstruction projects. Those landed at majority into the lap of a close circle of cronies and beneficiaries. In turn, the rest of the political class would ‘play nice' and not disturb this scheme as long as its share of the spoils was secured. A significant ‘cut' for the Syrian Godfather (to fund the security apparatus and the individuals in charge) made this compromise viable and ensured its durability. However, there were not enough revenues to go around so new public projects were ‘fabricated' by the infamous CDR and other governmental agencies in term of infrastructure contracts (roads, bridges & tunnels), rehabilitation of the power grid (deliberately keeping it inept and fuel-based so technical theft and imports could go on), with certain cash cows farmed out to specific politicos. From the womb of this Unholy Alliance emerged a triumvirate emerged and it comprised: (i) the BDL/Government : issuing public debt at unsustainable levels to fund the engrossed budget and finance overpriced projects, (ii) the Banks: taking people's deposits (from locals and Diaspora alike) and subscribing the bulk into Treasury Bills and Bonds; and (iii) the Security apparatus: the Syrian security services and their Lebanese counterparts which were ‘bribed' through huge salaries, outrageous perks, outsized retirement benefits, etc.., in order to ‘protect' this politico-economic cabal. After the Syrian Anschluss ended in 2005, came the Iranian dominion, at first contained in 2008 and in full swing since 2016, attempting to resuscitate that nefarious compromise, with almost the same actors. This time around though, the funds that fueled the deal came wanting and the whole charade unraveled in a tragic manner. Focusing on the present crisis would require an insightful look into the first two protagonists: the BDL/Government and the Banks. The BDL/Government has borrowed from banks c.$100 bln and cannot repay. So, what to do? The BDL/Government should notify the Banks that it is incapable to return 1/3 of it (or c.$33.33 bln) but in exchange will offer them a 30 years tax holiday on profits and dividends. Over 30 years this would amount to $3 bln per annum. Banks would in turn inform depositors holding sums above a certain threshold, and who have benefited from junk bond-style interest over the years, that 33.33% of their deposits will not be repaid. They would rather convert into banks' equity thus strengthening the capital base of the sector. This debt-to-shares swap would come with the commitment of a buy back or a liquidity event in future years. To work, this plan would necessarily require a merger between the 52 existing banks to become 15 or 20 if not less, and serious changes in their leadership teams. The other 1/3 of the BDL/Government debt should be transferred to a newly formed, tightly managed, National Assets Company (NAC). This NAC will own,

In his last public speech, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, a misnomer to start with ‘cause it gives the feel of a U.N. like organization, was nervous. His face did not reveal the full extent of his anxiety nor did his voice divulge his true anger. To blur the issues, his office was arranged such as only the Lebanese flag stood behind him. He raised his finger twice or thrice and made fun of it as to decrease the tension with his viewers. His, was an address to almost 2 million Lebanese who descended onto the streets from all major cities and towns of Lebanon demanding the end to a corrupt, inept, and untrustworthy political class. Starting with a government made up of sectarian appointees and cronies, who as one of their members stated, had the audacity to ask people to pay taxes even if such taxes were squandered! However, the government-sanctioned corruption and the ‘Ebola of bribes' which has ravaged all echelons of Lebanon's body politic is but one part of the Iceberg against which the Lebanese Titanic has collided. Saying that should not take our sights away from the apparent component of the Iceberg. That part is the one that appears to the naked eye, that stares its victims in the face, and rubs their noses in the dirt. That part is comprised of the political class which includes the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, several former ministers and high-ranking civil servants, and their entourage of shadowy and questionable business partners. These partners constitute the effective channel through which the politicos conduct their organized theft of the public coffers. Such theft comes in the form of rigged public contracts, lease or sale of State assets, procurement of fuel and other energy supplies, and the usual racketeering from the mobile cellular services, the Casino's gaming and gambling revenues, proceeds from the tobacco monopoly and tens of other government sources. Attacking this political class is legitimate, justifiable and a civic duty to all those citizens who have been deprived of their savings and more so, of their hope for a normalized State after 15 years of civil war and another 15 of turmoil. Discrediting this political class is the easiest part of this revolt. The other part of the Iceberg, its core base, is much more tenuous and harder to dislodge. That component is made up of Hezbollah, an Iranian-trained, backed, and financed militia that takes its order from the Mullahs in Tehran and its marching orders from Qassim Sulaimani, not the Lebanese people. A fall of the current Lebanese government would be a deadly blow to Hezbollah as it would lose the screen through which it operates. The decoy of the official State and institutions is a much-needed cover for this US-labeled terror group accused of narco-trafficking and money-laundering on a global scale. This group cannot deal with the international institutions that Lebanon needs urgently such as the U.N., IMF, World Bank and the EU, as well as, with regional powers such as Egypt, and the GCC countries. The so-called ‘protector' of Lebanon has finally become its tormentor. Hezbollah is at an impasse and not the youth in the streets of Beirut, Sidon, Tripoli, Tyre and other cities and towns. It could support the current government and lose its reputational credit with a crippled economy and a discredited government, or it could find a half-way solution. The half-way solution would be to get rid of the political class -in its entirety- and bring on a new team of decent, proficient, and national figures with no ties to the sectarian parties of Lebanon. This would get the country back on its feet, and the issue of Iranian influence in Lebanon onto the back burner till a compromise between the US administration and Iran is reached in the coming years. In the meantime, the patient namely, Lebanon would be out of the ICU and onto a slow but hopeful recovery. When the economy is nursed back into normalcy,

Lebanon is rapidly sliding into a Venezuelan scenario. The eruption of spontaneous protests that have been prompted by a simmering public anger were looming on the horizon since the middle of 2018, if not much earlier. The reason is simple: a kleptomaniac ruling class protected by an Iranian militia are hardly a good recipe for investments and prosperity. Current legitimate anger at the deteriorating economic conditions has been at the genesis of the latest street outrage. A ballooning c.$100 bln public debt, a world-record deficit, a c.40% unemployment level, a decades-long malfunctioning power grid and public services, and the lack of any glimmer of hope for an entire nation after almost 15 years of a fiercely fought civil war and another 15 of a fake after war truce, have finally come to fruition. The current scenario is presently caused by the lack of ‘tricks' & ‘treats' that an isolated, coffers-depleted government can no more offer to the unemployed, and over-frustrated masses. Panem et Circenses no more!. Between the late 1990s and 2005 the so-called postwar miracle of Lebanon was nothing, but an open reconstruction site dominated by newly moneyed Oligarchs and carpetbaggers who were protected by Syria with the acquiesce of the Arab League, and the complicit approval of the Western world. Still, as long as crumbs and leftovers were trickling down to the middle and lower classes via handouts, corruption and a racket in public contracts, the average Lebanese was forgiving of its blood-sucking ruling elite. Today, the ruling elite's practices have not changed but the economic landscape has been transformed beyond recognition, and way above the intellectual grasp of its local politicos. The ruling junta has continued to deplete the coffers of the government through corruption and State largess while begging the Arab world and the European powers particularly, France, to continue to support its decaying economic model with inflated debts and donations. Add to that, the Lebanese Diaspora which was sending annual remittances at the tune of c. $7 bln per annum. These were deposited in Lebanese banks, who in turn ‘invested' them in TBs at phenomenal rates. The Ponzi scheme was perfect. The government secured its budget and, through it, the allotment of each sect and factions. The banks made more money than their Wall Street peers, and depositors, yes depositors, were happy to live off the interest income, fueled by this artificial scheme of ‘sovereign' debt which held the crumbing edifice. This edifice can hold a little more, but we reckon, not too long. Iran and Syria, both isolated by the international banking system, have been foraging Lebanon's market for US banknotes. Lebanon's lack of serious reforms has rendered the European lenders more suspicious and demanding of real changes and guarantees. The drastic drop in oil prices and the cold War between the unofficial Lebanon (Hezbollah) and the official Arab regimes have brought down donations and remittances from the Gulf to abysmal levels. The Central Bank has pulled the last ‘rabbit' from its magical hat by luring millions of deposits at junk bond rates to plug the holes of a sinking vessel. Notwithstanding, the government ignored all these regional and international developments and kept on ploughing its way through the carcass of a depleted State and the emptied pockets of its population. Unfortunately, like in Venezuela, (or in HK) this government will survive the latest pristine outburst in popular anger. The ruling military militia and the official armed forces will jointly hold the glue of this degraded Sphinx despite popular demands to the contrary. None of the political parties will jump ship, not because of any other reason except their survival instinct. A locked zoo is better than an open field for large mammals used to being hand fed. Staying in the government is safer, and till recently, more lucrative than being on the outside.

This article is few weeks late. Maybe it took that much time to realize the facts, to intelligently react to them and to think about a different outcome to the circumstances that prevailed and that are still unfolding ever since. A question has been haunting our analysis: what if, in the aftermath of the attack on Aramco's facilities by Iran, Saudi stated its firm intention to get the oil flowing back but also said, that it did not have a definitive timeline for restoring such capacity? A rational, well prepared statement that explains that in light of the unparalleled nature of the attack and of the damages caused, the engineering team at Aramco now facing an unprecedented situation, would be grappling with the means and the time required to conduct and complete the repairs. One could assume that oil prices would immediately hit the ceiling (way past $100/barrel), and so would gold and silver. The Dow Jones Industrial Average would tumble few hundred points, the boom in the US economy would be dented along with the carefree attitude of Trump towards the 2020 elections, and Iran would be squarely blamed for having caused a lasting havoc across the globe. All speculative guessing of course, but not so much off course! The Iranian attack would take such a global proportion that even the Saudis themselves could never have dreamt of. Iran would become an international pariah overnight. Not only over the issues of nuclear proliferation and the exporting of terrorism, but for causing the savings of the world's population to shrink due to a higher fuel & gas bill at the beginning of winter. Only the looney climate warriors would be happily protesting in the squares of Western capitals, to denounce the evils of oil dependency. Iranians would not be able to blame the West this time or the Arabs for a change or Israel for that matter. Since the attacks were a deliberate, unprovoked, act of war against a sovereign nation. Zarif would be derided in international forums for playing victim of a US-led conspiracy, as he usually does, the Mullahs' hypocrisy for seeking good rapports with the West would be exposed and, the IRGC would become even more vulnerable to practical sanctions. In this scenario, where the Saudis take their time to repair Aramco's facilities, Trump would be caught between an edgy rock and a very hard place. Committing boots on the ground for a new Middle East military adventure would cause him to break a cardinal promise of his 2016 campaign, as well as, his strong personal beliefs. He has argued for an end to all US military interventions unless the direct security interests of the US were threatened. Sending troops to fight (not merely watch as they actually are) or launching a retaliatory attack would get the US into another unpredictable armed conflict. That was never in Mr. Trump's plans. However, doing nothing and watching oil prices skyrocketing, the stock market crashing, unemployment rapidly rising, tariff wars becoming futile and costly, and a recession seeping in at a galloping speed, are not scenarios of choice for a President who is desperately seeking re-election. Trump would be forced to take some retaliatory measures to comfort his allies (does he really see them as such?) and punish his enemies (does he consider anyone to be such apart from the US liberal media?).  He would have, at minimum, to do something say damage or sabotage the oil refinery in Abadan and bring the Iranian transport sector and with it the country, to a halt. Launch a cyber-attack on Iranian drone installations and its air force to ground their capacity, or maybe other similar actions that would bring stability to the region but from a position of strength rather than one of evasion. And in all events, he would have to engage somehow to avert a global financial crisis and, an assured loss in the 2020 elections should the US economic miracle hit a serious speed bump. Whomever counseled the Saudi leadership on their decision ha...

Pres. Trump has blinked first and, not on one occasion, with the cunning Mullahs of Tehran. Not that the US cannot wipe out the Iranian Navy, Army and Air Force in one afternoon while still making it on time to watch the Sunday football game. However, Trump is not a calculating tactician, or a Master of chessboard strategy but rather an ‘off-the-cuff' personality. He has no political experience, and no military background. He seems naturally averse to using military force in foreign lands.  What makes him different from Obama in terms of US policy in the Middle East is that he is staunchly opposed to Iran gaining nuclear status. Surely, he is supportive of Israel and more so of the Jewish votes in 2020. He is wary of Erdogan and has kept a healthy distance from Turkey as it gets closer and closer to Russia. He finally has made grand, but so far, empty gestures towards the security of the Arab Gulf States after extorting $ billions in defense contracts and other pledges from their rulers. Trump's obsession with his 2020 reelection campaign will preclude him from taking any strong action against Iran that might lead to an escalation which, could morph into another Gulf war. Unlike his predecessors, Trump is poorly advised in this area. The absence of experienced hands such as former Defense Secretary Mattis and former NSA John Bolton, is a serious handicap. While Secretary of State Pompeo has been acting with dexterity on many fronts, he cannot handle all world issues at once, being the only adult left in the room. Trump is also at odds with the Europeans, including the UK, when it comes to Iran. He has not played his hand with tact when it came to extract the US from the Nuclear Deal. He could have proposed a gradual withdrawal scheme, a crescendo of penalties that could culminate into a termination, all in concert with allies. However, his unilateral decision is now biting him in the face as he finds himself isolated by the EU on the Iran issue. His trade war with China is of no help in this instance, as the latter grows closer to Iran and could be of great support in times of sanctions and embargoes. In the meantime, Putin is left to roam the Middle East with impunity from Syria to Saudi and from Iran to Istanbul. He is the undisputed ‘strong man' of the hour and the go-to-person in dire times. Turkey, Israel, Iran and soon Saudi will turn to Putin to buy defense shields and to seek a security protocol that would preserve regional peace and stability. The US will have the privilege to watch from afar as its influence and power dwindle in one of the world's most resource-rich regions. The many US battleships, vessels and airplanes positioned in the Arabian Gulf since the 1990s, would remain safe, but not the stature of the country bearing their flags. It happens that the Arab Gulf States are less popular in the US Congress as they used to be. Especially, with the demonizing campaign of Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Add to that, the astute portraying by the anti-Trump media and Iran's friends of the Yemeni conflict. The world -from the UN to CNN- insists on portraying this conflict as an aggression by Saudi and the UAE against Yemen, when in reality it is a vicious proxy war waged by Iran against the Gulf nations using Houthis rebels as cannon fodder. So, Trump has less support and leeway to fly to Saudi's rescue by launching a blitzkrieg against Iran in retaliation of its recent attack on the Aramco facilities. Harsh words of condemnations will follow, but little else. In the final analysis, Trump will do nothing till after the 2020 elections, if at all. In the meantime, Iran will grow bolder, and the Gulf Arab States will grow wary and actively solicit new protectors by wooing Russia and China through oil and defense contracts as a means to fend off further Iranian aggression. The Gulf Arab States in the presence of an uncommitted Pres.

The Southern Border of Lebanon remained quiet for 13 years till today. The last conflagration broke out in 2006 and disaster befell the land of the Cedars despite claims to the contrary. The infrastructure was wrecked, villages bombed for days on end, hundreds of thousands of people displaced, and the economy suffered badly. In terms of victory, neither Israel nor Lebanon gained an inch from each other's territory. How victory was claimed, remains an insult to one's intelligence. This time, Hezbollah retaliated to an alleged Israeli drone attack on the Southern Suburb of Beirut last week, by firing Russian-made, anti-tank missiles into an army base in Northern Israel, killing and injuring no one. The Israeli drone attack of the previous week on the Shi'a populated enclave of Beirut was also casualty-free. Coincidence, fate or good omen, in all events, both attack and retaliation did not cause any deaths on either side of this simmering conflict. Israeli elections are due in almost 3 weeks and the body politics of Israel is busy preparing them. Any military escalation will play into the hands of current PM Netanyahu. Israelis of all political stripes and tendencies are one with their armed forces in war times as they form its core, literally. Indeed, at such moments the government in charge and the army will be given full support even by their fiercest critics in peacetime. So, there is no advantage for waging a war at this stage, unless Iran through its proxies, is rooting for Netanyahu to win yet another mandate. What Israel has been conducting for the past years i.e., a systematic destruction of all Iranian-made, precision-guided missiles destined to fall on Israeli soil and population, will continue unabated. This stratagem will not be rescinded, canceled or even slowed down. If anything, it will go on at a more vigorous pace. This low intensity war has been waged in Syria for its majority, but Iraq and Lebanon have been brought-in lately.  With Iran aiming to intensify its pressure on the US, since the latter's withdrawal from the Nuclear Deal, Israel had to be threatened in a serious fashion. For that, the theater of operations needed expansion for maximum effect. The routes from Iran to Iraq to Syria, to Lebanon had to be multiplied and the means including, covert schemes, increased in terms of efficiency and speed. Conversely, Israel's goal of maintaining its strategic military edge over its foes required and, will continue to require, a relentless search and destroy campaign. For this specific campaign, Israel has the overt support of the US and the covert consent of Russia. This is not pleasing to Iran, but it can do little to change this geopolitical reality for the time being. In Lebanon the situation is precarious. The government is hanging by a thread, whilst suffering from severe disagreements on how to run a failed State, under the Holy guidance of Hezbollah. Within this bizarre mix of political factions, the issues of sectarianism, deep-rooted corruption, and the presidential ambitions of some, have been too much even for the most able of hands in Beirut's favorite blood sport of governance. Hezbollah is dictating its will on a kleptomaniac and feeble political class in exchange for keeping such corrupt bunch in a state of ‘nominal' authority. All powers of the executive branch are beholden to it, the army is impotent in the face of its better-armed militia force, and parliament is totally under its control. However, with all this might the country is breaking at the seams. The economy is in shambles, unemployment is almost at 30%, the infrastructure is decaying, banks are being targeted by the US for assisting and facilitating Hezbollah's terrorist activities, there are 300,000 Palestinian and 1.5 million Syrian refugees in a country of 4.5 million, and the national debt stands reportedly at $100 bln. Another disastrous war with Israel is not recommended for a country in Lebanon's position,

The confrontations that Iran is seeking in the Gulf and which include repeated attacks on civilian targets such as commercial oil tankers, Abha airport and, the ARAMCO oil installations in Saudi, are all diplomatic missives addressed to the Trump administration. Strongly-worded missives notwithstanding, but still diplomatic in their codes and frequencies. They are short of a full military escalation and yet aggressive enough to almost attain the status of an act of war. Carl Von Clausewitz, the Prussian general and military theorist, who famously said that “War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means” would have been delighted, no doubt. These confrontations between Iran on one side and, the US (and its Arab allies in the back) on the other, are not planned to cause serious harm but are fully intended to bring about serious dialogue. Iran sounds even more outraged after each attack, and seems to be looking for the perpetrators as if  finding it hard to locate them. Its policy is as absurd as it is silly and obvious to the naked eyes, without the need for surveillance or drones recording every wave in the world' oil artery. Such shenanigans are aimed at the local audience, at the followers of the Ayatollah, and at the millions of dependents on State handouts. It is also aimed at the few dissidents to dissuade them from any act of rebellion, even the most peaceful ones, at a time when the ‘Great Nation' is under sanctions and potential attacks from the ‘Great Satan'. Like it or not, post-revolutionary Iran has defied and defined all US administrations since Pres. Jimmy Carter. The ‘bazaar diplomacy' usually tests a US President's mettle early on in his mandate and, readjusts its attitude accordingly. Like a (Persian) cat who wants to explore the extent of a watchdog's reaction and the reach if its bite. If the dog only barks, even if loudly, the cat will harass it all the way till it gets tired, bored or else. If the dog bites or comes even close to actually inflicting serious harm, the cat immediately recoils, retracts and waits for the dog to be taken off duty, and replaced by a new one. This ‘bazar diplomacy' has not wavered by an inch since 1978 and the US reaction has not disappointed in its predictability. Carter was weak and got hammered after the failed rescue operation to free the US hostages who were held in captivity for 444 days at the US Embassy in Tehran.  Reagan was boastful at first before being severally humbled by the suicide bombings of the US Embassy in Beirut and the Marines' Barracks in 1983. Then, he got entangled in the scandalous Iran-Contra affair who saw his very same administration selling arms to the backer of the US hostage-takers in Beirut, namely, Iran. Bush senior was a one-term President whose policies have greatly assisted Iran in cutting Saddam to size during the First Gulf War. Clinton applied a dual containment policy on both Iran and Iraq, so his Presidency counts as a recess in the Iran - US relationship. Bush junior invaded Afghanistan and waged the Second Gulf War unintentionally (but not unpredictably) offering Iran a dual prize: getting rid of the Taliban in the South and of Saddam in the North, in one go! Iran seized the unique occasion to expand its dominion over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and Yemen. But still the US -via the newly elected President- had more goodies in store for the Mullahs-backed regime. Indeed, Obama Hussein gave Iran few billions in cash and lifted all major economic sanctions for next to nothing. Ah, yes he got an agreement (not worth the paper written on it) from Iran to delay (not to scrap) its nuclear (weapons) program. Now comes Trump's turn. Will he apply the principles taught in the chapters of the “Art of the Deal” or those in the “Art of War”? I will wager on his strong inclination to doing deals and bet on his legitimate aversion for wars, whether in Crimea or in the Persian Gulf.

The tension in the Persian Gulf is building up, as one can almost sense and smell in the air. The dark clouds are gathering and so are the US naval fleets and long-range strike bombers. Sabre rattling by Iran has started to rise as well as the defiant tirades of its top brass. We shall, we will, we could…. This piece is not about facts, or hard analysis, but about a mountain of unanswered questions. Maybe from posing them one could decipher the possible outcome of this neo-classical tragedy where players (governments) and audience (civilian population) seem to be joined in a fatal embrace without the possibility of breaking away or stopping the music. Could the scenario of the First Gulf War be repeated? On August 2, 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait, and the rest is history. Would Iran attempt to rewrite history by invading a Gulf State, or the Gulf Waters, or the Gulf Skies? Maybe it could, but then what? What would ‘the day after' bring to Iran, and what would be the outcome of such foolish adventure? Iran could opt to avoid such frontal combat and decide to activate its peripheral fronts: from Yemen onto Saudi, and from Gaza and South Lebanon against Israel. In such instances, and leaving the US aside for a moment, what would Russia, China and the EU do? Nothing is not an option, one must believe. But what is it that they will attempt to undertake, and would it be siding with some of the protagonists or preventing a war? In that option, what would the carrot be to prevent a war? More concessions to Iran, or more sanctions on it, or none of the preceding but rather a quiet return to the uneasy status quo?   Could the US under the leadership of the self-declared non-interventionist Trump go to war? Now, in the midst of a heated trade war with China, a lukewarm relation with the EU, and lack of coordination with the Russians? Makes no sense. Trump wanted US troops to leave Syria and Afghanistan. He lost the most valuable Sec. of Defense Mattis to such a policy. He also declared many times that the Middle East had cost the US too much in lives and treasure (with an emphasis on treasure) for little or no returns. How could he renege on such public policy without paying the price with his electoral base? Why then moving all these aircraft carriers, and bombers and troops if using them is against POTUS' grain and beliefs? He could have built his Southern wall, or a good stretch of it, with last week's costs alone. Something is amiss, but what is it? What exactly is happening from across the waters of the Gulf?  A show of force, a potential armed conflict, or a prequel to the Grand Bargain regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict? If the US, Israel and the moderate Arab States fight on the same side against Iran would that bring them closer to concluding a lasting peace that would include a resolution to the occupied West Bank and non-occupied Gaza? If no such outcome is in sight, why commit so much military hardware and diplomatic software? A war over an Iranian nuclear program would be futile, since sabotaging the nuclear sites is sufficient to doing the trick without provoking an all-out war. A war over Iran's missiles program is even less required if US Patriot missiles are deployed all over the GCC. A war against Iranian proxy militias is also not vital since choking their sources of financing would suffice to curtailing their activities to a great extent. In short, if some uber outcome -like a lasting Arab-Israeli peace- is not the main objective or at minimum its calculated consequence, then any short or prolonged armed conflict would be a total folly for Iran and a total waste of lives and treasure for the US, yet again . That was not a question but an instinctive deduction, or was it?

Since time immemorial the Christians of Lebanon had to choose between the Mamluks and the Ottomans, the Crusaders and the Muslims armies, and between the West and the East. Should they be allied with a distant Christian West or with a nearby Muslim East? On the one hand, the Western powers have been unfocused at best, or uncommitted at worst. On the other hand, the East -a chaotic amalgam of Tribes with Flags- was and remains a region in turmoil, unsure of its role and message, in a modern world. In 1943, at the Birth of the First Republic, the Christians, were divided between forming a country under French protectorate or forging a nation with their fellow Muslim citizens. A Christian majority distrusted the Muslim factions and wanted to live separately. Only a nationalist minority placed their bet on a unified country, and an independent State was born. The first Republic collapsed in 1975, when a vicious civil war broke out. In the 1990s, at the birth of the Second Republic, the Christians, were torn between keeping their ‘enclave' albeit surrounded by the Syrian army,or negotiate with their fellow Muslims over some constitutional reforms. A majority still distrusted their fellow countrymen and, abhorred Syria which backed a constitutional compromise named the ‘Taif Accord'. Again, only a nationalist minority backed the new ‘entente' that ended a decade-long civil war and ensured an equitable redistribution of power amongst the various communities. This Second Republic lived from 1995 to 2005, the date of the assassination of PM Rafic Hariri by an Iranian-Syrian cabal. Today, the Lebanese Republic, in all of its versions is practically dead. The Christians in their near totality -save a handful of diehard nationalists who are short of a minority- have made their choice to back Iran in an open challenge to the moderate Arab countries, and to the US. But why such counter-intuitive choice that is so disastrous for Lebanon and especially for its Christians? Fear and greed are the answers. Fear has been the first motivation. A sentiment that is heightened by Iran's muscle flexing throughout the Middle East. Its militias have taken over the actual power in the streets of Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut. Its proxy armies relentlessly battle with the Saudi and the UAE armed forces in Yemen, and its cronies in Gaza launch rocket attacks against Israel. In the meantime, the EU policy is one of appeasement, and Trump's posture is yet untested under fire. Then Greed, came to cement this Satanic choice. The Christian political class represented by the followers of President Aoun and the Lebanese Forces Party, an erstwhile staunch defender of Lebanon's sovereignty, have been spellbound by the ascension of Iran. So, as a result, and in good mercantile form, they decided to throw their lot with the enemies of the State, who were much pleased to reward them. In practice, they traded the country's independence in exchange for the nominal power of the Presidency and other key positions in government, as well as, the additional promise of maintaining kleptocracy as a means to enriching themselves at the expense of the State's coffers. One should remember that Petain was a decorated Marshal of France in World War I before becoming a Nazi collaborator in World War II, and the nominal President of the Vichy regime. The majority of the French political class followed suit, after watching the Wehrmacht legions invade a poorly defended European Continent. In France too, at such dire times, a less than a minority of nationalists, who formed the Resistance, fought a lonely battle for many years before the war of liberation. Christian voices in Lebanon, even if in the minority today, must rise in numbers against the Iranian hegemony, and should, as they have in the past, rally fellow Muslims to their cry and form a peaceful but unwavering resistance movement. Vichy Christians in Lebanon must be exposed lest at the time of the liberation,

Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, Zein Al Abidine Bin Ali, Hosni Mubarak, Ali Abdallah Saleh, Omar Al Bachir, and Boutaflika, constitute an A team where ‘A' stands for a mix of Assassins, Authoritarians, and Autocrats. The Arab Spring, in its first version, has been much mocked, belittled and disdained. True, the street protestors did not have a replacement plan in most cases, but protestors don't usually have one. From the Brexiteers to the Gilets Jaunes, they have demands, anger, and claims, but not a succession plan especially, for regimes that have been in place for 30 years and more. True, the street protests have escalated into armed conflicts in Libya, Yemen and Syria, but that was expected in light of the brutality of the dictators who promised to wipe out -literally- all of their opponents. The first version of the Arab Spring was filled with hopes and shortcomings, with enthusiasm and chaos, with civil society demands and with civil war consequences. The civil society that opposed tyrants in Damascus, Cairo, Tunis, Tripoli and Sana'a had no political agenda ready to project onto the post-dictatorship era. So, the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical versions of such venom-filled ideology, filled the gap.  The Internet-based activists, the pacifists, the women movements, the press, and the civil society at large were discarded, excluded, and taken over by an organized mob of men hiding behind their strict religious beliefs, and their repressive ideals which aim to keep the same people, who just claimed their freedom, under another serfdom. Finally, when such group of misfit theologians failed to govern, the army, the only other organized structure in said nations, took over and replaced the bearded politicians with crew cut officers. Not the best outcome, nor one that answered the aspirations of the young activists, but between a religious and a military junta, the population sided with the least ideologically harmful party namely, the armed forces. In its second version, played out in Khartoum and Algiers, not only did the street protestors not succumb to the use of violence or to hurling Islamic slogans at the regime, but they have removed the long-serving so-called Presidents for Life, from office within days. They also have smartly rejected the musical chair game, of replacing an old military or ex-military dictator with a relatively younger one, in the form of an Armed Council or a Temporary Military Government. The protestors in the second version of the Arab Spring are making clear statements. They have claimed to oust the regimes of Bouteflika and Al Bachir not because of beliefs, or stands on ideology but because they have failed to deliver what governments should: economic prosperity, zero tolerance for corruption, safety to all and a guarantee of personal freedoms. They have rejected the interim military governments simply to avoid another Egyptian scenario. They see such an offer as disingenuous, a sort of a false promise to get them off the street and back home to worry about their jobs, schools and welfare. The trick does not seem to be playing to the benefit of the armed forces, this time around. Maybe a civilian government which includes military appointees in the interior and defense ministries, civilian ministers with an impeccable human rights record, and other technocrats who are much needed to jump start the economy, could be the interim solution before the closest thing to democratic elections can be held. In its second version, the Arab Spring is giving pause to others who survived the first one including, Assad fils, and the Mullahs in Iran. Lebanon might follow suit if the economic situation worsens and the Lebanese pound takes a nosedive shattering to bits against the mighty US dollar, which is the benchmark currency. Then, the current collage of a freak government would not last under the pressures of public sector employees, the armed forces going unpaid,

US Secretary of State, the Honorable Mike Pompeo will be visiting Lebanon this week. He will be meeting with State officials and members of government. The Secretary knows full-well that the parents who conceived this government, the mid-wife that gave birth to its composition, and the nurse that cares for its every need is a very possessive party, namely Hezbollah, the most powerful military-political militia in the country. Such party's caring abilities are more akin to Dr. Mengele' than those of Dr. Zeuss', who would not hesitate to throw the baby with the bathwater and, conceive another one, should the baby misbehave especially, in the presence of visiting guests. The Lebanese government will put up a splendid show for such an important visit, it always does. There will be official motorcades, military salutes, protocol-driven receptions and photo ops with hand shakings and smiles aplenty. Then the Sec. would be driven back to the airport, and life would resume as usual. Lebanon has been living a duplicity since 2008, whereby to the world, it is portrayed as one independent, sovereign nation, in possession of its official faculties, including the monopoly of political and military command. However, in reality it has sub-contracted its true authority to Hezbollah. This is not the first role-playing phenomena to occur, far from it. From 1995 to 2005, official Lebanon was naturally typecast in such role with the Syrian, not Iranian, regime, the then puppet master. Changing directors but keeping the same cast is the privilege of great actors and, for official Lebanon, theatricals on the world stage is something one gets used to and so does the audience whether foreign or domestic. And as a result, the game of smokes and mirrors continues endlessly. The reality of daily life in the country is not dissimilar. All Lebanese expect to receive their electrical supplies from EDL, the local Con Edison equivalent, which secures at tops 20% of their energy needs. In practice, they all invariably have to pay private contractors to supply them with the necessary output to get their domestic or commercial chores accomplished.  Whilst EDL is housed in one of the tallest buildings in the capital, has the most bloated work force, and the largest running deficit in the official budget, keeping it running helps with the appearance of a State energy company tending to the needs of the populace. In reality, private entrepreneurs run both the show and the most productive power-generation sets. So, government affairs are no different, and while the State agencies offer their services, and government officials their rhetoric, the country has, for some time now, been forced to seek in Hezbollah the real power supply needed to get by. This coerced relationship endures under the threat of destabilizing the fragile truce between fractionned religious group. Should anyone seek an internal compromise, or any regional or international aid, they run the risk of being chastised, if not meeting a more nefarious end. Back to the visit of Sec. Pompeo, the duplicity of official Lebanon is met with the world's official denial of this ongoing charade, including the successive US administrations. Pres. Obama's team kept up with this farce as a means to appease its Iranian counterparts with whom it was negotiating a nuclear agreement. There was no need to upset the Mullahs in Tehran by exposing their proxies in Beirut. The Iranian portfolio, with all of its regional assets, had to be kept whole and undisturbed otherwise, the nuclear agreement would have been jeopardized, or so did Javad Zarif explain to the much-accommodating Sec. John Kerry. What is the point for this two-facedeness to continue under the Trump administration? Well, come to think about it, if Pres. Trump sees the world with the eyes of a NY real estate mogul, then the monetary yield on Lebanese real estate is currently negative and, not worth a try. However,

The title is long and lays out the case before the readers as it prematurely reveals the verdict of the writer. Let us not beat around the bushes and call a spade a spade. US diplomacy in the Middle East has historically been wobbly and fretted with more defeats and disappointments than successes, at the exception of the peace treaties between Egypt, Jordan and, Israel. Before and after such milestones, US diplomacy has been hovering between standoffs, tensions and the occasional wars at great losses in treasure and lives. Letting-down allies and rewarding foes, is how a cynical person would characterize, or caricature, the US diplomatic record in many nations between the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean. Each administration dispatches its ‘newly minted' team with no collective memory or consistent script except for undoing the job of the previous one. A kind of blood sport in Washington that has seen policies folded in great pomp and unfold in greater hurry, all in the space of 4, sometimes 8 years.  Unlike their counterparts from the former colonial powers of Great Britain and France, US ambassadors and political advisers who roam the Middle East give the impression that they are visiting for the first time, or maybe the second. They look bewildered by the beauty of the place, the abundance of its resources and; the rich and diverse culture of its people. While the beauty of the place is exaggerated (save Oman, Morocco, and Mount Lebanon), and the richness of resources overplayed (compared with the dearth of modern-day innovations), it is the cultural part that puzzles the most. The next appointed US diplomat, or visiting Senator (during a recess period), or former President (and wife) seeking a pledge for a foundation, need not screen a ton of data to understand what motivates people in the Middle East. Watching ‘Laurence of Arabia' directed by David Lean, reading ‘The Dream Palace of the Arabs' written by Fouad Ajami, and listening to hours of Egyptian comedy by Adel Imam, would permit them to capture Arab culture, in a week. Reviewing US policy papers for background, is counter-productive. Any diplomatic issue, from the crisis of the Western Sahara, to the Arab Israeli conflict, to how best to deal (if at all) with the Kurds, has its counter-policy paper and counter-papers, sometimes drafted by the same US administration, albeit at different presidential terms. The US backed the Shah till his fall and welcomed the Iranian Revolution upon its advent, only to be faced with the takeover of its Embassy in Teheran for 444 days. Since, it has been downhill. The US sided with Gamal Abdel Nasser against Britain and France during the Suez crisis of 1956, only to do an about face and back Israel in the 1967, and 1973 wars against Egypt. The PLO was a terrorist organization in the 1970s-1980s, that turned into a peace partner in the 1990s-2000s, then into a foe at present time. The US was with Mubarak till its fall from grace, then with Morsi till the coup, then with SiSi ever since. Libya under Kaddafi was a pariah State responsible for such atrocities as the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, till it morphed into the darling of roving diplomats and private equity tycoons, till it was no more again during the Arab Spring.  What lessons have been drawn? Maybe being gullible about wooing avowed foes who declare explicitly that they want to destroy the US is not such a good policy after all. Or, favoring long-term allies who share fundamental interests (not opportunistic ones) despite their dubious domestic records is not such a bad idea, when contrasted with chaos and the loss of a valuable friendly nation? There is no method to this chaos except for the US diplomatic corps to realize, once and for all, that this region is viscerally tribal and fractious, under-developed politically, rich with egotistical leaders that demand foreign powers to take sides. Granted,

Barbarians are often single handedly and wrongly so, credited with the fall of Rome. That has many benefits, for the Roman that is. As a starter it washes away their guilt and complicity in the decline, demise and ultimately the fall of their own Empire. It also offers a wonderful way out by blaming the ‘other', the ‘foreigner', the ‘Barbarian'. The gravest consequence of such thinking is -apart from the actual crumbling of the city walls before the hordes of invaders- the lack of any introspective, any self-assessment, and any lesson to be learned by the Romans or their successors. Historians, with the benefit of time, have noted various internal reasons for the fall of the Empire, leaving to the Barbarians the dishonorable task of actually striking a decisive blow at a rotten and decaying structure. The Roman Empire had for decades prior to Barbary's victory, lost its hold and reach over vast and disparate territories, and that for a plethora of reasons. The ineffectiveness and size of the Roman legions being one, followed by the weakness of the economy, the ineptitude of successive Emperors and their bickering progeny, the internal struggles for power inside and outside the Senate, the changes in the religious landscape of the times, and the corruption of the civil administration. The Barbarians did not conquer at once, or in one sweeping victory. Not at all. They gradually ate at the Empire's dominions before not much of its power, strength or influence were left. Major territorial losses occurred in 376 with the invading Goths, which were never repelled decisively. In 395 further Barbarian groups crossed the Rhine and other frontiers, and like the Goths were not totally expelled. With time, Barbarian kingdoms rose while Roman influence declined, and the rest is, literally, Ancient History. Modern-day Lebanon, the Republic born out of the sober compromise between the Western-influenced Christians and the Pro-Arab Muslims, did not fall to Persian-backed militias on 31 October 2016, date of the election of President Aoun. Rather like the Roman Empire, although the comparison is too farcical but telling nonetheless, Lebanon's first step down the abyss occurred in 1842. At such time the internal conflicts between the feudal Druze families and the newly-converts to Christianity namely, the Shihab princes became irreconcilable, leading Metternich to devise and the Sublime Porte to gladly agree, to dividing Lebanon into two religious Districts or Kayam Makams. This ended 325 years of direct rule by a native Lebanese sovereign over Mount Lebanon. Since, and due to continuous internal conflicts over power sharing, Lebanese feudal leaders have invited all sorts of Barbarians to meddle between them and to settle their scores at the benefit of all, except the Lebanese themselves. No self-assessments and no lessons were ever learned. At no time in 1958, in 1969, in 1973 and in 1975 did it occur to the Lebanese ruling classes that their ruinous internal struggles, the religiosity of their societies, the undermining of their internal unity, and their lack of willingness to ‘reform' their system of government to suit the evolving aspirations of a growing population, could not be resolved by the political or military (or both) intervention of an outside power. Nasser, the PLO, Syria, Israel and now Iran, to name but a few of the direct ‘influencers' over the internal affairs of Lebanon, never pursued any plan except their own, never benefited any interests except theirs, and left Lebanon and its communities in the throes of chaos awaiting the next ‘influencer' that would administer the curing balms to their self-inflicted wounds. On proper reflection, the house is too small to be divided and too large for one person only. To fit such a dysfunctional family into one abode some rules of ‘savoir vivre' must be applied. If one looks closer, the ingredients are in the home's backyard not in the neighbors'. Moreover,

All politicians are engaged in this pernicious game and are equally caught into its vicious web. President Erdogan talks about Turkey's growing hemisphere of influence in the Middle East, North Africa the Western Balkans, and lest we forget in the EU over parts of Cyprus and the immigrant population in Germany. His grandiose plans saw Turkey on the cusp of reviving its Sultanate and becoming the leading light for people lost in the darkness of their local labyrinths. Such people, according to Erdogan's rhetoric, are waiting for the torch of faith, held by the Caliph in Istanbul,to be their beacon for hope. According to recent economic reports, the Turkish economy slowed sharply in Q3 caused by high debt,currency volatility, and inflation. Annual retail sales were flat, industrial production was patchy and the unemployment rate increased significantly in July and August of 2018.  President Rouhani and his puppeteers promised the creation of a Shia Crescent that would shine on the dispossessed masses of this sect from Tehran to Tartus. The Islamic Republic of Iran would bring them pride, a sense of belonging, and salvation into their wretched lives and, their after-lives too. According to the Financial Tribute, an Iranian economic daily,the rise in 2018 of the retail prices of goods that used the government's subsidized foreign currency at a rate of 42,000 rials per US dollar (about three times cheaper than the market rate) was no less than in other consumer goods.  Mohammad Baqer Nobakht, the head of Plan and Budget Organization of Iran, announced that "as much as $14 billion will be spent on subsidizing the imports of essential goods as per the budget bill of next year[2019]".  [President] Nassrallah of Lebanon has offered his community -and as a collateral effect – to all the Lebanese, the gifts of repelling terrorists on the Northern border,intimidating Israel on the Southern border, freeing Yemen from the yoke of the Saudis, and lend a helping hand to the Iraqis in  their war on terror. As per actual reports activity in the economy remained sluggish in 2018, against a backdrop of prolonged political deadlock. The real estate sector—a cornerstone of the economy—seems to have performed poorly in the period, with cement deliveries contracting year-on-year and construction permits dropping significantly, while the merchandise trade balance widened despite robust export growth. According to the World Bank, such difficult economic conditions in the medium term are likely to adversely impact poverty rates.  Even President Macron promised a “European economic government”, a "European Army" in the face of Russia, China and ...the US (?), total adherence to the Paris Climate Agreement, continued cooperation with Iran despite the US exit from the Nuclear Deal, and all that rich international agenda coupled with higher taxes on fuel for all motorists to enjoy. The latest protests in Paris by the angry Yellow Vests have caused economic havoc. According to the FT food retailers are expected to take a hit of about 1 per cent this quarter, with hypermarkets down4 to 5 per cent. And, this week, the French central bank slashed its forecast for economic growth for the fourth quarter from 0.4 per cent to 0.2 per cent.   Atthe far opposite of this spectrum, President Trump promised to ‘Make America Great Again!” but through economic nationalism (not nationalization). He scrapped the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement because he judged it not in US consumers' interests, re-negotiated the NAFTA deal to redress inequities that put US products and services at a disadvantage, is waging a tariff war on China, which has caused many US factories to de-localize  to catch up with cheaper labor and a manipulated Chinese currency; and has threatened the EU with severe consequences if the imbalances in trade -especially with Germany- are not tackled. He told NATO and the US' Asian and Arab allies (not protectorates) that they should sh...

The killing of any human being is and should be labeled, an abject, horrible, despicable crime. Since Cain and Abel, at the dawn of time, there has not been any other way to describe the taking of someone's life in a deliberate and premeditated act. The killing of thousands is an atrocity and the killing of millions is a genocide. Our language has evolved with volumes, but the atrocity remains unchanged. There is another twist to this rather obvious and fault-free thinking about killing, and it resides in who is doing it. Whether it is an individual or a State, a person or a government. And then, what type of government: a democracy or a dictatorship, and where in the global pecking order is it ranked, at the top or bottom? With individuals, personal motives are usually recounted to understand the reasons behind a murder. Whereas with States and governments, interests and national security rationales are used to explain such acts. Governments are so much more overwhelming than individuals that even their killings are viewed with some sort of acceptance and even understanding. Especially if a war is afoot, or a combat is ongoing, or a battle is raging. With individuals only one poignant motive gets a pass: self-defense. However, States also use such approach with the notions of preemptive strike, of proactive defense of the homeland, and of ensuring the safety and security of citizens, at all costs. Ever wondered what the term 'at all costs' really means in this context? Never mind. The killing by a State is a mitigated affair and not all killings by all States are treated equally. On the one hand, killing by a winning State (North vs. South during the American Civil War, the Allies vs. the Axis in World I and II to take only few examples) is not only justified but glorified, in all of its methods whether dropping a nuclear bomb (called endearingly a ‘device') on a civilian population, or carpet bombing an entire city, or spraying Mustard Gas or some other new/old trick for killing fellow humans. On the other hand, losers do not have their killings justified nor their dead honored. All of their combat actions, even if in self-defense, are viewed with scorn, contemptuousness and dismay. The winners at Waterloo were revered and their military tactics taught for generations at war academies, but not the losers even if both were engaged in the same senseless, empirical war. Dead Japanese soldiers defending Okinawa were not given the same weigh in history as the GIs battling in the Pacific theater. I think you get the gist of it. So, if you are a State you need no motives but rather cold, rational interests to absolve your killing, and if you were a State you'd better be on the winning side for your murders to be viewed as the mere price for victory. Although that is not always true. The North Vietnamese won a war, but their actions were still vilified by Hollywood and accepted as conventional wisdom by popcorn-munching viewers all other the world. The nationalists in Algeria won the war of independence but there are no movies celebrating their feat. Is it an emerging market thing, versus developed markets? Without getting into any racial or ethnic arguments, who can kill with impunity and who cannot, remains the principal question. This dilemma has come to the fore with the horrible murder of Jamal Khashogi. Rewind few months before such tragic event and zoom in on the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal a former Soviet spy, and his daughter Yulia, in Salisbury by agents from the Russian GRU service. Go back a few years to the actual killing of Alexander Litvinenko in London, by the same Russian spy agency and the murder and cover-up of Sergei Magnitsky, a tax accountant, in a Moscow prison.  In the aftermaths of these tragic events, why no one is questioning whether Putin should attend the G20 or address the UN General Assembly or be afforded the diplomatic cover and courtesy of a head of State?

The country is not really desert whilst being part of the Arabian Peninsula, with a terrain that offers some of the most astonishing beaches and coves that eyes could see. Less than few miles in-land and you can delight at the sight of proudly erected mountains and rugged terrains that stretch for miles on end. The country is not populated by a strictly Bedouin-like society but still camels are herded for labor as well as for commerce (especially for racing since the country produces the best kind ever). Tribal ties remain strong especially in the mountainous or Jebeli areas, and pride, which comes with the territory, runs very deep. The country has embraced Islam since the early times of the holy message, but it does not fall within the dichotomy of Sunnis and Shias. Rather, it follows a milder form of the Ibadi religion that rejects warfare in the name of God and uses dignity and persuasion to get its point across. Furthermore, it has been home to migrant Hindus and -at one time- to thriving Jewish communities and has many churches, temples and Jewish landmarks especially the Tomb of Job located some 45 miles away from the port city of Salalah. The country is no democracy or parliamentary republic rather it is an absolute monarchy whose supreme sovereign, the Sultan of Oman Qaboos Bin Said Al Said, has reigned since 1970. However, the whimsical, capricious, despotic, erratic, unstable, shifting, and many other peculiarities -or defects- of monarchies from Burma to Buckingham, have been vividly absent or at least significantly tamed in this oasis of stability. The Sultan of Oman deposed his father in 1970 in a bloodless coup, save for the father having reportedly shot himself in the foot. This fact, if at all true, would be both anecdotal and telling about a casualty-free removal of a sitting monarch. The deposed Sultan then spent the rest of his days not locked-up in a donjon but at the Dorchester Hotel, in London. The United Kingdom saw the previous ruler as impermeable to modernity and hermetically closed to the outside world and in part to their oil-exploration interests. They backed the son in his bid for power and became the armed force behind the throne, for decades. The new Sultan's first order of priority was ending the Dhofar Rebellion (1962 to 1979) by offering amnesty to all those who had fought against his father. He then integrated Dhofar into Oman ending a distinction that had exacerbated rifts and secessionist ambitions. With the help of the British corps of engineers he launched a reconstruction campaign in the most destitute areas building schools and hospitals and digging wells. These gestures of good will were nonetheless accompanied by a resolute will to fight the Adoo (or enemy) in the rebellious province. Rebels took orders from their political bases in Yemen, backed by Maoist China and the Soviet Union. The Sultan's diplomatic maneuvering to recognize Oman as a full-member Arab State helped rein-in the territorial ambitions of neighbors, and denied the rebels official recognition, if not sanctuary. The harshly fought counterinsurgency was led by Omani Firqats trained and assisted by British officers, SAS elite force specialists, and the RAF, but also by the Imperial Iranian forces (under the Shah) and the Royal Jordanian troops (under King Hussein). More territory was won as more defectors from the rebels' ranks joined the Sultan' forces and were pardoned before serving under his banner. Oman has been portrayed as a neutral country, and one that does not appear to be working in tandem with its Arab neighbors or partners. But the evidence points in the wrong direction. A bloody civil war is not a neutral business. When the going got tough Oman, and its ruler, fought for over a decade to quash the rebellion, unite the country and modernize the infrastructure. In fact, the asphalt roads that one sees in the remotest areas of Oman are not the result of a corrupt public works system.

The land known as Mount Lebanon and which constituted under the Maan and Chehab dynasties the political entity governed by a local ‘Prince' after securing the sine qua non approval of the Ottoman suzerain, had few truisms inherent to it and embedded in its collective consciousness.  The truisms comprised the selection of a somewhat just ‘Prince' assisted by a group of mostly loyal, but often perfidious notables. Within such mountainous elite the degrees of perfidy and corruption varied from one century to another and sometimes within the same decades. The ‘Prince' was generally viewed as a ruler with no official religion, and an arbiter of causes who is presumed to have an acute sense of equity and justice. He stood above all the rest since by birth he belonged to a princely line, and not to any particular feudal family, or a region or just a community. This placed him in a unique position of impartiality. The Maan's were Druzes whereas the Chehabs were Sunnis and later converts to Christianity. The first were from the Chouf and the second from Wadi Al Taym. Little did these local differences matter. The justice and equity of Fakhr El Din II were exemplary. That of Bachir II less so, but it was well known that under his rule a mule carrying a stack of gold could travel throughout the mountain with no fears of being stolen. Fakhr El Din II belonged to the political faction known as Qaisi, not a religious party. His opponents the princely Alameddines  were the standard-bearers of the Yemini party, another non-religious affiliation. As far as religion was concerned it was noted that Fakhr El Din II, whilst a proud Druze, gifted Druze lands to the Maronite Church from as far as Nahr El Kalb to Jezzine. Prince Bachir II was born Sunni, lived like a Druze and died a Maronite, buried at the Armenian cemetery in Istanbul. Lineage, social status, and political partisanship were far more important affiliations than sectarianism. On the far end, the composition of the country's notable class was premised on  loyalty and bravery in battles, not on religious grounds. Notables were from all confessions and regions of Mount Lebanon and beyond. Druze, Sunnis, Shia, Maronites and Orthodox clansmen bound together, from the cliffs of the Kesrouan to the ridges of the Chouf to the high Metn and Bekaa Valley. The notables were chosen to assist the 'Prince' in ruling the country based on their closeness to said ‘Prince': by allegiance to either the Qaisi or Yemini parties. Not by faith or remittances. No religion was favored and no gold in the world could buy a notable such a title, or a place at the Prince's table. Gold was always useful -but not indispensable- for winning the favors of the ruler but not to acquire feudal status. In essence gold was best left to souk merchants, to rapacious Ottoman Pashas, and to insatiable tax collectors. The notables of Mount Lebanon, in reality a grouping of tax farmers whose role was to collect the yearly tribute and  raise a small army in times of war, had gained their status due, in part, to merit. Valor on the field (at the battles of Marj Dabik or Ain Dara) or loyalty to the princely household (Maan or Chehab), or both. This did not absolve this class from the sins of corruption and exploitation. Corruption was manifest, and exploitation was rampant in the treatment of peasants. These wretched souls toiled the land, worked menial jobs, paid their individual tax (the Miri), and answered the call of war without hesitation or much choice. For the peasantry which constituted the majority of the populace, the government or rather the ultimate source of power was situated far away in Istanbul. The sole representative of said power was ‘the Prince'. He was the only manifestation of such authority on earth. The ‘Prince' was in essence the government and vice versa. The notables were intermediaries between the former and the people. The masses rarely met the government, a.k.a. the ‘Prince',

The moment you set foot outside the airplane doors, you hear shouting: “Mr. Hassan, Mrs. Khoury, Dr. Khalid ”! These are not the names of lucky bingo players on a Sunday afternoon, nor are they Oscar Award nominees or Nobel Prize Laureates. They are even better. They are the fortunate ones who can wield influence or “Wasta” as better known in the Middle East. The goal is to leave the airplane before the rest of the passengers, take a short cut through the side stairs, and end up at the carrousel to pick up the luggage whilst the rest of the lot is still lingering at passport control. This being a mild illustration of ‘Wasta', which in extreme cases, could go as high as getting someone off the hook, literally! The system is a culmination of corruption, personal recognition, and access to decision-makers, that is indispensable for forging ahead in Virtual (not third or fourth) World Countries or the “VWCs”. In VWCs the political elite governs through a simple matrix, where citizens (we would not bother calling them nationals) are viewed as mere clients. Well behaved and well-intended clients nonetheless, who pay taxes (almost regularly and almost in full), abide by the rules and kowtow to the principle of intermediation. This principle posits that the government -a loosely used terminology that defines all that is not directly owned by the politicians or their business cronies- has no direct connectivity to the people (or clients) and vice versa, except through the auspices of the political elite. Intermediation is necessary to vet those who seek or need the services of the State starting from employment, to licensing, to healthcare and education, to setting off excessive taxation, to bidding for public contracts or becoming a cadet at the military academy. Theoretically, all service and/or job seekers have equal and undeniable rights in the VWCs but said rights cannot be effectively enforced except via the mandatory interjection of the political elite. Otherwise, said rights could be unintentionally compromised, or unwillingly diminished or, in some unfortunate instances, accidentally lost. So why take the risk and press one's rights? Why swim against a tsunami and not a simple tide? The easy path is to go to a provincial or regional or -better- a national figure in the political arena, physically genuflect, declare allegiance, and then beg for what is one's right in the first place.  Nothing virtual about such countries, except the so-called undeniable, sacred rights of citizens that are routinely and uselessly asserted in every law, constitution or chart, be it in a VWC or in the world at large. The pernicious consequences of such system of intermediation is more corrosive than meets the eye. It is already appalling to have to beg for one's rightful access to basic services and opportunities. It is twice as scandalous that one can get such rights (and more) whether one is entitled to them (or not) through the very same intermediation system. In other words, one should not be shocked at ‘lobbying' -to use a well-known terminology applicable in developed markets- albeit, at an excessive rate in VWCs. All multinationals or other interest groups pressure politicians from Capitol Hill to Brussels to ease certain rules, scrap certain tariffs, and look favorably on a sector, a segment or a particular company. However, such lobbying -irrespective of its moral underpinning- is legal. Meaning that the parties who are seeking a favorable treatment are entitled to it, or to a version thereof. That is not necessarily or even required, in the case of VWCs. So, a young aspiring officer who fails every physical or mental test could still be considered for a position of command to defend the nation. A corrupt, inept engineering firm could still win a bid to rebuild most of the infrastructure of the State from telecom to airport safety and from port terminals to public parking spaces. A senile, morally bankrupt,

What if Iran agrees to the demands of the current US administration? What if Iran calls off its nuclear program, dismantles its ballistic missiles' arsenal, and stops interfering in neighboring countries by discontinuing the military, logistic and economic support for its proxy militias in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen? What if Iran tones down its rhetoric against Saudi and the UAE, and treats Iraq and Lebanon as independent states and not as vassals? What if Iran engages in a détente with the West, the Sunni world, and the Persian Gulf nations by embarking on a greater cooperation and integration in economic fields , starting with a coordinated action with the Saudis within OPEC? In exchange, Iran would have its full diplomatic relations restored with the US, all trade sanctions lifted, a full restitution of any funds blocked in the US, EU or elsewhere and the chance for it to rejoin the family of nations. Foreign direct investments would flow in, and the reconstruction of the Iranian economy -from the energy to the telecom sector- could become the largest bonanza in emerging markets' recent history. Iranians are fluent in English and some are in French. They are netizens and well versed into social media networking. They have home-grown technical capabilities and high educational standards, and they -above all- have the hunger and the drive to close the development gap that has eluded them under the regime of the Mullahs for over 50 years! The greatest benefit of such approach would be to the citizens of Iran who have suffered under a repressive regime, lost lives in the futile Iran-Iraq war, and got entangled in insurgencies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. No great prestige or rewards were recouped from such foreign excursions and no lasting gratitude has been built with the neighboring populations except for a minority of Shia militant groups. Those who aligned themselves with the interests of Iran against the larger interests of their own nations. But these are, surprisingly, few groups. They do not represent the silent majority of Shia who, like everyone else, have witnessed and experienced the havoc that a relation with revolutionary Iran has brought onto their daily lives. Iraq suffered more humiliation and negative outcomes under Iranian influence than under US military presence. Today it is a sectarian society, with parallel armies running amuck, and its landscape is partitioned into de facto zones of influence between Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. Lebanon has -and one hates to admit- fared better under the Syrian occupation than under the Iranian dominance where only one Party of God rules over all other creatures of that same God. Yemen was relatively quieter -albeit not more democratic or prosperous- under Ali Abdallah Saleh than under the Houthis. The examples of Iranian revolutionaries' plundering abound, but none are more vivid and poignant than what they have done at home. The Mullahs and their cronies, and the Revolutionary Guards' Corps and their proxies would lose everything in such a bargain. They have nothing to offer for future generations except more repression, a sea of tears, and economic disaster. So, they are in dire need of a Big Bad Wolf to rally the ‘oppressed' and ‘destitute' masses against it. They have found it since 1978 in the form of the US administration, and they will continue to cling on to it as if their lives depended thereupon. Without it, they would be exposed, and accountable to an angry population that would trade the government's hard rhetoric for investors' hard currency any day of the week and twice on Friday. There is an Iranian saying that translates into :”Do not use words that are too big for your mouth”. ‘What if' has just gained a new dimension in Persia.

That's what every dictator, autocrat, plutocrat or theocrat has missed. They can round up the opposition, deport dissidents, muzzle up the media, imprison rebels, suppress liberties and occupy every square and street in town for days on end, almost on a whim. But such show of force does not impress capital markets one bit. To the contrary, capital markets do not kowtow to authoritarian regimes, only to strong institutions such as a legislature that enacts well-studied and fair laws, a judiciary that is equitable and independent, armed forces that are confined to their barracks except for regular parades or the occasional wars, and a free press that can criticize without fear of reprisals. This very same week such lesson was learned (or probably not!) by Erdogan, the strongman of Turkey after a brief, but disastrous visit to the City of London. There, in the confines of closed meetings in paneled rooms with senior bankers, he laid out his views about how the Turkish economy ‘must behave' under his aegis. The Turkish Lira dropped 15% on that same day. He must have instinctively and naively thought that his previous experiences were a good guide. Dealing with powerful or charismatic figures such as Putin, Ocalan, the Iranian Mullahs, PM Netanyahu, or his nearest neighbor Assad, do not constitute good precedents for handling the markets. With such characters the game is binary. You are either predator or pray. You can get away with an incursion in Syria, with sending a flotilla to Gaza, with downing -then profusely apologizing - some Russian jets, but with bankers and investors there are more minefields than in Raqqa. One must always be on his/her toes for fear of triggering a hidden wired device or a disastrous explosion that cannot be controlled by executive orders. Investors roam the globe seeking opportunities for investment. Opportunities abound in new sectors of the economy, or in old ones that have been invigorated by deregulation or by innovation. They also come about via discoveries of natural resources, or a breakthrough in research or some other unforeseen technological openings. However, whether in developed or in developing markets, investors demand clarity, no more, to make informed decisions. Investors do not require containment of risk as often taunted by the uninitiated, as risk is part and parcel of any investment transaction. In turn, clarity requires a proper understanding of risk, means for assessing its impact and deciding whether such risk could be mitigated and, most importantly, if it can be compensated by anticipated rewards. Such clarity is doubly required in developing nations where strong institutions are in dire want and where governance is opaque. Uncertainty, not risk, is the enemy of investments. What would the economic outlook be in future years, how much capital flows would be allowed or curbed, are there going to be any restrictions on foreign direct investments? These are the type of questions that are posed by investors and for which dictators -as is the case of strongmen in Turkey, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and more lately, unscrupulous politicians in Lebanon, have few if any straight answers. Turkey was at the crossroads of trade and investment between Europe and Asia for centuries and then, after WWII, it became the bulwark of the NATO alliance keeping the USSR's activities in check in the Black Sea. Venezuela, was till recently the darling of Big US Oil. Iran under the Shah was the most trusted partner of the West, South of Rome. Beirut was called the Paris then the Switzerland of the Middle East, and the shining example of multiculturalism, till it became a satellite of theocratic Iran. What went wrong? How did these capitals disintegrate and became extremist in their positions, with an irreconcilable breed of nationalism, populism and religious ideology that have no bearing on the true social or economic welfare of their own citizens?

Lately, loud moaning and desperate voices from liberals and conservatives alike at think tanks, universities, the media outlets and even government officials have surpassed all bounds. All declamations are warning -with frantic antics- of the imminent collapse of the world order that was set up by the victorious Western democracies in the aftermath of World War II. Institutions such as NATO, the U.N., WTO, and the European Union are increasingly under attack, or so claims this mixed bag of conservatives and liberals, by the ignoramus, the extreme right and the populists - read: President Donald J. Trump & acolytes. The debate is legitimate, and this precious world order is worth saving, no doubt. But is it under attack, and is it truly in the throes of death? The answer is a resounding no, but one should, for the sake of debate, make some well-intended and much-needed clarifications into the notion of ‘world order' and whom it was meant to serve. The world order was destined to serve the victorious Western democracies (the US, the British Commonwealth, and a ruined France), the defeated Western countries (Germany, Italy), and Japan, as well as others. The USSR was excluded but still present in all defense measures and treaties especially at the level of NATO. China too was not on the mind of the promoters of the the European Union, the WTO or NATO. The world has evolved since 1945, but these institutions have not, and they have extended their membership to more nations than anticipated. The issue is not one of overcrowding or of lack of space at the UN Hall in New York, but the lack of a level playing field between these new nations and the founding members, when it comes to abiding by the rules. Take the U.N. for instance. Is it fair to have Finland, Sweden, New Zealand and the US aspire to sit on that same Human Rights Commission as say, Iran, China, Venezuela or Cuba? The divide is not East and West, or rich and poor, or progressive and conservative. Here it is about dictatorship and democracy. Who do you think in your right mind should be the proper candidates to oversee such a commission? Again, the matter is not one of race or discrimination or exclusion but rather one of shared principles and deeds just like in any other organization. If an organization promotes women rights it cannot conceivably have on its board a person accused and charged of domestic violence, can it? The U.N. of the past was concerned with the containment of the USSR, the issues of de-colonization, the non-aligned nations' movement and other means of curbing totalitarian regimes and promoting democratic ones. Fast forward, the U.N. has become a bastion of autocracies to promote their images and pretend to be contributing to matters that they systematically crush and repress at home such as free speech and freedom of assembly. Is this an acceptable behavior? Would one not object to nations violating the very same ideals of the U.N., or to having dictators parade on stage just for the utopian principle of members' equality? When the U.N. turns into a circus for rogue nations -that flaunt every ideal of liberty, freedom and human rights- facing off others who have spilled blood and spent treasure to uphold such ideals, it is high time to leave the building. China, Turkey, Russia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe, can run the asylum just fine. Others may join, but the happy rest can set-up shop across the street and continue to uphold universal ideals that need no large buildings, or blue logos to promote them, because they already enshrine them in their culture, constitution, and history. Take NATO as another sample. The aim for post-war Europe was to de-militarize Germany, to bring France closer into the alliance, to maintain Britain's special relation with the US, and for all of Western Europe to be strongly guarded against the mounting threat from behind the Berlin Wall.

The phenomenon of sexual harassment predates the Weinstein scandal by thousands of years. Men have acted with boldness and primal manners for almost all of their existence in the presence of women as well as in their absence. The new wave of anti-patriarchy that is sweeping through the US, supported by fierce advocates in Hollywood, the media, and the political class has brought the issue firmly to the forefront of the social debate. The question is explored with passion and zeal mostly in Western societies, and less so in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Why is that? Well, because the issues of one's privacy or one's individual rights have always sprung from the Western schools of thought from Aristotle to Marcus Tullius Cicero, from the Renaissance to the French Revolution, and from the suffragettes, to the Civil Movement. The issue is not about women or sex, only, it rather is about one's dignity as a human being, about one's respect as a full member of society. Individuals in the Western world are more important than the group they form and in which they live. Individual rights are more critical than collective duties and societal obligations and surely are more crucial than State policy or official authority. “Civil Disobedience”, which was written by Henry David Thoreau in 1849 advocates the right of the individual to reject and even violate a law, even if duly enacted by congress, if such law contradicts one's morals or beliefs. The price for Thoreau was to be imprisoned for disobeying the law, but it was never his right to disobey. That is a natural right given to all creatures by their creator, or for the more secular-inclined souls among us, by nature itself.  No congregation of people, be it political, social or religious, could infringe, deny or alienate such rights, even though governments -the instrumentality of the people's will - never fail to restrict the power of individual freedoms under many pretexts. The anti-patriarchy drive that has been ushered by the #MeToo movement will take root in societies where individual rights are protected not only by law, but by history and societal behavior at large. The right to bear arms enshrined in the US Constitution's Second Amendment is no different from the right not to have to endure verbal, moral or physical abuse of sexual or other nature. It derives from the root of the principle of Habeas Corpus which was instilled into ancient laws to prevent one's body from unlawful detention. The Middle East is not a society of individuals but rather of clans, tribes, ethnic groups, and religious and racial minorities. People in such region do not see themselves as individuals collaborating to live in a communal setting but rather communities tolerating individuals living among them, albeit with reduced rights. The Government or the Regime, the Church or the Mosque, the King or the Ruler, the Sheik or the Head of the Tribe, the Feudal Lord or the Warlord do not treat their fellow citizens as individuals but as a group whose first obligation is to kowtow to their absolute will or face exclusion from the community. Men and women alike are dealt with in such a manner, although a harsher treatment is reserved for women especially in certain countries where both religious edicts and tribal customs cast them into a lower sub-group. Their rights are often subjugated to those of the official authority and to the male's individual will. One often hears the specious declamations that women in the Middle East are less sexually harassed than in Western societies. Apart from this statement being false in almost every way as emprical evidence shows, the clue could be because they are cast away from society. So, the opportunity for harassment -not the will to do so- is somewhat remote due to physical constraints. The separate living spaces, the veil, the male guardianship system, the blood crimes or so-called honor killings, are all practices that act as a natural barrier for men from...

Iran has won, for now. One can use different terms to assuage the affliction, apply various expressions to disguise the truth, or employ softer words to fabricate an alternative reality. The fact remains that since 9/11 2001, Iran has been feeding off the colossal foreign policy mistakes of successive US administrations, including the present one. From the invasion of Afghanistan to that of Iraq, and from the Iran Nuclear Agreement to the hands-off approach in the Syrian civil war, right down to the muted encouragement of Iran's internal opposition. How can it be that a nation that has been a superpower since World War II, the effective leader of the Western Alliance, the home to numerous think tanks, universities and research centers, a government with top intelligence-gathering agencies and networks, got it so wrong and still is not getting it at all? There could be few explanations that we will entertain in our attempt to elucidate this riddle. One of them is that the US was blindsided by its quest to eradicate Al Qaeda and later ISIS to concentrate on Iran. Afghanistan was a daring endeavor, Iraq a massive invasion, and many battles in-between have all but consumed the attention and focus of the US polity and military to attend to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. A plausible explanation, except that the US has had enmity with the Iranian regime since 1978, which precedes 9/11 by 23 years. Every US administration, since Carter has had its run-ins with the Mullahs. The exception was Obama who kowtowed to them in an effort to appear more balanced in the grand Sunni-Shia divide and the Muslim world at large. Hoping to win some goodwill, erase America's ‘ugly past' and vindicate an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize, Obama handed the Middle East to Iran -not on a silver tray only but with planeloads of cash. Blaming it all on the Obama administration is not only fair but well deserved, however, the seeds of the Iranian bloom were planted by Georges W. Bush and the miscalculations of his neocon acolytes, especially in the Iraq war. They were obsessed with Saddam and the elusive Chemical Weapons and relied on local charlatans such as Ahmad Chalabi and his gang to guide them through the Iraqi swampland. Every move and action taken by the interim US authority from the dismissal of the Iraqi Armed Forces, to the witch-hunting of former Baathist members, to the utter neglect of Iranian influence over political parties led to Iran's hegemony over Iraq. Lebanon had fell under Iranian influence right in the aftermath of the war with Israel in 2006. Having been accused of the murder of PM Rafic Hariri, both the Syrian regime and Iranian proxies had retreated and retrenched in 2005. Provoking a military clash with Israel was a perfect excuse for claiming back the mantra of ‘Resistance' and reasserting political influence through the barrel of a gun, as preached by Mao Tse Tung. Following such devastating war which left Lebanon in tatters and Israel intact in its borders, economy and armed capacities, Iran concentrated on consolidating its power and influence over the weakened and failed State of Lebanon. Fast forward, with the election of President Michel Aoun in 2016, that takeover is complete. Any minority dissent is being muzzled as the political establishment, all religions confounded, has been effortlessly domesticated. In Syria, what started as an aid to the Assad regime in 2011, ended-up at present as a forward base for Iran right-smack on the Eastern Mediterranean. The presence of some 80,000 fighters that swore allegiance to Iran is reported with a degree of certitude as are numerous ground and air bases scattered all over the Syrian landscape. From such bases Iran can project its influence and connect its forces -by land- from Terran to the Golan heights or South Lebanon, unhinged, unchallenged and undeterred. Simply put, Iran is the new hegemon of the Middle East without contest. The prelude of an Iran-Israel war is on the horizon...

If Trump, according to Michael Wolff, the author of “Fire and Fury” had to be coaxed by his daughter Ivanka and former NSC staffer Dina Powell, by showing him gruesome photos of dying kids, in order to retaliate against Assad's chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun in April 2017, then we're in serious trouble. Moreover, if the only voice in the Trump administration that was convinced of the nefarious role of Iran throughout the region, was that of Retired (and now fired) Gen. Michael Flynn, then we are in a bigger trouble than we thought. Finally, if the Arab-Israeli peace process, or what is left of it, has been entrusted by the Trump administration solely to Jared Kushner, his thirty-something, wet-behind-the-ears son-in law, who takes his cues from Rupert Murdoch and Henry Kissinger, then we are totally lost. These are no minor flaws and those are not hypothetical situations. The author Wolff maintains that such attitudes, state of mind, and whims of the current US President are true as supplied by an army of close advisers both on and off, the record. Those in the Middle East who had hoped for a reverse-pivot onto the region with the US taking the lead in clearing the wreckage left by the Obama administration, might be up for a rude awakening. The Obama presidency brought nothing but disasters onto the US and its long-term allies in the region.  Starting with the non-interventionist stand on Syria including the refusal to establish safe zones and avert the refugee crisis that has affected Europe, and finishing with the crossing of the red lines for the use by Assad of chemical weapons. Another calamitous masterpiece was the Iran Nuclear deal, whereby the Mullahs were given plane loads of cash and a free rein to wreak havoc onto the region as long as they agreed not to push that nuclear button, for the time being at least. In that same vein of damaging policies, one would enlist the not-so-subtle support by the Obama-Clinton-Kerry axis of the Muslim Brotherhood in their takeover of Egypt, and the blank check issued to Turkey (aka Erdogan), a NATO member country, to purge and revamp the country into a 21st century Islamic Sultanate. One had reasons to hope that a semi-Republican in the White House, who felt that America's standing in the world has been tarnished, would bring back assurances to long-term allies and fear onto enemies. But it seems laughter is more likely to be the result, just after one year. A roaring laughter from Assad in Syria, who survived the civil war and got the Russians and Iranians to fight the serious battles on behalf of his army. Giggling in Iran must be common in the high circles of power, with a US President unenthusiastic to confront Iran militarily (and now that Flynn is out, not even confront Iran verbally), unwilling to rescind the Iran Nuclear Deal by passing the bucket sheepishly to Congress, and uncomfortable with international affairs, in general, as long as they do not involve the building of a resort or the licensing of a casino. Finally, on the Arab-Israeli front, the US administration paid a check in advance to PM Netanyahu, with the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, without getting a paper receipt back. The Palestinians for their sake, have delved into a combination of mass depression, mass shouting, and a barrage of empty threats. Waking up and adjusting quickly to the reality of Trump, as depicted in the Wolff accounts provided they are accurate by a modest margin, bring us to ponder on the thought that stupefaction, if it persists, becomes stupidity.

Ever since Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have thwarted the takeover of Egypt by the Islamists (a civilian, but no less lethal version of ISIS), the liberal press has been at their throats. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and on occasions, the Boston Globe, are out to get them no matter what. Why? Because the Obama-Hillary-Kerry axis had depicted the Muslim Brotherhood as the modern way to democratize Islamic countries, a sort of Christian Democrats of Europe. The plot went as follows: once Mubarak, a corrupt military ruler is removed from power, justice and equality will prevail under the edicts of Islam as implemented, and worse, as interpreted by the Muslim Brotherhood. Except that the dreadful naivety of the Obama administration at the time the Arab Spring hit the banks of the Nile, was almost identical to the Carter's administration ‘deer-caught-in-the-headlights' reaction to the early rise of Khomeini and the downfall of the Shah. The Shah was feted in D.C., London and Paris, his SAVAK trained by the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies, and the National Iranian Oil Company was the darling of oil majors. Suddenly, all were vilified and viewed with disdain by the liberal press of such erstwhile supporting nations. All eyes and ears were now focused on the secluded and charismatic religious leader, living in the Paris suburb of Neauphle-le-Chateau. Khomeini would send-in, every week, his vitriolic speeches by tape cassettes to his growing followers in the streets of Tehran, Qom and Mashhad. He was viewed by the left-leaning press as a religious reformer and a genuine leader of a nation that has been governed for too long by a corrupt, puppet of the West. Michel Foucault, a French philosopher, was precisely seduced by the popular uprising in Iran, which he claimed might signify a new "political spirituality", with the potential to transform the political landscape of Europe, as well as the Middle East. Thus, for example, in his October 1978 article, "What Are the Iranians Dreaming About?", he adopted an almost mythic rhetoric to describe the revolutionary struggle: The situation in Iran can be understood as a great joust under traditional emblems, those of the king and the saint, the armed ruler and the destitute exile, the despot faced with the man who stands up bare-handed and is acclaimed by a people. The Shah was thrown to the dogs, whereas the religious zealot, anti-Western agitator Khomeini was hailed as the candidate chosen by the ‘Street'. The ‘Street' is assumed to reflect the true sentiments of the populace in countries where parliaments are rubber-stamp institutions. President Carter at the time, just as Obama at his own time, misjudged the moment and miscalculated the consequences of such seismic shift in regional politics. Not only was an ally (the Shah, for those who remember) allowed to free fall, but a sworn enemy slipped in, with much fanfare and rhetoric about the need for Iran to move past the Shah. Iran did indeed move, but backwards. From 1978 it went back few decades at all levels: socially, financially, and politically. Mass migration of the educated people commenced in the aftermath of the revolution, so did the dispossession and chasing out of the Jews, Baha'is and other minority groups. Then soon followed the severing of ties with the US and most of the civilized world, with the wanton ransacking of the US Embassy in Tehran and the hostage-taking of US diplomats for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981. Would such repeat scenario be pleasing to the pundits and experts at major newspapers and media outlets in NY and London if it were to occur in Cairo? Have they ever read, let alone learned anything from the history of the Middle East? After King Farouk of Egypt was removed, he was replaced by Col. Nasser. The quintessential popular hero, the darling of the ‘Arab Street', the conscience and father of the nation,

Palestine is no more the central issue of the Middle East, it remains an important one though. For the GCC, Iran is the real threat, whilst Israel takes second place. For Turkey, under the heavy-handed rule of President Erdogan, secularism and the Kurds are the main challenges. For Iran, its dominant role in the region and its aching need to be perceived by all powers, chief among them the US, as the only regional power capable of delivering stability is the main mission, and the one to ensure continuity of the Mullahs' regime. For Iraq getting back on track, eradicating corruption, patching sectarian divisions, and pumping oil at pre-war levels are key to its survival. For Algeria, finding a balance between a decaying military junta and the needs of a younger population that demands a greater role in this energy-rich country will be cause for headaches for years to come. For Egypt, regaining normalcy, whatever that term means in the local context, will keep the Generals up at night, the pens of government-paid journalists flowing, and the terrorists busy in the foreseeable future. Syria's fate is being decided in Sochi, Geneva and some other less known venues where larger powers are dividing up the spoils of a terrible conflict. Ah, and there is tiny Lebanon! That country sandwiched between Syria and Israel and shackled by a mountain of debt, hounded by a kleptocratic ruling class, and weakened by years of religious wars. In this part of the world, the Cold War is terribly missed. Long gone are the days when the former USSR commanded a camp and the US protected another. The ideological divide of the Cold War took precedent over the nationalistic and religious fault lines that prevail at the present time. Socialism was in fashion in Cairo, Bagdad, Damascus and Tripoli not ISIS, or the Sunni-Shia divide, or the hegemonic ambitions of less relevant regional powers such as Iran and Turkey. Capitalism thrived in Tunis, Beirut and other capitals that saw a rapprochement with the West (now an outdated political terminology) as a means to join the modern world and improve the prospects of their nations. A precursor to joining the globalization process, one could imagine. However, despite the harsh demarcation lines between regional countries, the so-called super powers maintained a modicum of calm and stability and ensured that red lines were seldom crossed. Surely, there were the Arab-Israeli wars, hardly a walk in the park or a sign of tranquility. Still said wars had referees: the US and the former USSR who could be counted on to calm nerves, enforce cease fires and even bring protagonists back from the front lines and into the UN to air their grievances. Demarcation lines were drawn up, demilitarized zones were established, and a cautious quiet was reinstated. Granted, the school yard was never trouble-free, but the headmasters aka super powers, were not too far from the skirmishes, ready to step-in and save the day. They needed their client nations to remain whole, to avoid disintegration, to steer away from internal strife, to keep religious discourse at a minimum, and to heed their authority when required. With the fall of the Berlin wall and the receding role of the former USSR, compounded by the fumbling years of the Bush and Obama administrations, the children –so to speak- took charge of the school, and all hell broke loose. Bullies namely, Iran and Turkey pretended to be legitimate heirs  of the former powers. Terror groups spread their poisonous rhetoric claiming it would bring believers onto the promised land (literally and figuratively). Peaceful and resource-rich countries sought alliances wherever they could find them and, more often than usual, were saddled with disappointing outcomes. All told, the puzzle was tossed on the ground shattering its tiny and fragile pieces all over the floor. In ancient history, the Battle of Carthage was a siege that ended in the spring of 146 BC with the sack and complete destru...

The General in His Labyrinth (original Spanish title: El general en su laberinto) is a novel by the Colombian writer and Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez. It is a fictionalized account of the last days of Simon Bolivar , liberator and leader of Gran Colombia. Our actual story, has a different trail than Columbia's and leads to present day Lebanon, where the country has a former General taking it, once more, into a narrow, dangerous path. This story started with the obsessive ambition of a young Lebanese army officer whose longing for power at any cost (literally) tells a tale of expediency, moral turpitude and opportunistic moves that often (if not always), end up in disasters. After scaling up the national army's middle ranks, he was spotted by the leader of the Christian militias during the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990), the late Bashir Gemayel. The Christian militias fought the PLO and later Syrian troops, with the help of some regular army officers including, Aoun. After the election of Bashir Gemayel as Lebanon's president, and his assassination in 1982 by Syrian agents, Aoun moved closer to Bashir's brother, Amine, who was elected as his successor. Towards the end of Amine's mandate, which ended in a cul-de-sac when Syria tightened the screws on his presidency, the outgoing president nominated Michel Aoun, as interim Prime Minister, for lack of a better choice. He was by then the commander of the national army. From that moment onward, it has been one Quixotic quest after another, with several descents into the abyss. Once interim Prime Minister, the General waged war on the Syrian regime, purporting to expel its troops from all of Lebanon's territory, whilst Aoun himself exerted authority on only 25% of the national soil. In such rightful but asymmetrical war, he forged a brief alliance with Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, who vowed mortal enmity to Assad's Syria. When such war proved unwinnable, he turned against the Christian militias, at that time led by Samir Geagea. Aoun's goal, as usual, was to remain the sole leader of the territorial redux under his dominion. That war also proved to be bloody, costly and futile pitting brother against brother and destroying the last enclave the Christians had under their control. The Christian areas were literally devastated, their infrastructure in ruins and a population in despair. In the meantime, the world was tired of Lebanon's internecine wars and of Aoun's follies. In 1989, under the auspices of the U.S. and Saudi, Lebanon's parliamentarians met at the resort town of Taef to amend the national constitution. The postwar power-sharing arrangement allocated power more evenly among Christians and Muslims and saw the office of the presidency clipped of most of its executive powers. The General took issue with such compromise and viewed it as an affront to Lebanon's sovereignty; he argued that the proposed agreement lacked a timetable for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. In doing so, he sided against the Maronite Church, the Christian militia, Lebanon's majority Muslims, and the Arab world, but especially Saudi Arabia. What ensued was a swift military intervention by Syria, with tacit U.S. consent, that physically ousted the General from his dark labyrinth at the presidential palace and sent him into exile in France for more than a decade. During his years in exile the General honed his diatribe against Syria's regime and its dictator (Assad père), as well as, against Hezbollah, Iran's army in Lebanon. He even testified before the U.S. Congress riling against Syria's excesses and the armed militia of Hezbollah. Fast forward to 2005, Syrian troops were ousted from Lebanon after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria's hasty and unglorified exit from Lebanon came under the pressure of popular riots and threats from President G. W. Bush, emboldened by Iraq's invasion only few months before. One would have assumed for Aoun to return home ...

When the civil war broke out in 1975, Lebanon was extremely polarized between Western-leaning ultra-nationalist Christians, and pro-Arab States (read: Sunni) pan-nationalist Muslims. This has changed not because of any introspection on the part of the Lebanese themselves, but because the world and Middle East have since changed for good, but not necessarily for the better. The regional map, established mainly after World War I, is caught in a severe vortex, and the results are unpleasant. Sudan is cut in half, Iraq has effectively three rival enclaves (Shia, Sunni and Kurds), Syria will have two or more, Yemen is edging again towards a South-North divide if not a collection of regions, and the GCC is fractured because of a spat with Qatar.  Only Lebanon stands weakened, even failing, but not yet broken-up. One hears in present day Lebanon repeated outcries against an Iranian Anschluss, specious declamations countering closer rapports with Saudi Arabia, and the usual condemnations of Israel for all evils. However, there barely are calls for an independent Marounistan or – on the opposite spectrum- for constitutional amendments to achieve a sanctimonious unity with the Arab world. Today, one can hardly imagine a declaration for Druze autonomy, styled after their modern-day role model, the Kurds. Did the old dream of breaking up Lebanon simply die?! That would be a cause for celebration, but alas the reality is that such dream has ran out of fantasy partners and of bedfellows. The Christians are facing a post-religious West, that cares not for championing the causes of religious minorities, as was the case in the 19th and 20th centuries. Back then, Russia sided with the Greek Orthodox, Britain supported Protestant proselytizing, and France forged closer ties with the Maronites. A fork in history came up in 1982 with the failure to force a peace process onto Lebanon via the Israeli invasion, which left the Israelis completely disillusioned (not the other way around). The Israelis were shocked to learn that their staunchest ally, Bashir Gemayel, was busy working to maintain good rapports with the moderate Arabs, instead of publicly supporting their military campaign and rushing to sign a peace treaty. As it takes two to tango, the ultra-nationalist Christians were left –since 1982- without a dancing partner in the West or elsewhere, and the music suddenly stopped! The Sunnis have given up on being the solo champions of an unconditional Arab unity. This, as with the case of the ultra-nationalist Christians, was also not the fruit of deep reflection on their part, but a re-assessment of a stark reality. In fact, their Arab world, that very same Nasserite Project of the 60s', is after all well dead and deeply buried. Where is the Arab world that should be united? And where are the Arabs who want to be united? The Sunnis too lack a partner who is willing to nurture their fantasy dreams of a greater Arabia from the Sea of Oman to the Mediterranean Sea, with Lebanon only a small part thereof. Egypt is solely focused on its gigantic economic and security domestic problems: from curbing fanaticism, to managing the ambitions of Turkey and Iran, to handling the Gaza Strip etc. It has long lost that regional role it once assumed. All told, Egypt is in disarray, incapable of leading a Sunni majority abroad, let alone one at home. Syria is at war with itself, the Sunni-led revolt has failed and the country maybe broken up in several zones of influence, for years to come. Iraq is in the hands of Iranian puppet masters who share no common cause with the Lebanese Sunni establishment, and the GCC has always viewed them as a source of human talent not a human bridge for geopolitical claims. The Druzes are the de facto Catalans of Lebanon minus the economic power, and with no need for an explicit vote to assert their desire for total autonomy. They have their area of influence from Damour to Niha,

Najib Mikati, former PM of Lebanon championed the cause of centrism in the fractured country of Lebanon and in the fragmented region of the Middle East. This policy –which he promoted whilst being PM in his second mandate from 2011 to 2013- was viewed with skepticism, as expected, by all factions of the political class. Centrism, what a neutral idea?! The basic principle of centrism is that extreme views lead to violent clashes from which retreat is very difficult. The idea is neither novel, nor revolutionary, but wise. And wisdom has been lacking from Lebanese politics for a while and, from the region for as long as one can remember. This policy is not about political correctness, or avoiding facing problems and critical issues but rather facing such problems with moderation, while maintaining a balancing act. Some would suggest that such policy resolves nothing but, contrasted and compared with the policy of brinkmanship that has characterized Lebanon's modern history, it is a winning formula, not a magic one. A winning formula does not necessarily cure the ills, but prolongs the life of the patient till a cure is found or till recovery is on its way. A winning formula does not even pretend to be a 'win-win' solution, the favorite of consultants and peace makers. Until a long-lasting deal is achieved, centrism lessens the losses, cushions the blows, and limits the damages. This policy accepts all views as being legitimate, but rejects any one view to being superior or greater to another. What centrism meant in Lebanon was to maintain an internal equilibrium between warring factions who are trigger happy and prone to use violence –whether verbal or physical- to get their views across, or worse above and beyond their opponents'. Lebanon's modern history is peppered with centrist politicians who have stirred the explosive-laden ship of government into safer shores. In the 1940s, Christian ultra-nationalists clamored for a closer relation with France and the West in general, and Muslim ultra-nationalists championed the cause of a Greater Syria with Lebanon just a province thereof. President El Khoury and PM El Solh stayed the difficult centrist course which gave birth to a Lebanon that is not at odds with the Arab Middle East, and that is reconciled with the rest of the world. In the mid 1950s, Christian ultra-nationalists and supporters of then President Camille Chamoun favored a NATO-like alliance with Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and Jordan. Muslim ultra-nationalists countered such efforts with an Arab unity with Egypt's Nasser. Civil war ensued, and only a centrist, centralist President Shehab was capable of bringing the country together. He succeeded in building, for a while, a modern republic based on the equality of rights for all citizens. In the mid-1970s when the Christian ultra-nationalists staunchly opposed the growing danger of a militarized PLO and took arms from Israel, the Muslim ultra-nationalists sided with the PLO and took arms and funds from a wider coalition of nations who championed the cause of the PLO (not of Lebanon) including Syria, Iraq, Libya and Somalia to name just a few. That led to a civil war that lasted almost 15 years, wreaked havoc on the country, cost more than 100,000 lives, devastated the state coffers and infrastructure; and brought Lebanon to the brink of extinction. The same re-occurred after the assassination of former PM Hariri in 2005, and Najib Mikati was called-in for a first premiership mandate, as a centrist politician who can help patch the wounds of a dying nation. Contrary to all of his predecessors, including the slain Hariri, he did not participate in the parliamentary election he was brought to monitor. In his second mandate, 2011-2013, Najib Mikati was attacked by the pro-Hariri camp and the larger March 14th Movement as a stooge of Hezbollah and its allies. Less than a year into his mandate he was equally attacked by Hezbollah and its allies as failing to implement ‘...

Women in Saudi Arabia will be allowed to drive as of June 2018. What was regarded with disdain, irony and, almost derision by the world's press, was hailed as a much-awaited reckoning in Saudi, as it should be. The issue is less the need for women to start practicing their ‘fast & fury' routine on the roads and highways of Saudi, but one of individual freedom. The freedom of movement and of choice which, has started more than 50 years ago by a succession of reformist Saudi monarchs. What kept women away from the steering wheel since the inception of Saudi Arabia was not Islam but rather a conservative, Bedouin, Arab culture that had little interactions with the outside world for centuries. Add to that, a group of firebrand scholars who interpreted the verses of the Koran with a narrow, ultra-conservative Wahhabi prism. This reclusive culture was suddenly face to face with the world preying inside its daily life due to the discovery of oil in 1938. However, why Saudi alone from all other Arab and Muslim countries applied such a ban and other similar restrictions on individuals? The answer could be found in part in the political and legal isolation that Saudi has experienced for hundreds of years. Roman legions invaded parts of the Middle East from Tunisia to Alexandria, but never set foot in the Arabian desert. The Moguls and Tatars did not attempt to conquer these sandy dunes, nor did the Crusaders maraud in such vicinity. Even the Ottoman Empire was selfishly interested in Mecca only, in order to legitimize its dubious claims to the Caliphate that was anyway exercised from distant Istanbul. After World War II, Britain and France exited from most of their colonial dominions. Again, Saudi, was never part of any colonial territory, or subject to a foreign mandate by the Society of Nations (the U.N.'s predecessor). Hence, as far as the law of the land was concerned, common law and the civil code never took roots in Saudi in parallel with Sharia law, as opposed to Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, the Levant and Maghreb. But again, Islam does not condone a ban on driving, or a veil for women for that matter, as argued ad nauseam by waves of reformist jurists such as Mohammad Abduh, Grand Mufti of Egypt in 1899. So, Saudi being  politically distant from the rest of its regional environment, remained true to strict interpretation of Sharia law in a society beholden to old tribal customs, which kept women segregated. The discovery of oil brought American oil companies, and soon the world's flood of goods and services -from Coca Cola to Cadillacs- followed. In the early days of the kingdom, Saudi clerics who refused to use the telephone –claiming it was a Satanic instrument- were forced to do so by a reformist and charismatic leader. To make them accept this new tool of communication, King Abdul Aziz asked the caller on the other end of the phone to recite verses from the Koran. Only then, did the clerics admit its usage. Today Saudi has one of the highest per capita viewers of YouTube and mobile phone owners. Women's education was also brought down by royal decree in the days of another reformist monarch: King Faisal who ushered the right for girls to receive education. Under Faisal's rule, schools for girls were first opened in the kingdom in 1960. The policy was very unpopular with the clerical establishment, who believed that women should remain at home and without the benefits of any kind of formal education. Without this move education for Saudi women would not be what it is today, and the setback would have cost Saudi dearly. In 2015, women in Saudi Arabia have cast their first votes in the country's municipal elections. A total of 978 women have registered as candidates, alongside 5,938 men. This historic decision to allow women to vote was also taken via decree by a reformist King, late King Abdullah and is a key part of his legacy to the kingdom. King Salman, counseled no doubt by the reform-oriented crown prince,

Kurdistan is about to conduct a referendum for independence on the 25th of September 2017. The Kurds who have aspired for a national home and got one for less than a year: the Republic of Mahabad between January 22 to December 15, 1946, are willing to try again. However, the world seems up in arms, conjuring every pretense and political trick to either delay, abort or annul the effects of such referendum. Many justifications have been put forward but none are morally solid or practically convincing. The countries that host Kurds, apart from  Iraq, are Turkey, Iran and Syria. The logic goes that if the Kurds in Iraq declare an independent State, all other Kurdish minorities would follow. But that is simply untrue. To have a nation, one needs to have a well-defined territory, a majority vote by an aspiring population, sufficient resources to build and maintain a State apparatus, an army, a flag, a currency, a government, and the recognition of the U.N., among many other fundamentals. Only Kurdistan (Iraq) has such attributes. The region has been run semi-autonomously since 2003, date of the second Gulf war, has a Regional Government in Arbil that has almost nothing to do with the Central Government of Baghdad, a well-trained fighting militia (the Peshmerga), a police force capable of maintaining law and order, an airport, a flag, a production of 550,000 oil per day (as much as Oman), vast gas reserves and a pipeline that links its energy sources to the world via the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Where is the problem? The US should not care if the Kurds of Iraq secede from Baghdad. The US' mission is to pacify Iraq, annihilate ISIS, and bring about law and order so it can finally cut its ties and pack back home. The Kurds of Iraq have required little from the US Treasury compared to the Central Government of Baghdad. The Kurds caused no harm to the US troops, and have bravely fought on the side of the US army since the First Gulf War. Why then is the US putting pressure on the Kurds to delay or dilute the upcoming referendum? Isn't the US all for self-determination, liberty and democracy? Isn't the Jeffersonian republic built on people's unbending will and unalienable right to freedom? Some hundred years ago, it is told that the Kurdish rebel leader Sheikh Mahmoud Barzanji carried in his pocket a treasured document. It was a copy of Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points from his 1918 speech on the Aims of War and Peace Terms. Like many minorities of the Middle East after World War I, the Kurds were truly inspired by the American's policy of self-determination. And yet it was the US who would contribute in denying the Kurds the same right at every opportunity. One fails to properly understand the motives of all these players against Kurdish aspirations. Not that Kurdistan will disappear from the map and relocate in Europe or the Far East. Not that Kurdistan will magically eliminate its physical borders with Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran and make do without its neighbors, or without vital trade routes linking it to cities and markets with whom it interacted since times immemorial. Not that the Kurds of Iraq with or without a referendum will forgo their language, flag, government, Peshmerga forces, oil and gas resources and their legitimate fears and anxieties of powerful armies/regimes surrounding them. The world should take heed that these are the same Kurds who were abandoned in 1972, by the Shah of Iran and the US after being used and exploited against Saddam and his Soviet masters. These are the same Kurds who encouraged by the US, rose up against Saddam towards the end of the First Gulf War. Saddam sent in the army and slaughtered thousands of villagers. More than 1.5 million Kurds fled through the mountains to Turkey. American troops and arms never materialized. In 2003, these same Kurds fought side-by-side with US troops against the butcher of Baghdad and in 2014, they successfully repelled ISIS at the critical junction of this war on ...

ISIS is on the run in Iraq and in Syria. Libya's ISIS cohorts are somewhat contained, for the time being. However, the morning after is coming, and very soon. What happens after ISIS is defeated? For the several players in the military theater of the Middle East the roles will shift in a dramatic way, but the horror play will not end anytime soon. The freak show will continue with more bloodshed and a greater risk of war. From ISIS' standpoint, the end of the geographical caliphate, that swath of land cut out from the deserts and cities of both Iraq and Syria, will usher the continuum of a virtual caliphate that spreads from Montreal to Mosul and from Raqqa to Riga. ISIS thrives in the literature of martyrdom, of having lost ‘one battle but not the war', and of portraying the coalition against it as modern-day band of infidel crusaders. The genie is out of the bottle, and the fanatical thoughts and heinous philosophy of waging war against all infidels (as defined by ISIS alone) is a millennial design, and a perpetual effort.  So what if Mosul has fallen and Raqqa is next? The destructive zeal and killing fervor will remain ignited in the hearts of thousands of fanatics, of ignorant, and of lone and banded wolves across the globe. ISIS has gained center stage in the eyes of its terrorist fans and the battle for winning their hearts and minds is complete. The loss of a sanctuary will only make its overt actions go covert. The absence of a dominion has never stopped evil ideas from traveling. Nazism still survives more than 50 years after the surrender of Berlin. The KKK and other supremacist groups have outlived the defeat of the Confederacy. The difference in this instance is that ISIS has a wider audience, willing homegrown suicide bombers in every country on the planet, and Internet, Facebook and Twitter to boost its message. As for Iran, and its proxies, they truly believe that by fighting ISIS –the other face of a religiously inspired terrorism which they themselves embody- they are hiding the ugly truth about their own discriminating, factional and divisive form of insurgencies that run from Iraq, to Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, and Lebanon. Defeating ISIS presents many benefits for Iran and its cohorts: eliminating a Sunni competitor, scaring the moderate Arab regimes into political submission, and sending a message to the West (the US in particular) that Iran is the only force capable of defeating radical Islamic terrorism and of guaranteeing stability in the Middle East. However, what escapes the simple minds of the Iranian leadership is that Iran is viewed, with or without ISIS, as the real State-sponsor of terrorism in the region (if not the world) since the Islamic revolution of 1978. No matter what Iran does or pretends to do, this very fact, this harsh reality will be difficult to erase. In the late 70s and early 80s, the takeover of the US Embassy in Teheran, the bombing of the US Marines Barracks in Beirut, of the US Embassy in Beirut and the kidnapping of US and Western diplomats in Lebanon, were only the early part of this sad series of terrorist acts. In the 1990s there were the bombings of the Marines barracks in Khobar and of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Cultural Center in Argentina. More recently, the meddling in the internal affairs of Bahrain, the direct and indirect engagement in combat in Syria along the troops of Assad, and the overt support of the Houthis rebels in Yemen are yet another wave of destabilization that Iran has waged against its neighbors. And, not to put a finer point on it, the mere threat of becoming one armed nuclear nation who has –on more than one occasion- threatened to use such nuclear capability against its avowed enemies, will not transform Iran from a Rogue State into a Rational State by simply joining the fray of routing out ISIS. For the US-led coalition and their Arab allies, the end of ISIS will bring back to the fore the issue of how to deal with the Shia-Sunni divid...

The Middle East region, and the Arab world in particular, is way behind on the economic curve of progress and is settling nicely into the backseat of globalization. On the world stage (and at WEF gatherings) the region's grandees talk a big talk but walk in midget steps. To put things into perspective, the total market capitalization of Alphabet Inc. (formerly Google) is circa $659.2bln whereas the total market cap of the Saudi stock market stands at circa $431bln. The erstwhile oil-rich Middle East is running out of options and out of revenue sources. Oil has been trading at below $50 for a good part of 2017, and no cuts –whether actual or threatened- have made a dent in such price. OPEC no longer carries the weight it used to, and the US shale gas revolution was hardly stopped by the concerted efforts of the world's oil exporters. Add to that, the alternative energy resources (solar, wind, water) and the ultimate energy source (civilian nuclear power), and oil becomes an affordable commodity, not the ‘black gold' it used to be. On industrial output, the entire Arab region trails by far each of the Asian, European, and North American economic blocs. There are no industries germane to this region, except fossil fuels. Absolutely none. We know what the region imports and consumes by the tons, but what does it produce? What does the region create, patent, export, sell, or offer in an ever-globalized world? These are legitimate questions yet they are seldom posed with seriousness by any civil servant or business leader, including at the WEF closed-door meetings. What went wrong? The answer is not straightforward, but few threads could be assembled to weave a plausible and almost convincing reply. Surely, one cannot blame the woes of the Middle East region on the desert's weather. There are warmer spots in the world. One could not simply accuse the authoritarian nature of the prevailing regimes in Arabia. China and Taiwan are no democracies, and still they enjoy commercial success beyond norms. Could outdated traditions and customs or strict religious dogmas, be the reasons for such poor state of affairs? No. India, a role model for emerging markets, is riddled with communal taboos, religious discrimination, cast systems, and more modern-slaves (sexual, domestic, child labor) than the population of the Netherlands. Even Israel which has, on a pro rata basis, as many religious zealots as Saudi Arabia and where ‘God, Country and Army' remains a strong trilogy, was not hindered in its quest to become a true Start-Up nation. Could it be geography?  History? What else can one conjure up in justifications or excuses for the failure of the Middle East to emerge from its stupor? We posit that the failure of the region to join the road to modernity is the lack of true leadership (not dictatorship – there is plenty of that). Leadership does not necessarily spring from the womb of liberty or democracy or modernity. Ancient, past and recent histories are riddled with authoritarian leaders who overstepped rules and challenged the status quo from Caesar, to Robespierre, and from John Adams to FDR. Few were true consensus builders or overly democratic in all of their actions. However, they have pursued noble ideals and higher motives. Political leadership stems from a sense of greater purpose, not entitlement. Such leadership reposes on the pedestal of far-reaching goals, not short-term gains. Few examples in the recent past of Arabia could be inspirational for the young generation of leaders, which is emerging. Ibn Saud, founded modern Saudi Arabia with a greater sense of purpose, a sword, and a countrywide mission, way before oil was discovered. Sheik Zayed, the founder of the U.A.E. had a grand vision for his tiny country that transcended tribal rivalries and disputed territory. In the early part of the 20th century the founding fathers of young republics such as Lebanon and Tunisia, had civic principles –not personal agendas- as the...

After Mosul, Raqqa will fall surely and with it many other pockets of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. This is a blessed piece of good news for the Middle East region that has been under a black cloud of terror and horror since the city of Mosul was first invaded almost 3 years ago day-for-day, by the hordes of Islamic radicals brandishing their black flags and black beards and destroying all signs of civility and civilization in a war-torn Iraq. We will hear countless tails of heroism by the Shia militias and Iran for a battle that was truly won by the Iraqi Army, supported by US air and superior firepower, and assisted by the Kurds. But in the Middle East, like sometimes on Wall Street, those who rush to claim credit for a deal on which they have labored albeit marginally, tend to cling on to the idea, and spread it too, that they were the true fathers of such success. However, the ‘bonus pool' so to speak in 2017 Iraq might be differently allocated now that a Trump administration is in place, and with it, an assertive Iraqi Prime Minister who revels in an image of a national (not only Shia) leader, and who is not –so far- branded as an Iranian puppet. Let's hope he lasts that way. What may be different this time around from the disastrous and failed policies of the Obama admiration is the so-called gang of ‘adults' of the Trump administration. The new National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. HR McMaster has actually fought in Iraq and is an expert in counter-insurgency. He is also very wary of the expansionist drive of Iran in Middle Eastern affairs and especially in Iraq. In a WJS article, Lt. Gen. McMaster was critical of the roles of Russia and Iran. He is expected to be more surgical than tactical in his advice to the President on how to solidify the Iraqi Army, unify the country and tribal structures, and eliminate any loopholes that could give Iran a false sense of victory. Lt. Gen MacMaster, at a talk delivered at Policy Exchange earlier in the year, emphasized the ‘forward positioning of forces' because ‘deterrence by denial is what is effective'. Someone should translate that in Farsi ASAP. The Secretary of Defense John Mattis' animosity towards Iran is so intense that it led former Pres. Obama to replace him from Centcom. He is a Marine, and as it has been said in many circles, the US Marines are the closest thing to a military tribe. The Marines –and Mattis chief among them- holds a grudge against Iran since the bombing of the Marines' barracks in Beirut in 1983. In 2012, he repeated that the three greatest threats facing the US were ‘Iran, Iran, and Iran'. Quite an obsession some would say, others would argue for a legitimate enmity. Mattis has linked Iran to the rise of ISIS. “I consider ISIS nothing more than an excuse for Iran to continue its mischief,” he said. “Iran is not an enemy of ISIS; they have a lot to gain from the turmoil that ISIS creates.”  To make my point shorter and crispier when evoking the third adult in the current administration, Secretary Tillerson, when responding to a question from a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the U.S. position regarding regime change in Iran, said, “Our policy towards Iran is to push back on [its regional] hegemony, contain their ability to develop, obviously, nuclear weapons and to work towards support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government.” Could such collective thinking  form the future US policy in the Middle East especially as it relates to ISIS and Iran? Time will tell, but one should remain hopeful that it will. Raqqa will fall next, and as a result, ISIS will be denied a physical territory of its own. That is ‘actual' ISIS whereas ‘virtual' ISIS, the one that lives in the hearts and minds of thousands of followers, those sleeper and non-sleeper cells, in the Middle East, Europe, North America, Asia and elsewhere, will unfortunately endure. To crush Radical Islamic Terrorism one needs to add...

NATO was established in 1949, in the aftermath of WWII and has regrouped the post-war exhausted Western nations of Europe with the mighty U.S. The prospects of further communist expansion on the continent prompted these nations to form the alliance. Despite the ‘obsolescence' jibe of Pres. Trump, NATO has played a pivotal role in deterring further Russian expansion, comforting allies, and strengthening ties between European nations who were previously at war (UK-France-Germany). Fast forward to 2017, and a nuclear-armed Iran poses the largest threat ever encountered by the Arab world, including the Arabs' arch-nemesis Israel. Iran is a regional superpower that has engaged in a protracted conventional war against an Arab nation to wit, Iraq (1980 to 1988), exported its guerilla warfare via proxy militias to Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon; and threatens to destabilize the Arab established order (code: for Sunni nations). To thwart Iran's relentless attempts at expanding its regional hegemony, some Arab nations ought to seriously consider forming a NATO-styled alliance. The Peninsula Shield Force, the military arm of the GCC, is effectively –for a lack of a better word- obsolete. Forming a regional NATO-styled alliance is not a novel idea, but a timely one. Why not novel? Because, sixty years ago, in 1957, the so-called Eisenhower Doctrine for the Middle East was a first attempt by a bold US administration to contain an assertive brand of Arab nationalism led by Nasser of Egypt. Nasser's belligerent policies were directed at the former colonial powers (Britain & France) and their so-called 'implant' in the region (Israel), as well as, towards the moderate Arabs (Saudi). Arab nationalism had reached a new fervor after the 1957 tripartite attack by France, Britain and Israel on the Suez Canal. Nasser's propaganda machine against Israel resembled to a large extent the vitriolic recitals of Iran's theocratic leaders targeting the US and Israel, and more recently, Saudi. In 1957, there emerged a ‘royal axis' regrouping the kingdoms of Saudi, Jordan, and Baghdad, with the Eisenhower Doctrine attracting  additional Arab and non-Arab nations. The non-Arab countries included such heavyweights as Pakistan, Iran and Turkey. All found in the new world order led by the US a better orientation for their foreign relations, rather than the bombastic politics of Nasser and his chauvinist, zealot followers. This idea of military alliance is worth reviving, with few exceptions and some noteworthy replacements. Iran being the target of this containment policy could not be part, this time around, of such alliance. Maybe this possibility could be revived after the Iranian youths topple the corrupt and out-of-touch regime. This revived alliance, if it sees the day, will find a strong backing by the US, Britain and France, and would have to include at inception Saudi, the UAE, Bahrain, Jordan Egypt, and Morocco. Saudi and the UAE would bring advanced weapons' systems, modern infrastructure (ports & airports), and funds. As a cherry on top, Bahrain being host to the US Navy's Fifth Fleet would add depth to maritime warfare capabilities. Egypt, Jordan and Morocco would bring demographics and hardened fighting experiences both in conventional and unconventional warfare. Who else could join this posse? Qatar would be a ‘natural' partner in such alliance, if and only if, the current dispute with its neighbors is quickly and efficiently resolved. Such addition could bring the host nation of a most advanced US Airbase. Few exceptions would have to be allowed. Kuwait and Oman would initially steer away from such alliance for separate reasons. Kuwait is still living the ‘national trauma' of the first Gulf war and is struggling to free itself from the ghosts of another invasion by Iraq, Iran or whomever. Whilst more likely to contribute funds to such alliance, one should view present-day Kuwait more of a 'political' Switzerland of the Middle East than anyt...

The Ottoman Arab provinces were carefully divided by the Western Allies (read France and Great Britain) in 1916 according to the secret Asia Minor Agreement, more known as the “Sykes-Picot Accord”. Much has been written about this infamous deal which allocated areas of influence to Great Britain and France over dominions of the failing Ottoman Empire. However, post-world war II brought another refinement to this settlement by segregating these dominions into Arab and non-Arab groups. Iran, Turkey and Israel were built up as the linchpin of the post-world war II alliance, whereas the Arab nations were caught in the middle of this triangle. Teheran, Istanbul and Jerusalem are the capitals of the Persian, Turkic, and Hebrew ‘tribes' whose reliance on the West and vice versa brought an era of stability into the turbulent Arab ‘tribal' mess. Nasser of Egypt became in the mid 1950s a serious check to British power and had to be chastised after the nationalization of the Suez Canal, by a tripartite attack in 1957 led by no else than Israel, France and Great Britain. The Turkish strait crisis, a Cold War era territorial dispute between Turkey and the USSR, drew Turkey ever closer to the Western alliance, ultimately becoming a member of NATO. Finally, and until his ouster by the Islamic Revolution, the Shah of Iran was a close, if not the closest, ally of the Western Alliance in Asia Minor. He maintained a strategic relationship with the US, both regimes sharing a fear of/opposition to the expansion of the USSR , Iran's powerful northern neighbor.   The ‘tribes with flags' of the Arab world were never treated with the same importance or deference by the British and French, and later by the US, as did the non-Arab entities of the Middle East. Judged unruly, sometimes untrustworthy, and lacking a military back-bone (save Egypt whose military was decimated in its successive wars with Israel), these Arab flailing nations presented the Western Alliance with little advantages apart from oil. However, when oil was nationalized in Libya, Iraq and Saudi this last piece of interest dwindled even further.   Fast-forward to present day. Turkey is a wavering NATO ally that attacks German and Dutch politicians and is bent on flirting with Russia. Iran's staunch anti-US, Mullah-dominated regime, is fighting alongside Russian forces in Syria and is threatening the GCC nations. Israel is governed by an ultra-right, ultra-orthodox, ultra-everything government that sees no end to the Palestinian crisis except the end of the Palestinians. Furthermore, its repeated air strikes against Hezbollah missiles' stockpile in Syria are closely coordinated with Russia. This renders the triangular nations of Iran, Turkey and Israel, either mortal enemies (such as Iran) or untrusted allies (as in the case of Turkey) or unsettled friends (Israel) of the US.   But what about the Arab nations? The GCC + Egypt, Jordan and Morocco form today the bulwark against Iranian ambitions and Turkish interferences into the matters of the Middle East. Israel, remains a separate case to be dealt with through the US and not in spite of it. Therefore, the Sunni Monarchies (as we posit that Gen. Sisi in Egypt is a virtual monarch) have appealed to the US and presented their case for a renewed partnership. Some critics have mocked this as a ‘coalition of the billing' not ‘of the willing', a jibe to the multi-billion dollar pledges that Pres. Trump has secured from Saudi alone. However, after being shaken to the core by the Obama's administration pivot towards Iran and in favor of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt and Turkey, these Sunni Monarchies have no reason and probably no option, but to throw their lot with the current US administration.   Iran is encircling the Arabs in the Gulf from Yemen to Bahrain, and is fighting fiercely in Iraq and Syria whilst taking Lebanon as hostage. Turkey is still aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood –and some say ISIS or other versions ...

One God: for all the Abrahamic religions, One City: Jerusalem, and One Jurisdiction: Israel. What's wrong with this picture? Nothing. All the Catholics of the world visit the eternal city of Rome where –apart from the symbolic Swiss guards- it is the Italian government, its armed forces and its laws that prevail at the doorsteps of this tiny walled square mile. All the Muslims of the world (Sunni, Shia, Sufi, and other branches) visit Mecca where Saudi authorities provide security, transport, food, lodging and support services to pilgrims. All religious sites happen to be –in our modern world- in the midst or on the outskirts of, urban centers or cities, that are necessarily part of a State with defined borders. All sites are subject to the jurisdiction and authority of one government, not two and surely not three. God has no government and no armies, and to my knowledge, no embassy or sole representatives on Planet Earth. Thus, no religion can claim that God has availed it with the keys to a city or with the access code to its shrines, temples and places of worship.   The other reality is that states have governments and local authorities that manage the implementation of law and order over all the parts of a city, any city, from Mecca to Jerusalem. In that regard, religious groups should visit their places of worship without hindrance. In that same vein, no government should block access to a holy place, or discriminate, or cherry-pick visitors on the basis of race, creed or religion. Logic follows that any visitor who would run afoul of prevailing laws and order should be ejected permanently from re-entering a holy site.   “Jerusalem is the holy city," writes Simon Sebag Montefiore, "yet it has always been . . . the cosmopolitan home of many sects, each of which believes the city belongs to them alone." Jew, Christian and Muslim alike feel compelled to rewrite its history to sustain their own myths. "A hundred patients a year," Montefiore notes, "are committed to the city's asylum suffering from the Jerusalem syndrome, a madness of anticipation, disappointment and delusion."   Jerusalem, in particular, happens to be crowded with shrines and overlapping with religious sites. As such it offers a more complex challenge for managing its holy sites, but not an unsurmountable obstacle. It is indeed mission difficult, but not mission impossible. Other places have managed throughout history as millions of tourists from all religions visit the Blue Mosque in Turkey, and the Chapel Sistine of the Vatican, and even the Wailing Wall of Jerusalem.   The Blue Mosque in Turkey, Hagia Sophia was not always a Mosque but rather a Greek Christian Orthodox patriarchal basilica built under the orders of Justinian between in 532/537AD. in 1453, Constantinople was conquered by the Ottoman Empire under Mehmed the Conqueror, who ordered this main church of Orthodox Christianity converted into a mosque. Hagia Sophia was, as of 2014, the second-most visited museum in Turkey, attracting almost 3.3 million visitors annually. According to data released by the Turkish Culture and Tourism Ministry, Hagia Sophia was Turkey's most visited tourist attraction in 2015.   The Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba whose ecclesiastical name is the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption is the Catholic cathedral of the Diocese of Córdoba dedicated to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary and located in the Spanish region of Andalusia. The site was originally a small temple of Christian Visigoth origin, the Catholic Basilica of Saint Vincent of Lérins, but when Muslims conquered the Iberian peninsula in 711, the church was first divided into Muslim and Christian halves. Córdoba returned to Christian rule in 1236 during the Reconquista, and the building was converted to a Roman Catholic church. Each year approximately 1.5 million tourists marvel at this impressive landmark featuring several architectural styles and uniting religious elements of Islam and occidental ...

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 wrong direction than to be alone in the right one.

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 installation of an all-inclusive government.

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. Voltaire once said: “Politics is a means for unscrupulo...

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 Islamic Terrorism, of all sorts, to a halt.

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.

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. Japan and South Korea the Asian allies of the US since World War II,

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. Ending a 30 years of Syrian military occupation took one million free and unbri...

We all know how it started. A sparkle that was lit from the amber of the Arab Spring fueling the repressed demands of politically destitute and economically deprived Syrians. It did not start as an elite movement exploiting troubled times in the Middle East. Nor was it, as one would expect, a military coup or a hastily concocted accusation of an Imperialist, Zionist, Fascist or some other ‘ist' conspiracy. The origins of the sparkle were much more modest. Kids scribbling anti-regime slogans on a wall in Dera'a. Mere slogans were too much to fathom for Damascus' tyrant. Then, came the regime's thunderous response delivered in a Stalin-like fashion. We all know what followed. The brutal repression and mass murders perpetrated by the regime, which gradually drew hordes of Islamic fanatics of all colors and stripes. The situation soon deteriorated with bombs dropped on civilians from Syrian army helicopters only to be matched by ISIS-televised beheadings. As a result, the weakest link has been–and remains- the Assad regime and its limited number of supporters amongst the Damascene urban elite–which is taken hostage- and the rural minorities of Christians, Druzes and Alawites. Assad was severely weakened at the opening salvo of this war by the mere defiance to his regime, and to his father's -who still rules from the grave. In dictatorships the aura, the myth and the illusion of power are more important than actual force, and armored divisions. Once the illusion is dissipated, fear quickly fades and the God-like tyrant suddenly turn into a mere mortal. The beauty of mortals is that they are. So taking aim at bringing down the regime became within reach. The unsettling of the regime was manifest though the growing threats from within. Gen. Asif Shawkat the distrusted brother-in-law, Gen. Ghazi Kanaan, the former ruler of Lebanon and Gen. Rustom Ghazali, his predecessor, to name but a few. All were assassinated by the regime in preemptive strikes, no questions asked. The SS liquidating the SA, kind of. On the battlefield, only the intervention of Iran via its proxies made up of Lebanese, Iraqi, Syrian and Afghani paramilitaries, was able to shore-up the crumbling defenses of Damascus and other key cities and towns in Syria. This proxy army has fully undermined the Assad regime who now has to rely on foreign militias and irregulars to survive. Not only was the ‘Emperor Naked', he was kneeling most humbly. Then, the curtain call came in once the Iranians, no longer capable of repelling the waves of suicide bombers, pleaded with Putin to save Syria's Assad from its irreversible fate. The fate of the Assad regime was sealed the moment Russian jets entered the Syrian air space. From a former all-powerful dictator of Syria, occupier of Lebanon, ally of Iran, and junior partner of Russia, Assad became a Putin vassal at best, or his pawn at worst. Cease fires are being negotiated than reneged between Russia and the US irrespective of Assad's role, presence or opinion. The Syrian conflict has metamorphosed from a local rebellion into an international showdown. The Syrian theater of operations has succeeded to assemble more armies and proxy fighters than a landing on a Normandy beach. All seem to be present in one form or another including the US, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Qatar, the UK, France, and Israel. But what are the objectives of the major players? In Syria, Russia is most naturally protecting a historical client-state and laying claims to a strategic real estate on the Mediterranean, just like Crimea on the Black Sea. But what is Russia' end game? Keeping Assad in place (an impossible task), or keeping the US in check (a costly game), or keeping the Sunnis subjugated (a risky gamble given the restless Muslims inside the former USSR)? Is Russia eying to play guarantor of the East Mediterranean gas routes to Europe? Would this role demand an enlarged, semi-permanent naval base in Tartus similar to the US' Fifth Fleet in ...

The breaking news that a donor to the Clinton Foundation namely, the Lebanon-born Gilbert Chagoury has been denied a visa to the US on the basis of links to the Hezbollah, via his financial patronage of Lebanon's presidential candidate Gen. Michel Aoun came as no surprise to many. The links between the Lebanese-Nigerian Oligarch and presidency-obsessed Aoun are well-known to all parties who have any inkling into Lebanon's murky politics. The US Embassy in Lebanon needed no covert operation to unearth this reality, which is taken at face value as a rich Lebanese businessman buying himself political access. Business as usual in the country of the Cedars one would assume, except that in this case, it was not. Gen. Aoun is allied to Hezbollah the proxy militia of Iran in the Middle East with a military arm and a direct engagement in theatres of operations throughout the Middle East. This organization is labeled by the US State Department, which was till recently headed by no other than Mrs. Hillary Clinton, as a terrorist organization. Mr. Chagoury by financing Gen. Aoun in one hand and donating to the Clinton Foundation in the other, has shortened the distance between the two ends of this arc, former Secretary of State Clinton and Iran's paramilitary henchmen. The current US State Department, which is not beholden to the same commitments to the Clinton Foundation as was its predecessor, took exception at the visa application of the oligarch donor. Nobody at Foggy Bottom risked receiving an angry call from the Clinton Foundation, or from ‘Huma', summoning them to expedite the Chagoury application and to grant him a waiver from US security restrictions. Not that this US State Department under Kerry is unwilling to deal or even pay Iran a ransom of $400 m to free some US hostages. But times have changed and that was a government to government transaction not an individual to foundation transaction. After all, the current US State Secretary has principles. What are they, remains to be seen. Not only did Mr. Chagoury donate money but it seems –according to press reports- that he attempted to get in touch –and probably did- with the top honcho at State overseeing the affairs of Lebanon. That was Jeff Feltman, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs from August 2009 to June 2012 with the rank of Career Minister. He was previously the US Ambassador to Lebanon from July 2004 to January 2008. So Mrs. Clinton and her august Foundation have some questions to answer both to the US and to the Lebanese public. How did the Foundation accept money from someone with such notorious, explicit and well-advertised links to a US-labeled terrorist organization; and what access, influence, intelligence, advantage did such character obtain from the US State Department in connection with Lebanon? These are two interlinked questions that only Mrs. Clinton can and should answer. Not only for the sake of clearing the air during her presidential bid, but for coming out clean about the ways and means the US State Department worked under her watch. Could her tenure be portrayed as one where US influence in foreign affairs was for hire, or worse, for sale?