Excerpts: Egypt's al-Sisi earns high marks for governance.Deadliest Egypt
militants pro Morsi.German Muslims against extremism.Deal with Iran?
Palestinian ruler post Abbas?US failing response to ISIS threat September
19, 2014

+++SOURCE:Al Arabiya News 19 Sept.’14:”Egyptian President Sisi’s foreign
policy”, byAbdulrahman al Rashid

SUBJECT: Egypt’s al-Sisi earns high marks for governance

FULL TEXT:After one hundred days under Egyptian President Abdel Fattah
al-Sisi, it is time to count or denigrate the country’s achievements,
depending on a person’s political position. But no one, not even Sisi’s
opponents, can deny that he has taken very risky decisions on the domestic
front and was able to implement them. He removed subsidies on vital goods,
such as fuel, and reduced subsidies on bread. Yet, Egypt remained strong and
present and the Egyptian people were able to bear the price increase, based
on the government’s promises that it was the only way to save the country
from collapse.

We were waiting for President Sisi to revitalize Egypt’s role on the foreign
policy front, but it is clear that his interests are mostly directed toward
the country’s internal issues unlike his ousted predecessors, Mohammad Mursi
and Hosni Mubarak.

Sisi strengthened his relations with his original allies, those he fostered
ties with before he assumed the presidency

Abdulrahman al-Rashed

This gives several indications to the outside world. Firstly, the new
president does not run away from internal problems to international issues
as others have done. Secondly, he sent a message to external powers that he
is in control over internal issues, including matters of security and living
conditions. Thirdly, he does not seem to be looking for attention, since
most of his interviews with world leaders have been limited and related to
internal issues or to Egyptian issues in the region. We believe that it is a
temporary situation until the country moves forward and the president will
turn his attention to regional affairs.

Crisis

The most important crisis was the recent war between Israel and Hamas,
during which President Sisi showed that he is not driven by the media and
street opinion which called on him to intervene. He only intervened when he
ascertained that there was a particular role that Egypt could play. Also, he
was able to draw the line with the warring parties Israel and Hamas and made
sure they did not attack Egypt or blackmail its leadership. This is why
Hamas returned to Cairo on Egyptian terms, withdrawing a series of
inappropriate remarks when it found that Iran, Turkey and Qatar did not help
with anything. The Egyptian intervention was the only way to reach the final
agreement. Moreover, the Israeli prime minister was only welcomed in Cairo
after he stopped threatening a ground invasion on Gaza to coax right-wing
Israeli parties.

The real challenge

In my opinion, the real challenge is Libya. The country is in a continuous
state of institutional collapse and a quasi-civil war. It represents a
direct threat to the security of Egypt. It seems that President Sisi did not
want to get involved in a dispute between brothers in Libya, so he distanced
himself. However, at the same time, he couldn’t allow the fire to reach the
borders of his country. This is why he recently decided to reach an
agreement with Libya’s second major neighbor, Algeria. It is clear that the
restoration of stability and supporting legitimacy, the government and
parliament, top the list of the political and security activities of the two
countries. Algerian-Egyptian cooperation is the only guarantee that the
situation in Libya can be controlled and foreign interference can be
blocked.

As for Iraqi and Syrian issues, President Sisi chose to stay away from such
crises, except for limited participation in the international declaration
against ISIS. This step helps in the war being waged against armed
opposition groups in Egypt and justifies Sisi’s right to prosecute the
Muslim Brotherhood, especially as the Brotherhood stood against the war on
ISIS.

On the other hand, Sisi strengthened his relations with his original allies,
those he fostered ties with before he assumed the presidency, mainly Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and Russia. The cooperation drastically increased over the
last one hundred days, for the benefit of his internal reform program. This
alliance has enabled him to reinforce his stance against critics from
Western governments in general. In fact, the Americans and the European
Union have given in to the new reality in Egypt. Finally, they announced
that they accept the government in Egypt, withdrawing their earlier-stated
disapproval.

The foreign policy direction that is not fully established is the
cooperation with Russia, even if it comes at the expense of Egypt’s
long-held relationship with the United States. Does President Sisi really
want to change history for the third time? The first time was when late
President Gamal Abdel Nasser shifted to supporting the Soviet Union against
the American camp, via the Czech arms deal. The second was when late
President Anwar al-Sadat expelled Soviet experts from Egypt and restored
positive relations with the Americans. We are not sure if Sisi’s policy is a
drastic shift towards Moscow or simply a calculated move to serve temporary
needs.

This article was first published in Asharq al-Awsat on September 19, 2014.

______________________

Abdulrahman al-Rashed is the General Manager of Al Arabiya News Channel. A
veteran and internationally acclaimed journalist, he is a former
editor-in-chief of the London-based leading Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat,
where he still regularly writes a political column. He has also served as
the editor of Asharq al-Awsat’s sister publication, al-Majalla. Throughout
his career, Rashed has interviewed several world leaders, with his articles
garnering worldwide recognition, and he has successfully led Al Arabiya to
the highly regarded, thriving and influential position it is in today.




+++SOURCE: Saudi Gazette 19 Sept.’14:”Militant group claims Sinai blast”,
Agence France Presse

SUBJECT:Deadliest Egypt militants pro-Morsi

FULL TEXTCAIRO — Egypt’s deadliest militant group has claimed the killing of
six policemen in a roadside bomb in the Sinai Peninsula, where security
forces frequently clash with ultras. Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis (Partisans of
Jerusalem) has orchestrated a string of attacks to avenge a deadly
government crackdown on supporters of ousted Islamist president Mohamed
Morsi. The Al-Qaeda-inspired group posted a video late Tuesday[16 Sept.] on
Twitter showing the bombing hours earlier of a security convoy on a road
between the North Sinai provincial capital El-Arish and Rafah on the Gaza
border. An armored personnel carrier (APC) is seen flying into the air while
a militant shouts “Allah-o-Akbar (God is Greatest)”. The video was also
posted on YouTube along with the group’s logo of a black flag, an AK-47
assault rifle and a copy of open Qur’an. Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis has carried
out some of the worst attacks against Egyptian security forces in the
peninsula and other parts of the country since the ouster of Morsi by the
army in July 2013. — AFP

+++SOURCE: Naharnet (Lebanon) 19 Sept.’14:”German Muslims Rally against
Extremism”,

SUBJECT: German Muslims against extremism

FULL TEXT:Muslims across Germany are holding a day of prayers and rallies on
Friday[19 Sept.]

to condemn Islamic extremism and a backlash against their faith that has
seen arson attacks on mosques.

Imams at more than 2,000 mosques are to take part in the event organised by
Germany's four main Muslim groups, with government ministers, lawmakers and
city mayors set to join in.

"We must stand united as a society when there are hate crimes, whether
against churches, mosques, synagogues or other places of worship," said Ali
Kizilkaya, spokesman of the Coordination Council of Muslims.

Aiman Mazyek, chairman of the Central Council of Muslims, said Germany's
Muslims wanted to take a clear stand against Islamic State (IS) group
fighting in Iraq and Syria, and other jihadist movements.

"These are terrorists and murderers who drag Islam into the dirt and bring
hatred and suffering to the people, including to their own fellow Muslims,
in Syria, in Iraq and elsewhere," he wrote in the top-selling Bild
newspaper.

"We want to make clear that the majority of Muslims in this country and
around the world think and act differently. Islam is a peaceful religion."

The day of protest follows a rally against anti-Semitism in Berlin last
Sunday[14 Sept.] in which Jewish leaders and German politicians led by
Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned a recent spate of slurs and attacks
against Jews.

Tempers flared at a series of pro-Palestinian demonstrations in July, during
Israel's assault on Gaza, as some protesters chanted that Jews should be
"gassed" and "slaughtered".

Muslims say they have also been the target of hate speech and vandalism of
their houses of worship amid rising public fear of Islamist militancy, and
of the role of European jihadists fighting in Syria and Iraq.

German security services say some 400 German citizens have joined jihadists
in Syria and Iraq, of whom about 130 have since come home, while German
nationals have also fought with Somalia's al-Qaeda-linked Shebab.

This month the appearance of self-styled "Sharia police" vigilantes in the
western city of Wuppertal sparked outrage in Germany.

Mazyek said at a press conference on Tuesday that a rise in anti-Muslim
sentiment means that "we have exhausting and difficult times behind and
presumably also ahead of us".

He said there had been five arson and other attacks on mosques in the past
three weeks.

Vigils and peace rallies are planned after the traditional Friday noon
prayers in a number of German cities including Berlin, Hamburg, Moelln,
Bielefeld, Oldenburg, Frankfurt am Main and Stuttgart.




+++SOURCE:Jordan Times 19 Sept.’14:”West tells Iran it must address nuclear
bomb fears:,Reuters

SUBJECT:Deal with Iran?

QUOTE:”Western powers told Iran [18 Sept.] it must step up cooperation. . .
if it wants to get a broader nuclear deal that would ease sanctions”

FULL TEXT:VIENNA — Western powers told Iran on Thursday[18 Sept.] it must
step-up cooperation with a UN watchdog's investigation into suspected atomic
bomb research by the country if it wants to get a broader nuclear deal that
would ease sanctions.

The warning was issued at a board meeting of the UN's International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, as chief negotiators from Iran and six world
powers prepared to resume talks in New York after a two-month hiatus.

Iran's envoy, Reza Najafi, dismissed accusations about his country's atomic
activities as "mere allegations ... without any substantiation" but also
said a new meeting with the IAEA to discuss the matter was expected to be
held soon.

A stalled IAEA inquiry could further complicate the powers' parallel efforts
to reach a settlement with Iran on curbing its nuclear programme in exchange
for a gradual phasing out of financial and other punitive measures hurting
its economy.

The US and the EU said they were concerned about the slow headway so far in
the IAEA's long-running probe into suspicions that Iran has worked on
designing a nuclear weapon. Iran denies the charge and says it is Israel's
assumed atomic arsenal that threatens Middle East peace.

An IAEA report in early September showed Iran had failed to answer questions
about what the UN agency calls the possible military dimensions of the
country's nuclear programme by an August 25 deadline.

In a statement to the IAEA meeting, the EU said it was disappointed with the
"very limited progress" in that inquiry.

"The EU underlines that resolving all outstanding issues [between Iran and
the IAEA] will be essential to achieve a comprehensive, negotiated long-term
settlement," it said.

That was a reference to the push by the United States, Russia, China,
Britain, France and Germany to negotiate a resolution to the wider,
decade-old dispute with Tehran over its nuclear programme.

Iran has been promising to cooperate with the IAEA since Hassan Rouhani,
seen as a pragmatist, was elected president last year on a platform of
ending Tehran's international isolation. It says its nuclear work is for
non-military purposes only.

Nuclear deadlines

But Iran did not address two key issues by late August as agreed with the
IAEA: alleged experiments on explosives that could be used for an atomic
device, and studies related to calculating nuclear explosive yields.

They were part of a landmark report published by the IAEA in 2011 with
intelligence indicating Iran had a nuclear weapons research programme but
halted it in 2003 when it came under increased international pressure.

The intelligence suggested some activities may have resumed later. The
report identified about 12 specific areas that it said needed clarification.

Iran says the allegations are baseless, while pledging to address the
concerns.

Najafi said the two issues had not yet been completed because of "their
complexity and the invalidity" of the IAEA's information. "The so-called
'missing the deadline' is totally inaccurate," Najafi told reporters.

US envoy Laura Kennedy urged Iran to "intensify its engagement" with the
IAEA. "Concerns about the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear
programme must be addressed as part of any comprehensive solution," she
said.

An interim accord was reached between Iran and the six powers in Geneva last
November.

But they did not meet a self-imposed July target date for a long-term accord
and now face a new deadline of November 24.

While the powers seek to limit the size of Iran's future nuclear programme —
and thereby extend the time it would need for any bid to amass fissile
material for a weapon — the IAEA is investigating alleged research and
experiments in the past that could be used to make the bomb itself.

Western officials say that although there is no chance of the IAEA inquiry
being completed before the scheduled end of the six-power talks, some of the
sanctions relief Iran is seeking would probably depend on its cooperation
with the UN agency.



+++SOURCE: Jordan Times 19 Sept.’14:”After Mahmoud Abbas, who will lead the
Palestinians?” , by Reuters

SUBJECT:Palestinian’ ruler post Abbas?

EXCERPTS: OCCUPIED JERUSALEM/RAMALLAH — Most Palestinians have known only
two leaders: Yasser Arafat, the stubble-chinned firebrand fond of chequered
scarves and olive fatigues, and Mahmoud Abbas, a smooth-shaven father figure
who favours Western suits and ties.

. . .

Since Abbas formally took office as Palestinian Authority president in
January 2005, the ground has shifted beneath him, complicating almost every
political calculation he and his once-dominant party, Fateh, has had to
make.

The Islamist movement Hamas, founded in Gaza in the 1980s, has risen to
prominence, winning Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 and shaking
the foundations of Abbas' power by opening people's minds to an alternative
to Fateh.

Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas served as prime minister under Abbas for a year
before being dismissed in June 2007, when tensions between the two parties
boiled over in Gaza, resulting in the Islamists seizing full control of the
territory.

As a result of those internal splits, the Palestinian parliament has not
properly met since 2007 and legislative elections scheduled for January 2010
never took place.

Abbas' mandate as Palestinian Authority president theoretically expired in
January 2009 but officials say the constitution gives him the right to
remain in office until new elections are held — combining the parliamentary
and presidential cycle — for which no date has yet been set.

In April, Fateh and Hamas sought to bridge their differences and agreed to
form a "unity government". When that deal was finalised in June, Abbas said
elections would be held "within six months", which appears ambitious.

"There are enough people who are qualified for the presidency and enough
people who have the ambition," said Ghassan Khatib, a professor of politics
at Birzeit University in the West Bank and a former government minister, who
believes Fateh, despite its image problems and the nagging allegations of
high-level corruption, would emerge victorious over Hamas.

Shatayyeh has risen through the ranks of Fateh and taken part in
negotiations with Israel. He now heads a Palestinian investment and
development fund that has made him a critical driver of the economy.

"Shtayyeh may well be the top candidate," said Rumley. "If there's a long,
drawn-out process to decide who is the next leader of the Palestinians,
Shtayyeh is the guy."

Dahlan, 52, is a former head of Fateh in Gaza who was close to the British
and Americans.

His star looked to have fallen when his US-funded militia was routed by
Hamas in 2007 but he has resurfaced in the United Arab Emirates, where he
has raised vast funds for Palestinian causes and become a thorn in Abbas'
side with critical comments about his leadership.

Dahlan's money and charisma, his upbringing in Gaza and his straddling of
politics and militancy make him a powerful force but he has also been
accused by rivals of being too close to the Israelis and the Americans and
is perceived as juggling too many competing interests.

And the presidency might not be in his sights, according to a European
diplomat who has had dealings with him.

"He's a puppet master," the diplomat said. "He would rather pull the strings
above the head of whoever does end up being the next president."

+++SOURCE: Washington Post 19 Sept.’14:”Interpreting the Islamic State’s
jihadi logic”, by Charles Krauthammer

SUBJECT: U.S. failing response to ISIS threat

FULL TEXT:What was the Islamic State thinking? We know it is sophisticated
in its use of modern media. But what was the logic of propagating to the
world videos of its beheadings of two Americans (and subsequently a
Briton) — sure to inflame public opinion?

There are two possible explanations. One is that these terrorists are more
depraved and less savvy than we think. They so glory in blood that they
could not resist making an international spectacle of their savagery — after
all, they proudly broadcast their massacre of Shiite prisoners — and did not
quite fathom how such a brazen, contemptuous slaughter of Americans would
radically alter public opinion and risk bringing down upon them the furies
of the U.S. Air Force.

The second theory is that they were fully aware of the inevitable
consequence of their broadcast beheadings — and they intended the outcome.
It was an easily sprung trap to provoke America into entering the
Mesopotamian war.

Why?

Because they’re sure we will lose. Not immediately and not militarily. They
know we always win the battles but they are convinced that, as war drags on,
we lose heart and go home.

They count on Barack Obama quitting the Iraq/Syria campaign just as he quit
Iraq and Libya in 2011 and is in the process of leaving Afghanistan now. And
this goes beyond Obama. They see a post-9/11 pattern: America experiences
shock and outrage and demands action. Then, seeing no quick resolution, it
tires and seeks out leaders who will order the retreat. In Obama, they found
the quintessential such leader.

As for the short run, the Islamic State knows it will be pounded from the
air. But it deems that price worth paying, given its gains in propaganda and
prestige — translated into renown and recruiting — from these public
executions.

Understanding this requires an adjustment to our thinking. A common mantra
is that American cruelty — Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, “torture,” the Iraq war
itself — is the great jihadist recruiting tool. But leaving Iraq, closing
Abu Ghraib and prohibiting “enhanced interrogation” had zero effect on
recruiting. In fact, jihadi cadres from Mali to Mosul have only swelled
during Obama’s outstretched-hand presidency.

Turns out the Islamic State’s best recruiting tool is indeed savagery — its
own. Deliberate, defiant, triumphant. The beheadings are not just a magnet
for psychopaths around the world. They are choreographed demonstrations of
its unbounded determination and of American helplessness. In Osama bin Laden’s
famous formulation, who is the “strong horse” now?

We tend to forget that at this stage in its career, the Islamic State’s
principal fight is intramural. It seeks to supersede and supplant its jihadi
rivals — from al-Qaeda in Pakistan, to Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, to the
various franchises throughout North Africa — to emerge as champion of the
one true jihad.

The strategy is simple: Draw in the world’s great superpower, create the
ultimate foil and thus instantly achieve supreme stature in radical Islam as
America’s nemesis.

It worked. A year ago, the world had never heard of this group, then named
ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). Now it is the subject of
presidential addresses, parliamentary debates and international conferences.
It is the new al-Qaeda, which itself has been demoted to JV.

Indeed, so eclipsed and upstaged is al-Qaeda that its leader, Ayman
al-Zawahiri, scrambled to reveal the creation of a new India/South Asia
branch. It announced itself this month with its first operation — a
comically botched attack on a Pakistani frigate that left 10 al-Qaeda
fighters dead and the ship intact.

While al-Qaeda was being humiliated, a huge Paris conference devoted
entirely to the Islamic State was convened by Secretary of State John Kerry.
Like his other conferences, it failed. Obama’s “broad coalition” remains a
fantasy.

It’s more a coalition of the unwilling. Turkey denied us the use of its air
bases. The Sunni Arab states are reluctant to do anything militarily
significant. And not a single country has volunteered combat troops. Hardly
a surprise, given that Obama has repeatedly ruled that out for the U.S.
itself.

Testifying on Wednesday[17 Sept to the Senate, Kerry declared that the
Islamic State “must be defeated. Period. End of story.” Not the most wisely
crafted of declarations: The punctuational emphasis carries unfortunate
echoes of Obama’s promise about health care plans and the word “must”
carries similar echoes of Obama’s assertions that Bashar al-Assad had to go.

Nonetheless, Kerry’s statement remains true for strategic and even moral
reasons. But especially because when the enemy deliberately draws you into
combat, it is all the more imperative to show the world that he made a big
mistake.
======
Sue Lerner - Associate, IMRA