Young Diplomats

Donald Trump, Republican presidential candidate, has made immigration its hobby. Mexican and American newspapers react strongly to the release of its reform plan. In the migration plan published on its website Sunday, August 16, the candidate and the real estate billionaire Donald Trump provides for reference of Mexican undocumented immigrants in Mexico, construction of a wall south of the border, financed by Mexico and the end of the right to US citizenship for children of immigrants born in the United States, enshrined in the Constitution.

Faced with this drastic plan Mexicans do not know what reaction well to adopt. A professor from the center of International Studies at the University of Mexico, Gustavo Vega Canovas, compared his speech to that of Germany in the 1930s, tells The Washington Post, saying: “What he says makes me laugh, but a nervous laugh. “The Mexican daily Milenio quoted Roger Rocha Jr., president of the American Association Lulac (League of United Latin American Citizens), which describes the Trump speech” hate rhetoric “that” recycles old ideas [… to] draw attention to the extreme right. ”

Mexican authorities generally avoid reacting to statements by Donald Trump, they do not expect to see become president, says The Washington Post. But the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of countries recalled Monday, August 17 that the Mexican immigrant population in the US was an asset for the country and stated that the proposals “would be detrimental to the welfare of the two companies concerned.”

On the US side, Republican strategists are concerned about the impact of Trump phenomenon on the popularity of the party, as explained by The New York Times. Several other candidates have indeed adopted very tough stance on immigration, including Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin, who in turn delivered Aug. 17 to end the right to US citizenship for immigrant children . A bidding war that could cost dear to the Grand Old Party, which risks losing the votes of more and more Latinos.

Mitt Romney had learned the hard way in 2012, collecting a historically low share of the Hispanic vote after advocating “self-deportation” of illegal during the primaries.

The adoption on 26 January, a new Constitution has caused a political détente in Tunisia. Questions concerning the status of women, the role of the sacred, to freedom of conscience being decided by that text, the major economic tradeoffs could dominate public life. But on these issues then, the major parties are struggling to define their strategy. The Question is asked by YD : What Future for Tunisia in these conditions?

Since the Arab uprisings have known happy developments, nor in Egypt or Syria, or Libya, Tunisia became the region a refuge for those who seek a reason to hope. No social aspirations behind the uprising in December 2010 are satisfied. But after a long political crisis, the country, which grazed the worse with the murder of two leftist leaders last year (1), has recently adopted a new Constitution, approved by two hundred deputies on two hundred and sixteen, and a national unity government of technocrats. Tensions have dropped a notch, a state of grace is installed.

Opponents of the Islamist Ennahda feared they would become embedded in the state apparatus, laying the foundations of a new dictatorship. Ultimately, they have left office peacefully as they had got, politely asked to “disengage” from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Algeria, Western countries (including France), the largest union central , employers, the revolutionary left, the center right, the League of Human Rights …

Without doubt they have bowed to pressure after realizing that their record was unpromising and report adverse international forces of political Islam, weakened in Turkey and forcibly ousted Egyptian president. New elections must take place in Tunisia “before the end of 2014” (Article 148 of the Constitution). Revolution is no longer on the agenda. But the country can recover to believe that he will succeed in building its haphazard in an Arab world where such food is highly sought.

Does this mean that the integration of Islamists into the political system was a winning bet? Yes, from the point of view of those who promised their arrival at the head of the state would not mean a trip without return ticket. But yes also to their enemies, who had expected that once in power they will demonstrate their identity and religious obsession, their economic and social deprivation. “With them, quips Mr. Hamma Hammami, spokesperson of the Popular Front (left), one is before Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The political economy of the Muslim Brotherhood is the annuity and parallel trade. This is not production, not creating wealth, not agriculture, not industry, this is not the infrastructure, not the reorganization of education to serve the strategic goals – economic, scientific, technological. ”

Their “development model”, in the words of Ennahda electoral program in 2011, in fact often comes down to a row of empty phrases: “create new markets for our goods and services,” “simplify procedures” “diversify investments to more useful projects” … Common places embellished with incantations to “revive the virtuous values from the cultural and civilizational heritage of the Tunisian society and its Arab and Islamic identity, which honor the effort and quality work, encourage innovation and initiative “(2).

Mr. Houcine Jaziri, which belonged to the last two Islamist firms, admits: “The weakness of Ennahda, is the economy. We were more locked in moral issues. Someone in our ranks too political, not enough economists. The others have much work these issues we. “He nevertheless said:” We were lucky integrating a government having to think about it. ”

Which is never a bad idea … However, for three years, most of the parties, not just Ennahda, have bothered to anything else. “The tumultuous political period that we have just experienced, notes the economist Nidhal Ben Cheikh, was marked by the discussion of topics relatively taboo in Tunisia – religion, belief, sacred, sexuality, homosexuality, the role of the woman. The foundations of our economic policy have however never been discussed, let alone challenged. Result, the governorates [provinces] which were the cradles of the revolution, the political and social upheaval, Kef, Kasserine, Siliana, Tataouine, Kebili, still suffer from a lack of local production boggling (3). ”

The main opponent of the Islamist party, Mr. Beji Caid Essebsi, also ruled Tunisia after the fall of the regime of Mr Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Instead of taking advantage of its popularity and the general enthusiasm of the first months (“Jasmine Revolution”, etc.) to scan the liberal policies of his predecessor, he preferred to surround himself with orthodox ministers who have extended the model previous economic, praised by the IMF (4). Result: Mr. Caid Essebsi today notes that “in some areas, marginalized for a long time because we cared much of maritime showcase, there was no improvement.”

Since 2011, no one has actually broken with the choice to insert the country in the international division of labor by offering foreign investors a skilled workforce and paltry wage costs. However, for lack of a self-reliant development, driven by public investment, fed by local demand insolvent, this model can only perpetuate glaring regional inequalities. The risk that the informal economy and smuggling flourish (devouring the way tax revenues), the state backward, jihadist cells enjoy. “The United States, the singers of neoliberalism, have helped nationalize banks [during the 2008 crisis], while Tunisia, in a revolutionary period, the revolutionary gestures is prohibited,” laments Mr Ben Cheikh.

“A country that respects itself pays his debts”

Meet successively Mr. Rached Ghannouchi, leader of Ennahda, and Mr. Caid Essebsi, founder and president of Call for Tunisia (Nidaa Tounes) confirms this lack of programmatic audacity. A priori, everything opposes the two veterans who dominate the politics of their country. The secretariat of the first is cluttered with photographs showing the officers or Islamist intellectuals (Tariq Ramadan, former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, etc.) and with the Emir of Qatar. The office has the second single theme Habib Bourguiba (5), represented both as a bust, large poster on the wall and small framed photo on the desktop. Or Bourguiba would be condemned to death Mr Ghannouchi, who then felt that the “supreme combatant” founder of modern Tunisia, had committed “war against Islam and Arabism (6).”

When analyzing with them the major economic issues, the differences between the two men are far less clear-cut. Example, the repayment of external debt contracted by the regime of Ben Ali and partly hijacked by members of his clan? “The debt is talked about, but it is not catastrophic, as we are less than 50%, says Mr. Caid Essebsi. Others, like France, have ratios of 85% (7). “Anyway, he precise- immediately,” a country that respects itself pays its debts, regardless of his government. Since independence, Tunisia has never failed. ” That is almost word for word what Mr. Ghannouchi told us yesterday: “Tunisia has long tradition to repay its debts. We will stand it. ”

Debt service is an onerous burden for a poor country; this is the third budget item 4.2 billion Tunisian dinars in 2013 (8). But the General Compensation Fund (CGC), it represents the second 5.5 billion dinars in 2013. Everyone would like to lighten the weight; nobody really knows how. And, on this point too, the Islamists and their opponents is hardly distinguished. We understand their caution: the subject is explosive.

System to subsidize food and energy, the GSC was created in 1970. Since then, the surge in world prices of oil and grain has paid expenses disproportionate levels. The IMF continues to demand reduction, until the disappearance of the compensation mechanism; political parties fear inflation and revolution if they follow this kind of advice …

Far from representing a social conquest, the GSC, reminds us Mr. Ben Cheikh, had as main objective to make a liberal politically sustainable strategy to encourage industry by providing him a cheap labor force. To attract investors, Tunisia has accepted that the national budget finances part of the current consumption of their workers and employees. In sum, for over forty years, for lack of a good salary, the men and women who work, for example, in the textile sector, or engineering industries, could buy flour or the subsidized gasoline.

And all the others … In restaurants and hotels, the pasta and semolina served to tourists are subsidized gasoline consumption of large displacement Libyan is subsidized, energy (often imported) used Portuguese and cement Spanish is subsidized. “It’s a burden, admits Mr. Ghannouchi. We have to find a reasonable solution, not because of pressure from international institutions but because the expense can not be sustained at this level. “Mr. Caid Essebsi says the same thing:” Now we have reached a critical point. It is better to revise the budget to support other priorities. ”

But how to reallocate spending GSC towards productive investment in inland regions without harming immediately to the most disadvantaged Tunisians, that the state does not know otherwise help? When addressing the subject (because in the press …), employers, unions, Islamists Nidaa Tounès show a wait. They denounce abuses without proposing any remedy. Asked about the possibility that a government removes one day the fund, Ms. Wided Bouchamaoui, President of the Tunisian Union of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts (Utica), the employers’ organization, we firmly replied: ” Never! There would be a riot in the country. No political force would not dare do that. “She also says immediately:” It’s not our request. ”

Two thirds of the grant concern fuel. Now, Mr. Houcine Abassi insisted, President of the Tunisian General Union of Labour (UGTT), “most of the unemployed and employees do not have a car. They do not benefit from compensation paid for energy. And when the members of the middle class have a vehicle with a motor of four or five horses, they pay their gasoline at the same price [1.57 dinar per liter] as those who have several luxury cars in the same family “.

Remains to be able to distinguish from each other if, for example, we want to stop subsidizing the endless stream of limousines billionaires who Refueling … “That, we replied Abassi is the responsibility of government. We have proposals, but we are a union; we are not the state, with its resources, its experts, its design offices. To him to seek a strategy. ”

The Popular Front has developed a detailed business plan. This includes both the recruitment of officials in the Finance Ministry in the fight against fraud and smuggling, a 5% tax on net earnings of oil companies, the suspension of the payment of the external debt service pending audit, the redevelopment of the tax schedule to promote low incomes, the abolition of banking secrecy. But when it comes to the GSC, boldness is less noticeable. “Everybody admits Mr Hammami, knows he must not touch the compensation fund. “Discreetly, the government begins to trim subsidies, particularly on fuel position. And everyone looks away.

Decisions of leaders, activists doubts

That is to say towards the next elections. Politically, the suspension of consecutive clashes with the new government meant that the fight continued, but otherwise. The current consensus is based on a precarious balance of forces. The future alliances drafts anticipate unknown election results. Mr. Ghannouchi argues from this uncertainty and regional instability to convince his base, often dubious, correctness of its reconciliation strategy. Considering the country “too fragile for a government and opposition face it,” he wishes now that future elections lead a “coalition government with everybody or, if this is not possible, with the maximum of parties, but also civil society, trade unions, employers’ associations. Ennahda would. ”

Facing him, Mr. Caid Essebsi seems in a strong position. The training he leads is certainly eclectic, mixing bénalistes networks and progressive or trade union activists (the secretary general of Nidaa Tounes, Mr. Taieb Baccouche was General Secretary of the UGTT), but it occupies the central place on the political spectrum. For one, the Islamist party is demanding a national unity without exclusion. On the other hand, the Popular Front wants to counter what Mr Hammami called “despotic Ennahda danger” by extending its joint action with Nidaa Tounès. That will choose the latter? To hear Mr. Caid Essebsi detailing his role in the success of a “consensual solution” with Mr. Ghannouchi, while it covers praise the current government “supported by all political forces,” we imagine that it would prefer that the foundation of the next ministerial team is equally wide. And does not reject the Islamists in the opposition? “It depends on the elections, ‘he says. But we will accept the election results. ”

“Nidaa Tounes was afraid allied with Ennahda, admits Abdelmoumen Belanes, deputy general secretary of the Workers Party, member of the Popular Front. Westerners believe that two great forces exist and that stability requires that they combine. “But fear that Islamists inspired to the left has in no way abated. “Since its founding, the tactic of Ennahda has always been the same, says Mr Hammami. Where there is resistance, it recedes. Where there is sagging, it against attack. But the goal remains to Islamize to impose the line Muslim Brotherhood, both retrograde, despotic and dictatorial. “The strategy recommends that follows from the diagnosis: it is necessary to extend the anti-Islamist alliance with Nidaa Tounès highlighting Democratic priority; we must explain that the realization of this priority imposes social emergency measures; must finally bet that all “democratic” forces “agree on the need to alleviate the impact of the economic crisis for the masses.”

But, asks Michael Ayari, a researcher at the International Crisis Group, think that the basis, what do the militants? Those of Ennahda, who saw their party agree to leave power without losing the election? Those Nidaa Tounès, whose president does not rule to govern with the Islamists under the delighted eye of the IMF? Those of the Popular Front, called to defend democracy by company bosses and former bénalistes? Party leaders concoct their alliances, anticipating the distribution of posts, reassure their donors. Political balance ensues. It is reasonable, enviable, even in a region beset by convulsions. But how long will he last so, three years after the “revolution”, economic and social choices that have triggered so imperturbably continue to be renewed?

Difficult strategic rebalancing in an area that flares up Washington overwhelmed by the confrontation between Riyadh and Tehran After a month of bombing, the coalition led by Saudi Arabia states favor a political solution to the Yemeni crisis. However, while its standoff with Iran, the Wahhabi kingdom does not rule out the option of a ground offensive against the Shiite Houthi rebellion. This prospect worries the Obama administration, which is struggling to maintain cohesion among its allies.

A late spring moved to Washington at the end of April. But neither the cherry blossoms or higher temperatures can reduce the atmosphere of latent anxiety and perplexity prevailing in the federal capital. The halls of Congress to Massachusetts Avenue the main research centers or meeting rooms Connecticut Avenue, the same questions return: what’s really going on in the Middle East and what should the United States to avoid s ‘stuck there again?

The civil war in Syria, the deadly actions of the Organization of the Islamic State (OEI), the bombings of Yemen by a coalition of nine Arab countries, not to mention sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites, daily make the “one” . But the American response strategy to these challenges seems unreadable. In Mashreq in full glow, the United States also are struggling to reassure their allies, be it Saudi Arabia, other oil monarchies, Egypt or Iraq.

The official visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi, the first of its kind, and highlighted the permanent split which now seems doomed the administration of President Barack Obama. Washington has pledged $ 200 million to Baghdad to help displaced by fighting against the OEI, and its support for the granting of a loan of 700 million by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This money is intended to offset the worsening of the Iraqi budget deficit in 2015 is expected to reach 25 billion dollars, equivalent to one third of the expected oil revenue for the same year.

In addition, US officials have never ceased to urge their partner to take over distances with Iranian leaders. “Iran should respect the sovereignty of Iraq and stop intervening unilaterally on Iraqi soil,” insisted Obama, accusing Tehran of supporting Shiite militias militarily fighting against the OEI without Refer to the Baghdad government. These militias are regularly accused of looting and violence against the civilian population, as in the recovery of the city of Tikrit, in late March.

Mr. Al-Abadi was initially downplayed the role of Iran in his country, saying that only a hundred military advisers were present. Then he and his companions have not missed an opportunity to greet both “diplomatic progress in the Iranian nuclear issue” and the “commitment” of Washington to find a final agreement on this issue by at the end of next June. “The message of Mr. Al-Abadi was clear. He said the United States that they could not both be closer to Iran, even tentatively, and at the same time criticize Iraq to be its ally, “says a US diplomat requires anonymity.

For this connoisseur of the Arab world, the United States does indeed know more about where they stand in the Middle East: “There are still a few years, our allies did not ask us the same problems of consistency. They were following the lines of our actions and we knew to give them enough slack to not force them to complete docility. Today we are continually forced to reconcile contradictory positions. “An opinion shared Ahmed Ali, a political scientist from the Empowering Youth for Peace in Iraq, a think tank based in Washington, and himself of Iraqi origin:” The Obama administration knows that the regime in Baghdad continue to seek a balance between the US and Iran, because it needs these two major players to defeat the OEI. “Other experts, like Richard Nephew of the Brookings Institution, a think tank close to the Democratic Party, meanwhile questioned the apparent paradox that drives the American president to curb any attempt by Congress to toughen sanctions against Iran, while using a tone somewhat martial against that country when it comes to discuss the situation in Iraq or Yemen.

The official visit of Mr. Al-Abadi especially illustrated another twinge, even more important, within the American sphere of influence in the Middle East. Evoking the air intervention of the coalition led by the Saudis to Yemen to counter the advance of the Houthi militia, Iraqi Prime Minister questioned the appropriateness of such action, saying that “Yemen’s problems solution First found in Yemen. ” Clearly, Baghdad pleaded for a return to national dialogue with the participation of Houthi, who took up arms to protest against a federal government project concocted by President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi (1).

More importantly, facing a small committee of journalists received at Blair House, the residence of foreign dignitaries invited to the White House, the Iraqi leader made it clear that the Obama administration shared his opinion. Like him, she considers that Saudi Arabia “is the main obstacle to a cease-fire” between Yemeni factions. This statement sparked an almost immediate denial Alistair Baskey, the US National Security Council spokesman and a press conference organized at short notice by the Saudi ambassador Adel Al-Jubeir, who blasted the “lack of logic” of the statement of Mr. Al-Abadi.

In reality, about the latter have little surprised or shocked in Washington. The overall strategy followed by Riyadh to Yemen raises many questions. Without being caught short, the Obama administration did not support the establishment of an Arab coalition against the Houthi rebels. A month later, after the announcement of the end of the bombing, the American press relayed the skepticism about the effectiveness of this campaign, emphasizing its high balance – more than a thousand dead, hundreds injured and nearly 300 million dollars in damage – and the fact that the military capabilities of the rebellion had hardly begun. For a diplomat in the federal capital, “Saudi Arabia seeks to indicate to Iran that its influence will be systematically combated in the Arabian Peninsula; the United States are aware, but they also know that the solution to the Yemeni crisis can only be political. ”

When the Pentagon renseignait coalition

Washington has struggled to convince Riyadh to favor a different route than the bombing. This especially since Saudi leaders swear today as Republicans, they appreciate the virulence towards Iran and Obama. Thus, the letter from Republican senators reminding the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that Congress would have the final say on the nuclear deal (read “An agreement that opens up new possibilities in Iran”) convinced Riyadh that authority of the US President was initiated.

To limit civilian casualties and the consequences of an intervention that is likely to engulf the entire region, the US military has had a say on the target chosen by the coalition. Officially, Saudi Arabia and its partners defined the targets to bomb the Pentagon providing information gathered by drones and processed simultaneously in operational centers in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain. But, as noted by the consultant in defense Richard Stark, or not provide information “finally returned to exercise a veto on the targets could be bombed” …

This participation, even indirect, to the Saudi military operations – which still add sea actions to prevent the supply of weapons to Houthi militias – has translated three objectives of the United States.

The first: the possible delay or even prevent a ground intervention of the approximately one hundred and fifty thousand Saudi soldiers massed on the border with Yemen. Not by humanitarian or pacifist conviction, but simply because Washington fears that this offensive does not result in a defeat for the Saudi army. Instructed by the previous November 2009 when it had suffered significant losses after a first attack against the Houthi rebels, US officials do not want this scenario to reproduce, which could lead their troops to intervene on the ground, then that is looming presidential campaign in 2016.

Washington shows even more circumspect on a ground intervention that its two possible alternate dragging their feet to join. Neither Egypt, which has yet participated in air operations, nor Pakistan, which, to the chagrin of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies, decided to stay back in the coalition, are contemplating.

Mainly Sunni Muslim country, Pakistan is a military ally of long standing of Saudi Arabia. Both opposed the former USSR and India, Riyadh and Islamabad have strengthened their cooperation during the first Afghan war (1979-1989). While the Wahhabi kingdom is one of its major donors, Pakistan played against him as a protective nuclear power. Sought by Riyadh to pressure including Pakistan, the United States has so far kicked into touch, to the relief of the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Very criticized by his Saudi ally and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the latter promised to intervene, but only if the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia was threatened. “The Pakistani military is the country’s image. It also has Shiite, and there is no question that the struggle between Riyadh and Tehran do implode “, asserts the political scientist and blogger Pakistani Muhamad Khalid, who believes that his country did not support a” expansionist enterprise “Riyadh.

The second objective pursued by Washington trying to convince Saudi Arabia to favor a political solution and not launch ground operation due to the situation in Iraq. During his visit, Mr. Al-Abadi warned his American interlocutors against such a development, considering that the Wahhabi kingdom would then play in the region “a role comparable to that of Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait and threatening other neighbors” . In March 2011, the Saudi intervention in Bahrain to put down a large majority Shiite uprising had already alarmed the Iraqi authorities. She was convinced that their country now controlled by a central power of obedience Shiite, would sooner or later too, the target of a Saudi military action. “The last thing the US wants is a worsening of the tension between Saudis and Iraqis, the latter accusing the former of having financed covertly OEI. But the crisis in Yemen suggests that Riyadh has decided to take the initiative and serve to rivals he’ll have to reckon with him now, “adds the Arab diplomat in Washington.

Third objective of the US in their attempt to limit the damage related to the Yemen operation: prevent the region from becoming a proxy battleground between Saudi Arabia who proclaim champion of the Sunni world and Shiite Iran. Again, pragmatism order. Already involved in Iraq facing the troops of the OEI and keeping the option of a military action in Syria, the Obama administration knows that a deterioration of the situation would lead to new outbreaks of sectarian violence across the Middle East, including the Gulf, a strategic region for the global supply of oil.

Lebanon chaos risk to India

“A recurring idea in the Arab world is that the United States seek to cause a generalized confrontation between Shiites and Sunnis to better consolidate their power in the Gulf and the Middle East. But nothing would be more adventurous to open this Pandora’s box. This could create chaos coast of Lebanon to India, “said the political scientist Hasni Abidi, the Centre for Studies and Research on the Arab and Mediterranean World (CERMAM) in Geneva. Already, Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary general of Hezbollah, has repeatedly called on the Muslim world to oppose “to manipulation and conflict” created by Saudi Arabia. This call echoes the words of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who, during the annual parade of the armed forces of his country, did not hesitate to accuse namely Saudi Arabia to fund terrorism in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

Riyadh is well aware of this American fear of worsening his standoff with Iran. While Sunni dignitaries continue to dump on social networks their invectives against the “Shiite heretics”, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs, regularly repeats that his country is not engaged “in a war of influence or by proxy against Iran. ” It nevertheless called on Tehran to stop delivering weapons to the Houthi rebels. In the current regional context, and given the level of distrust between Washington and Riyadh, who did not forgive him the fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, it is not excluded that Saudi Arabia will eventually go to the against the wishes of the American patron intervening ground in Yemen. White-hot by a virulent nationalist and religious discourse, part of the population expects a show of force that would erase the bitter memory of 2009. At the risk of a deadlock, “This is what awaits Iran to assert its influence on the region, warns a Saudi businessman based in Virginia. This will strengthen the country appears to be the only one to have a coherent strategy. It is no coincidence that the Obama administration is seeking an agreement at any price with him. ”

Many experts believe that the Islamic Republic managed a diplomatic faultless, at least for now. After reaching an interim agreement on nuclear, convinced Tehran Turkey and Pakistan not to join the coalition formed by Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen. Another important victory: Russia has decided to lift the embargo on certain weapons to Iran that it had itself established in 2010. This revival running a $ 800 million contract concluded in 2007 for providing anti-aircraft batteries of the type S-300.

With a more or less renewed link with the United States and the West, playing its own partition in Iraq and Syria and enjoying major divisions within the pro-American camp, Iran appears, at least in the short term, as the winner of the evolution in the region. Although the military setbacks of its Syrian ally concerned dignitaries from Tehran. Up to place themselves in the camp of doves, the Islamic Republic continues to remind the voice of Mr. Javad Zarif, his foreign minister, that “Iran has not invaded any country for two hundred fifty years. And its calls for the implementation of a peace plan in Yemen have allowed him to score points in an Arab world rather hostile to the intervention of the coalition, including among some of its members.

In a context where the turmoil born of the 2011 revolts continue to worsen (2), Iran, though Shiite, suddenly made a reference in a Sunni world in disarray.

The newly signed agreement on the Iranian nuclear caused outcry among Israeli Press on the Hebrew State. Back on the first reactions.

The agreement on the Iranian nuclear which has just been signed in Vienna by Tehran and the P5 + 1 (China, USA, France, UK, Russia and Germany) does not rejoice Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately responded, calling the agreement “historic mistake”. The Israeli press of all tendencies has published numerous comments on an agreement lived as an existential threat to Jerusalem. The site The Times of Israel, main leader of the Israeli Press citing Iranian sources, headlined: “Concessions allow Iran to keep its nuclear sites.”

For the center-right popular daily Yediot Aharonot, the battle is not yet completely lost. “Israeli diplomats have been instructed to focus on the shortcomings of the agreement.” Prime Minister Netanyahu now has on the US Congress to scuttle the agreement, said the Israeli daily.
Finally, for the leftist daily Haaretz, “the agreement on the Iranian nuclear is neither historical nor catastrophic.” It is a defeat for the Israeli prime minister. and the war against US President Obama has just begun, Haaretz predicted.

Beyond the Nuclear agreement the purely technical terms is also played the issue of return of Iran in the concert of nations. And by extension: the rebalancing of alliances in the Middle East, noted L’Orient le jour few hours before the announcement of the signing of an agreement.

Nuclear, nuclear nothing? To believe the various statements of diplomats in Vienna, the negotiations between Iran and the 5 + 1 (US, France, Britain, Russia and China – plus Germany) concern only the nuclear issue. At that level, the deal is very clear although rather technical: Iran is unable to acquire nuclear weapons in return for which the 5 + 1 agree to lift the various sanctions in place against him. A perfect “win-win situation”, as the Americans say.

The many technical details such as the number of centrifuges, the pace of the lifting of sanctions and the possibility for members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor the Iranian sites are all guarantees of guarantees of one side or the other. But they are not enough to understand what actually plays in Vienna, beyond the nuclear deal, namely the return of Iran in the concert of nations. And by extension: the rebalancing of alliances in the Middle East. Nuclear

New means

Marginalized since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran could, if agreed, rejoin the international community and become, in the medium term, a new strategic partner for Washington. This rebalancing in the US foreign policy in the Middle East seems to be emerging for the past few months. The joint struggle against the Islamic State, the election of Hassan Rouhani to the Iranian presidential, the prospect of energy independence for the United States but also their desire to disengage from the Middle East are all reasons why the two capitals to want to get closer, after 36 years marked by deep mutual distrust. Nuclear

But the prospect of this rebalancing strongly displeases the two most faithful allies of the US in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The two states have repeatedly criticized the possibility of a nuclear deal because of the consequences that this would have on the region. Beyond their inflammatory statements about the danger of Iran having a nuclear bomb – a hazard which, according to experts, would be totally ruled out if agreed – quite the new means offered by the lifting of sanctions that worry Riyadh and Tel Aviv. The end of the embargo on Iran will allow Tehran to recover a substantial financial windfall thanks to the sale of its oil. Israel, like Saudi Arabia, fear that Iran is using the money to feed – even more than it already does – its proxy wars on several fronts: Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon.
Riyad complex

If a nuclear agreement would have no real impact on the covenant with Israel, which appears as a structural fact of American policy in the Middle East, it is not the same for the alliance between Washington and Riyadh. Although the United States will not let go overnight their Saudi ally, which remains their main buyer of weapons, the fact remains that this alliance could be reconsidered based on new US interests in the region and the new configuration of power relations. In their war against Sunni extremism, the United States might be tempted to rely on two regional gendarmes: firstly Saudi Arabia, the heart of Sunni Islam, and also Iran, heart of Shiite Islam. A rebalancing that would play very clearly to the detriment of Riyadh, which already has a lot more harm than Tehran to justify its war against the Islamic state (EI).

Riyadh suffers – rightly – a complex real inferiority vis-à-vis Tehran. Iran has a diplomatic power, military, scientific and demographic resources unique to Saudi Arabia. In other words, a nuclear deal between Iran and the 5 + 1 would mean the failure of the hegemonic will – revived by the war in Yemen – Riyadh in the region: the decline of the Arab world in favor of the Persians.

Carte blanche?

A nuclear deal would not mean as much as the United States offer a carte blanche to Iran in the region. Tensions between the two countries are such that they can not be erased overnight. The Iranian regime is likely to continue to use the argument of the fight against imperialism to justify a repressive and expansionist policy. In contrast, the US will try to reassure allies and persevere, probably, in their criticism of the regime.

In the short term, the nuclear deal is not expected to fundamentally change the regional order. In the medium and long term, however, it could completely upset with opportunities for negotiations on Lebanese issues, Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni and Palestinian-Israeli.

The agreement is similar to an American clearly bet. A gamble, since there is no guarantee that Iran will change its foreign policy. Instead, she might feel in a strong position and let go the temptation to hubris. Three elements are nevertheless qualify this possibility. A: If Iran is reintegrated into the international community, it must respect the rules. Two: the reform wing (Rohani / Zarif) will also be strengthened if agreed and could eventually take over the conservative wing, especially represented by General Qassem Soleimani. Three: the Iranian people, in application modernization but impoverished by sanctions, would certainly a very dim view of the fact that the new financial entries are only meant to finance wars across the region.

Ankara is satisfied with the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program. For security reasons, certainly, but above all for the economic benefits that will result.

“The world is relieved,” headlines this morning Hürriyet, which echoed the general feeling dominant in Turkey as a result of this agreement. “Iran, partner or opponent?” Asks Erdal Saglam in the columns of the newspaper. According to him, no doubt the Iranian market is an incredible opportunity for Ankara, which starts with a considerable advantage over the West because of its geography and cultural ties that the two countries have.

The end of a black series

“Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Greece and Russia in recent years, all countries with which Ankara has close trade relations have faced crises, which have had a negative impact on the Turkish economy. Finally some good news, “rejoices Habertürk.

Among the areas in which Ankara should find profit, Hürriyet quotes the banking sector, the tourism and hospitality industry, agriculture, the construction industry, mining and appliances. Ankara may also hope to satisfy its growing need for oil and gas through the Islamic Republic.

$ 30 billion

“In 2014, despite the embargo imposed on Iran, trade between the two countries were valued at $ 3.9 billion. For 2016, the goal is set at $ 30 billion, “said the pro-government Yeni Safak newspaper.

Following the announcement of the agreement, the Turkish lira rose nearly 4% against the dollar, a first for many weeks.

The Italian Parliament is currently considering legalizing cannabis. La Stampa welcomes it: it is time to understand that the repressive policies have failed.
The Italian Parliament is currently considering legalizing cannabis. La Stampa welcomes it: it is time to understand that the repressive policies have failed.

Cannabis-counter? This is what the bill proposes that just arrived in the Italian Parliament and is supported by 218 MPs. If passed, the sale of marijuana will be legal and organized in stores with a license from the state. The adults will be able to hold up to 15 grams home, 5 grams on the outside, and grow up to 5 plants for their own use. However, consumption will remain prohibited in public places as well as for minors. In short, “a revolution in the galaxy of soft drugs,” said La Repubblica.

Parliamentarians who support the project from all sides, but mainly left and center-left “with some small incursions” in the centrist party of Mario Monti (Scelta Civica) and that of Silvio Berlusconi (Forza Italia), reports the Corriere della Sera. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Benedetto della Vedova, originally the project, said he was confident this support should extend.
Refusal, by cons, the New Law Centre and the Northern League. The chairman of the far-right party, the thundering Matteo Salvini, explained in these words: “I would favor the legalization and regulation of prostitution, because, until proven otherwise, sex do no harm. Cannabis, though. ”

For a columnist for La Stampa, the question is not there. Ravi Parliament finally take up the issue, he exclaims, quoting Victor Hugo: “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” The debate is old, does explains -he, but the novelty is that we now have evidence for “beyond ideological considerations. Not to argue that soft drugs do no harm. But because, in a perspective of damage reduction, it is demonstrated that legalization is the most effective strategy to tackle the problem. ”
This is shown by current developments in countries like the United States and Portugal, the newspaper but also the national anti-mafia directorate: observing “an exceptional increase in the consumption of hashish” in Italy, she concluded that the “total failure of law enforcement.”

It was the culmination of a high-stakes preoccupation for world leaders. We rank those who gained from the historic pact – and those who will likely be ruing it.

Negotiating an international agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief has been a high-stakes preoccupation for leaders around the world. The Guardian ranks the main winners and losers in one of the most significant diplomatic deals of modern times.

Winners

Hassan Rouhani

Iran’s president is by a long way the biggest winner to emerge from the nuclear agreement between his country and six world powers. Rouhani highlighted the way in which Iran’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy has been recognised, as has its status in the region. Ending Iran’s international isolation is a historic achievement that looks likely to win him a second term in 2017. But he faces resistance from suspicious hardliners who fear that even limited rapprochement with the US and the west will promote demands for domestic change that could undermine a regime dominated by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Barack Obama

The US president’s achievement has to be measured against the position of George Bush, who declared in 2002 that Iran was a member of an “axis of evil” that included Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and North Korea. “This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change,” he said. “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” Obama hasvowed to veto opposition in Congress. If all goes well, the agreement will likely be the centrepiece of his foreign policy legacy and vindicate what many considered to be the premature award of a Nobel peace prize.

Bashar al-Assad

The Syrian president quickly hailed the agreement as a “major turning point” in the history of Iran, the region and the world, calling it a “great victory”. Assad has received military and financial support from Iran since the uprising against him erupted in 2011. Tehran’s enhanced regional position in the wake of the deal will strengthen its demands for recognition as a key player in the Middle East, including in any negotiations about the future of Syria. Assad’s Syrian and Arab enemies, contemplating a war that has already left 210,000 dead and made millions of people homeless, are horrified by the nuclear deal – for exactly these reasons. Opposition activists branded the agreement#Munich2Vienna.

Vladimir Putin

The Russian president said the world had “breathed a huge sigh of relief” when the deal was finalised. The lifting of sanctions against Iran could make the easing of western sanctions against Russia over its role in the Ukraine crisis more likely. An eventual end to the arms embargo against Iran would also be in the interest of the country’s $15bn arms industry. Moscow has argued that the embargo should be completely lifted so Iran can help fight Isis.

Losers

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

The self-proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State may fear a more coherent international effort against his forces in Iraq and Syria given the new possibilities for cooperation between the US and Iran. Iran has said in the past that the US is not serious about fighting terrorism, and complained that Washington’s close Arab allies – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states – as well as Turkey have promoted jihadi groups. It has already signalled that it may now be prepared to help.

King Salman bin Abdulaziz

Saudi Arabia’s initial silence about the agreement suggests deep anxiety about a rapprochement between the US and Iran, its greatest rival in the region, and a pivot away from the Gulf. The view in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and nearby capitals is that Washington is appeasing Tehran and ignoring their own security concerns – despite the Gulf states’ far greater expenditure on defence. Salman strongly dislikes Iran’s role in Iraq, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, where the Saudis are attacking Houthi rebels they say are backed by Tehran. Sunni-Shia sectarianism is an alarming new element of a long-hostile relationship between Arabs and Persians.

Binyamin Netanyahu

Israel’s prime minister had vowed to stop a nuclear agreement between the US and Iran. Not only did he fail to do that but he caused serious damage to Israel’s prized strategic relationship with Washington. Critics at home say he exaggerated the extent of an Iranian threat, some calling for his resignation. Iran has been notoriously hostile to the Jewish state since the 1979 revolution, and Tehran highlights its support for the Palestinians, including Hamas, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Nothing in the Vienna agreement suggests that will change. Israel also fears Iran may be emboldened. Lifting sanctions gives “Iran a jackpot, a cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars, which will enable it to continue to pursue its aggression and terror in the region and in the world”, Netanyahu claimed. The focus on Iran’s nuclear programme has also drawn attention to Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal – outside the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Angela Merkel is regaining mission, it multiplies the communication operations to improve its image. On July 16, she answered questions from students in Rostock [Mecklenburg-Vorpommern].

Challenged by a young Palestinian refugee who must return to Lebanon after living four years with his family in Germany, the Chancellor gave an answer at least pragmatic. “I understand, politics is sometimes tough. But if we say, ‘You can come from Africa, you can all come’, we can not do, “she said. The girl collapsed in tears and the Chancellor headed to her to console her.

A move that makes a lot of noise in Germany. On Twitter, the hashtag #Merkelstreichelt – literally, “Merkel caress” – is leading all trending topics.

Die Zeit indignant reaction of Angela Merkel and asks: “Who said that all Africa was getting” Accustomed to “smiles answers,” the German daily, the Chancellor seemed embarrassed. For its part, Die Welt focuses more on the behavior of Merkel deemed “cold and unable to show his feelings.” A “gap”, a “hitch” in the image of the Chancellor, the German daily newspaper believes that “Merkel has failed to explain the German asylum policy to a child.”

If Russia is not involved in the destruction of the Malaysian Boeing above Ukraine, why is she so stubbornly opposed to the creation of an international tribunal to try those responsible? asks the Ukrainian newspaper.

There is one year, July 17, 2014, above the city of Thorez, a missile put an abrupt end to the existence of the 298 passengers and crew members of the flight MH17 left Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur . Now if the bloody traces of this terrible catastrophe clearly back to Russia, Moscow, in his defense, continues cynically to present evidence falsified, if not shameful.

While the Dutch Security Council, who oversaw the investigation into the tragedy of Boeing, is preparing to publish its findings, the Russian side, it continues to place obstacles in the way of the formation of a supposed court judge those responsible for the death of 298 people in the sky of Donbass.
Access to limited crash site

A year after the tragedy, the question arises: why the investigation has she lasted that long [the final report will be released in October]. This slowness has several causes. Firstly, access to the crash site is limited because it is in an area controlled by the militants [pro-Russian separatists].
Proof that the MH17 was shot by pro-Russian?
The experts came together unit debris to determine the origins of the disaster have experienced the worst difficulties. Local looters were able to make use of, and some elements had been hastily dispatched to Russia. Dutch prosecutors say it took them handle more than one million documents, photos and videos. It is no coincidence that the Russian special services tried to hack data during the investigation, including by striving to penetrate the computer networks of the police and justice in the Netherlands.

Russia has played a big role in the delays in the investigation, while Russian experts regularly offered new versions of the drama and exhibited new witnesses cans. At the same time, Moscow has done everything to hide the traces of his involvement. The online message militants who boasted at the time of shooting an Antonov transport plane An-26 (confirmed by telephone conversations between separatists, intercepted by the Ukrainian secret service) have been cleared.

Evidence “trafficked”

Meanwhile, Russian sources have aired evidence “trafficked” (false radar recordings and satellite photos retouched) intended to demonstrate that the Boeing had in fact been shot down by a Ukrainian fighter-bomber Su-25. Hypothesis one voice belied by experts: the Su-25 is a device physically unable to destroy a target flying at ten thousand meters, since it is designed to intervene at low and medium altitudes. In addition, Boeing has disintegrated, which lends support to the use of a surface to air missile rather than air-air.

When it became clear that the Russian version of the destruction of the aircraft Malaysian online was absurd, Moscow then slurried evidence to support another fable of the Kremlin. The new version is as follows: the MH17 has been shot down by an anti-aircraft missile. But neither Russia nor the “militia” of Donbass there are for something: the murderer missile was fired by the Ukrainian army.
A “war crime”

Since then, the Russians claim that everything suggests that Boeing was not destroyed from the territory controlled by the separatists. When the Western media began to suggest that the findings of the Dutch experts finally ensured that the Boeing had indeed been destroyed by a missile “Buk” fired from Russian territory held by the militants, the Russian Foreign Ministry gave the voice. The Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov, said that the Russian side does not agree with the content of the report and that it demanded modifications.

As for the will to set up an international tribunal to judge what would eventually be treated as a “war crime” – project which is the subject of a preliminary examination by the United Nations Security Council – Moscow denounces as a move “illogical and politically against-productive.” “This idea does not please us, Gatilov said. First, the investigation is ongoing, no definitive conclusions have been made. The Netherlands presented an intermediate version of the report, the story does not end there. They themselves recognize that they will complete the investigation and report towards the end of the year. We must wait until the investigation is completed and not vote for early resolution to establish the tribunal. ”
MH17, a drama for nothing
According to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vladimir Putin would meanwhile telephoned Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte. The Kremlin leader would have been indignant to see that the Dutch media evoked the version “politicized” of a “war crime.” And he would have also criticized the decision to create an international tribunal, which would be premature and against-productive.

One can not help wondering what would have been the reaction of Moscow on this court if the preliminary report had made Ukraine responsible for the crash.