LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 18/09

Bible Reading of the day
Isaiah 59/1-11: " Behold, Yahweh’s hand is not shortened, that it can’t save; neither his ear heavy, that it can’t hear: 59:2 but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear. 59:3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness. 59:4 None sues in righteousness, and none pleads in truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. 59:5 They hatch adders’ eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he who eats of their eggs dies; and that which is crushed breaks out into a viper. 59:6 Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. 59:7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; desolation and destruction are in their paths. 59:8 The way of peace they don’t know; and there is no justice in their goings: they have made them crooked paths; whoever goes therein does not know peace. 59:9 Therefore is justice far from us, neither does righteousness overtake us: we look for light, but, behold, darkness; for brightness, but we walk in obscurity. 59:10 We grope for the wall like the blind; yes, we grope as those who have no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the twilight; among those who are lusty we are as dead men. 59:11 We roar all like bears, and moan bitterly like doves: we look for justice, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us".

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Losing Lebanon/By: Benny Avni/New York Times/December 17/09
Canada Condemns Iranian Missile Test/December 17/09
Iran missile test draws Western condemnation/Daily Star/December 17/09
9/11: Repercussions and Realignment, Part 1/By: Alon Ben-Meir/International Analyst Network/December 17/09
Words of wisdom for Obama/The Daily Star/December 17/09

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for December 17/09
Hariri Tribunal, INTERPOL Conclude 'More Comprehensive' Cooperation Agreement/Naharnet
Geagea: Any Progress in U.S.-Syrian Ties Won't Take Place at Lebanon's Expense/Naharnet
Raad Does Not Hide Some Disappointment over Saudi Stance, Understands Suleiman's Visit/Naharnet
Israel prepares to wage war against Lebanon, Al-Rai reports/Now Lebanon
Sleiman: would Nasrallah have spoken of Hizbullah in Washington better than me?/Future News
Riyadh, Egypt Step Up Rhetoric against Hizbullah, Iran/Naharnet
Britain: We want Gradual Contact with Hizbullah/Naharnet
Mitchell Assistant in Lebanon to Boost Peace/Naharnet
Syria Separates Warrants Issue from Hariri Visit, Seeks Exit/Naharnet
Report: Israel's Next War: Lebanon?/Naharnet
Gemayel: What's the Use of Dialogue Table as Hizbullah Considers Its Arms Eternal/Naharnet
Aoun: U.S. Policy Sacrificed Lebanon Many Times/Naharnet
Feltman Says Hizbullah Violating International Resolutions, Subjecting Lebanese to Dangers/Naharnet
Suleiman Returns from Washington, Says Lebanon 'Voice of Arabs' in Security Council/Naharnet
Israel's Livni 'always welcome in Britain,' Brown declares/AFP
Sleiman meets Arab envoys before re turning from Washington/Daily Star
Hariri urges joint action to cu rb effects of climate change/Daily Star
Lebanon charges 15 for plottin g attacks on army/AFP
Hizbullah's arms hamper sov ereignty - Saudi FM/AFP
Spanish minister visits to bo ost ties/Daily Star
Tribunal will be forced to run at 20 percen t of estimated budget/Daily Star
Hezbollah denies that Nasrallah visit Riyadh soon: report/Xinhua
Gemayel: After 2000 Israeli pullout no justification for Hezbollah arms/Ya Libnan
Hariri urges joint action to curb effects of climate change/Daily Star
Lebanese unity Cabinet expected to boost confidence in economy/Daily Star
UNIFIL describes meetings over Ghajar as 'routine/Daily Star
Two spy suspects may face execution/Daily Star
Youth free after arrest over LAU riot/Daily Star
Jamaa al-Islamiya elects new leader/Daily Star
LAF still re-demarcating Blue Line/Daily Star
Police arrest notorious drug dealer/Daily Star
Panel wants health care free of politics, confessionalism/Daily Star
Program aims to study consequences of 2006 war, at-risk groups/Daily Star
Sidon: Where dream jobs turn out be just dreams/Daily Star
Program helps Akkar locals define development route/Daily Star
Palestinians slam 'unfair' donation distribution/Daily Star
Activists celebrate draft law on domestic violence/Daily Star
Jamil Sayyed’s post “burned him to ashes”/Future News
Abul Gheit: critical regional situation due to Iranian nuclear program/Future News

Riyadh, Egypt Step Up Rhetoric against Hizbullah, Iran
/Naharnet/Saudi Arabia and Egypt have renewed their verbal attacks against Hizbullah and Iran following concerns over Hizbullah arms and Tehran's nuclear program.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal has accused Hizbullah of stripping Lebanon of sovereignty. Lebanon would be denied true sovereignty as long as Hizbullah "owns more arms than the military forces of the country," Faisal told the International Herald Tribune. He also said that U.S. support for Israel gave the Jewish state the option of not making peace.
"Absolute U.S. backing... has made Israel see the option of living in the area without the acceptance of the people of the area," Faisal added. "This has led to many years of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians."Meanwhile, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said following a meeting with Prime Minister Saad Hariri on the sidelines of the Copenhagen summit that the situation in the region was "sensitive.""We both agreed that the situation in the region is going through a critical stage," Abul Gheit said. He expressed concern over Iran's nuclear program "because any move toward sanctions means confrontation." Beirut, 17 Dec 09, 08:53

Britain: We want Gradual Contact with Hizbullah
Naharnet/British Foreign office spokesman Barry Marston welcomed a visit by Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Damascus, saying "it would enhance ties between the two countries." "Relations between Lebanon and Syria are very important for the two countries," Marston said. He said contacts were ongoing between the U.K. and Syria "on issues of mutual concern." On Hizbullah, Marston said Britain is committed to a policy of openness with the group. "We are maintaining gradual contact with Hizbullah that would serve our interests and the national interests of the Lebanese and based on our ability to influence Hizbullah to play a positive role in Lebanon," he said. His remarks were translated into English by Naharnet.
"We understand the importance of the key parties in the Lebanese political structure and the role they play in Cabinet and Parliament. "At the same time, we support full implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 so that weapons in Lebanon would be placed under government responsibility," Marston said. Beirut, 17 Dec 09, 10:01

Suleiman Admonishes Hizbullah
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman has expressed frustration with critics who questioned his trip to Washington. "If (Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan) Nasrallah went to Washington, would he have talked better than me about Hizbullah to President Obama?" Suleiman was quoted as telling sources. Several Hizbullah officials have criticized Suleiman's visit to Washington where he met President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials. An-Nahar daily on Thursday quoted the Lebanese delegation to Washington as saying that the U.S. administration has "listened with understanding" to Suleiman's position regarding Hizbullah arms. "These weapons are an internal Lebanese issue that should be dealt with at the dialogue table," Suleiman was quoted as telling Obama.Suleiman also pointed out to the Israeli land, sea and aerial violations of Lebanon. Beirut, 17 Dec 09, 12:08

Israel prepares to wage war against Lebanon, Al-Rai reports
December 17, 2009 /Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai quoted a well-informed source on Thursday as saying that Israel is preparing to wage war against Lebanon. “The decision has been made, however, Israel still has to decide on the time,” said the source. Hezbollah’s military power is on the rise, reported the daily, adding that Tel Aviv “does not like Hezbollah’s participation in Lebanese politics, which was recently manifested in the party’s representation in the national-unity cabinet.” -NOW Lebanon

Sleiman: would Nasrallah have spoken of Hizbullah in Washington better than me?
Date: December 17th, 2009
Source: Al-Liwaa Newspaper
President Michel Sleiman is reported to have responded to Syrian affiliates in Lebanon who criticized his visit to Washington by saying to close aides that he defended Hizbullah in an uncontestable way during his talks with Syrian officials, the Al-Liwaa news paper reported Thursday.
“If Hizbullah Chief Sayed Hassan Nasrallah went to Washington, would he speak of the party in a way better than what I did?” a source close to President Sleiman told the paper.
“The campaign launched against the visit to Washington was unfair and unjustified since the visit was decided previously and did not come all of the sudden.
“President Sleiman visited Washington upon an invitation from U.S President Barack Obama. It came in the context of the action he started as soon he was inaugurated for the purpose of restoring Lebanon’s place on the world map.
“Sleiman’s talks can be described as successful at all levels and not only at the Lebanese level. They aimed at improving relations between Syria and the U.S which would inevitably has positive repercussions on Lebanon and the region. This will be at the center of Sleiman’s talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad during his anticipated visit to Syria to pay condolences.
“The agenda of the U.S military aid to Lebanon will be mobilized during Defense Minister Elias El-Murr’s visit to Washington slated early next year,” the source said.
Meanwhile, the paper quoted a diplomatic source saying “Sleiman’s visit to Washington was held upon a U.S desire to caution the Lebanese president against the hazards of Hizbullah’s possession of arms apart from the authority of the state, especially if Washington had to take military action against Iran which would jeopardize Lebanon in case Hizbullah engaged in the war to defend the Islamic republic.
“Sleiman responded to the U.S president in this respect saying that this issue will be addressed at the national dialogue table maintaining that Hizbullah is a Lebanese party and its members are Lebanese,” the source said.

Jamil Sayyed’s post “burned him to ashes”
Date: December 16th, 2009
Future News/The political editor wrote:
Observers are convinced that the post of the General Director of the General Security is outstandingly “sensitive,” and might “burn up" those with high rank if circumstances changed, and it seemed clear that this is what happened to Jamil Sayyed when the wind of change veered since the assassination of President Rafic Hariri, and the end of Syria’s Trusteeship - which made Jamil Sayyed its favorite puppet in Lebanon.
His differences with policymakers…precisely with Syria’s symbols are identical to those of Nabih Berri and Franjieh
Jamil Sayyed did never hesitate in facing the most influential and non-influential politicians and in an unprecedented manner in Lebanese history, the thing which has always bewildered politicians:
1. He held opposing views with Berri although the latter is famous for his status in the internal equation and one pillar of the Shiite community in Lebanon, which gathered over the last two decades a huge popular support for the Syrian tutelage over Lebanon. The debates took place between the two parties ended in reconciliation in Ain Al-Tineh (Berri stronghold) under the auspices of Syrian Speaker Ghazi Kanaan. It should be noted that Sayyed was to replace Speaker Nabih Berri despite his tarnished history.
2. Sayyed’s dispute with MP Sleiman Franjieh was on the backdrop of the General Security and its elements intervention in a disputable Lebanese affairs pertaining to the victims of Ehden massacres (Northern Lebanon) in 1976, which led to the assassination of his father minister Toni Franjieh.
3. Narrowing the path of martyr President Rafic Hariri during his tenure, who also suffered from the intervention of General Security in Lebanon’s politics, leaking and twisting false news that targeted Hariri, his political approach and even his assistants, advisors or any one he knew.
4. Tightening the grip on the late president Elias Hrawi when Jamil was serving in the Directorate of Intelligence, knowing that Hrawi reported him several times to the Syrian leadership and President Hafez Assad to reprimand him, however Assad used to tell Hrawi every time he heard his complaints: Sayyed is an efficient, diligent obedient officers…excuse him he is imbued with overwhelming responsibilities…you cannot do without him.
5. It is being said that Hrawi chose the worst timing to oust Jamil Sayyed from his post that coincided with setting up the available information to detain Samir Geagea for the alleged accusations that he bombed the Church of Saydet Al Najet (Our Lady of Deliverance) in Zouk. Reportedly Assad then told Hrawi “Abou Georges…the guys are taking hold of the most important file in the country…I promise you that we will discuss it when it will all be over.
Sayyed’s fierce battles with media
No journalist who straightforwardly criticized the Lebanese-Syrian security regime could skip from Jamil Sayyed namely Samir Kassir and his wife Gisele Khoury, author Jihad Zeineddine, correspondent in Hayat Raghida Dargham especially when he confiscated her passport in addition to the deportation of New TV anchor Dalia Ahmad from Lebanon.
1. He confiscated the passport of Martyr Samir Kassir after he published an article in "Al-Nahar newspaper” in which he addressed the Lebanese General Sayyed personally, as well as tracking him blatantly and purposely by public security officers to notify his that he is under strict supervision.
2. He filed a suit against the New TV.
3. He launched heated discussions with the most historic and oldest newspaper in Lebanon on its own pages.
4. He confiscated educational books and films as well as disputing with intellects and journalists on this particular subject.
Analyzers confirm that the Syrian support Jamil Sayyed in exchange for his myriad services and blind loyalty to the Syrian administration: There are many rumors about his role in most of the security operations that affected actual opposers and other potential to the Syrian policy in Lebanon.
There is no dim doubt that Jamil provided invaluable services to the Syrian administration in Lebanon, knowing that he did not hide this truth at all or even felt ashamed that his deeds were exposed.But the Syrian administration is notorious for fearing powerful figures therefore it always resorted to twisting their arms to prevent them from crossing the red lines, either by direct threats and humiliations or by imposing alternatives.Surprisingly, the Syrian administration has resorted to help a man such Jamil Sayyed. Most likely the nature of Jamil Sayyed’s post impressed the Syrians, and probably they were well aware of the sensitivity of the General Security Directorate therefore they could not jeopardize their schemes by appointing a normal man. We can full-heartedly admit that Jamil was the most suitable, most effective and most accurate choice and which have turned him into a dire disaster on the Lebanese political life.
It is crystal-clear that Syria manipulated and exploited Jamil in all ways, while he appreciated its acts to cover his hideous features and traits.

Mitchell Assistant in Lebanon to Boost Peace
Naharnet/Frederic Hof, Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs for Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell, arrived in Beirut late Wednesday to promote Middle East peace talks. Hof on Thursday is scheduled to meet with Lebanese government representatives to discuss the "Lebanese perspective and role in securing a comprehensive and lasting peace in the region," U.S. embassy sources told Naharnet. They said Hof's visit comes as part of a regional tour. They did not say which countries he would be visiting. Beirut, 17 Dec 09, 07:39

Syria Separates Warrants Issue from Hariri Visit, Seeks Exit
Naharnet/Syria has separated the issue of warrants against a number of Lebanese officials over a lawsuit filed by Maj. Gen. Jamil Sayyed from a visit to Damascus by Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Sources close to Hariri told daily As-Safir in remarks published Thursday there was "no longer any justification for the postponement of the premier's visit to Damascus." Meanwhile, OTV said Hariri tried to postpone his trip pending a settlement to the warrants' issue. It said Hariri has asked Saudi's and Turkey's mediation in this respect. Syria was reportedly seeking an exit strategy from the warrants' crisis. Beirut, 17 Dec 09, 10:55

Aoun: U.S. Policy Sacrificed Lebanon Many Times
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun on Wednesday said that the policy of the United States has sacrificed Lebanon many times throughout history.
"We are not against it, but it is against us through supporting Israel and the naturalization of Palestinians," added Aoun about U.S. policy in an interview on OTV network. Aoun stressed that "the U.S. administration is interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs," and asked if it cares about Lebanon or if it knows the result of naturalizing the Palestinians on its soil. On the other hand, FPM leader said that he did not notice any Syrian dismay at President Michel Suleiman regarding his recent visit to Washington. "The presidency position has the authority to represent Lebanon in foreign politics, and he (the president) is free. When he makes a mistake, then he can be criticized, but we cannot limit his freedom. If the situation with the U.S. has reached a vague condition, then how can he understand its policy toward us except by visiting Washington," added Aoun. Regarding the relation with Syria, Aoun said that Lebanon's relation with its neighbor should be characterized by good neighborhood terms, given the bonds of blood and history with Syria, which are not "hidden matters."Aoun commented on Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel's latest interview in As Sayad weekly by saying: "How can he solve the issue of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon through positive neutralism?" Beirut, 16 Dec 09, 22:39

Gemayel: What's the Use of Dialogue Table as Hizbullah Considers Its Arms Eternal?
Naharnet/Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel stressed that after the withdrawal of Israel from the South in the year 2000, the resistance lost its reason to persist.
"What's the use of the dialogue table as long as Hizbullah considers its arms eternal?" asked Gemayel in an interview with As Sayad weekly published Thursday.
Gemayel added that Hizbullah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah hinted in his most recent speech at connecting war in Lebanon to the liberation movements of the world.
"The salvation of Lebanon lies in endorsing positive neutralism," described Gemayel his vision for Lebanon's role in the region and the world. On the other hand, Gemayel considered the new government's resolutions as "suspended in advance as long as they are conditioned by consensus."Gemayel expressed his worrying about the future in shadow of "fragile settlements," and the absence of "real understanding about the means of building the State and restoring the sovereign resolutions by the legitimate institutions." Beirut, 16 Dec 09, 20:45

Suleiman Returns from Washington, Says Lebanon 'Voice of Arabs' in Security Council
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman on Wednesday returned to Beirut, concluding a visit to Washington where he met with U.S. President Barack Obama and top officials.
Suleiman stressed that Lebanon will be the voice of Arabs and the voice of human right as a member of the U.N. Security Council. He was speaking during receiving the Arab ambassadors in the U.S. capital. The president asked Obama and the U.S. officials to supply Lebanon with modern and advanced weapons in order to enable it of defending its southern borders as well as of facing terrorism. Suleiman stressed that he informed the U.S. officials about the importance of giving the Palestinian refugees their rights, topped by the "right of return."
On the other hand, Suleiman said that the issue of Hizbullah's arms was a topic to be tackled by the national dialogue table in a way that preserves the interest of Lebanon.
The president also discussed, prior to his return to Beirut, the situation in the region with U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell. Furthermore, Suleiman discussed the efforts of combating terrorism with U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones before concluding his visit to Washington by meeting with Lebanon's Ambassador to U.S. Antoine Shdeed and the embassy's personnel. Beirut, 16 Dec 09, 18:48

LAF still re-demarcating Blue Line
/Daily Star staff/Thursday, December 17, 2009
BEIRUT: The technical committee of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) continued to re-demarcate the Blue Line on Tuesday, according to a statement issued by the LAF. The statement said that the committee pursued its work with the collaboration of the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and measured five points situated on the third part of the Blue Line facing the village of Aytaroun. It added that the differences in measurements were within the limits and that the new points would be confirmed. – The Daily Star

9/11: Repercussions and Realignment, Part 1 Alon Ben-Meir
15 Dec 2009
Recently I was asked by some colleagues at the International Strategic Research Organization in Ankara, Turkey to write a chapter of book they are publishing on the "Middle East after 9/11."* As many of you know, I am very supportive of Turkey's increasing involvement in the development of the Middle East, and I agreed to give my perspective on the seismic shift and its many repercussions that the events of September 11th had on the greater Middle East. Today, more than eight years have gone by since the economic and political hallmarks of United States were attacked by a rogue terrorist group, and the world is still coming to terms with how to effectively deal with terrorism born out of religious fanaticism and a discord between East and West that has been simmering since the Cold War. As the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have proved, the brawn or logic of the US and its allies alone will not suffice to create stability in the Middle East. To this effect, a careful cultural and psychological reading of what has moved the Middle East in the past eight years is critical to understanding the crossroads we are at today. With permission from ISRO, I will be releasing sections of the chapter over the next few weeks, covering Afghanistan, Iraq, Israeli-Palestinian territory, Turkey, and starting with Iran, whose political and nuclear agenda is of paramount importance to the security of the region in the decade to come.
9/11: REPERCUSSIONS AND REALIGNMENT
September 11th was nothing less than transformational in its implications, changing, perhaps permanently, the global alignments and America's relationship with the international community. The significance of 9/11 might be even greater in dimension than the collapse of the Soviet Union, in that it has brought to the forefront the huge gulf between East and West, substituting ideological differences with religious conviction. Whereas Communism as an ideology gave in to Capitalism by virtue of the demonstrable success of the latter, the differences between Western Christian secularism and Islamic orthodoxy will not be reconcilable by material means. 9/11 brought to the surface generations' old simmering resentment that many Muslim people felt toward the West. What was needed but tragically missing during the eight years of the Bush administration was a focused effort to understand the conflicting cultural and political nature of East-West relations. Yet in the wake of the largest attack on American soil, the US reverted to a doctrine of unilateralism and the use of brutal force.
These eight years following 9/11 created a void of international consensus and moral leadership, making President Obama's platform of multilateralism and dialogue so critical. Since taking office in January, the president has committed to withdraw American troops from Iraq, engage Iran directly, resume the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and restore relations with the Arab and Muslim world based on mutual respect and dialogue. While these tasks will be undeniably challenging, for the first time since September 11th the world is looking again to America for leadership and cooperation. President Obama's pledges for nuclear disarmament, overt concern with human rights abuses, and his determination to close Guantanamo and deal with environmental abuses all come as harbingers of hope for how to deal with the problems of today. In figuring out the way forward with a new US administration, it is necessary to look back at how the crises of today have manifested over the past eight years. The prospect of effecting a positive change, or even providing a solution to some of the intractable issues based on the Obama doctrine of constructive and mutually gainful engagement will need a sober assessment of what is happening on the ground.
PART 1: Iran after September 11th
In the wake on 9/11, no single country has used the changing regional circumstances for its own benefit more than Iran. After years of American dual containment between Iraq and Iran in the nineties, the subsequent invasion of Iraq played directly into the hands of the Shiite Iranian clergy. It is doubtful that any of the policy planners under President Bush could have contemplated to what extent the regional implications of the Afghan and Iraq wars would affect Iran's push for regional hegemony.
It is difficult to fully contextualize the unfolding of events between the US and Iran in the framework of post 9\11, as the history between these two nations is both extensive and complex. There is not a single country or combination of countries that Iran fears more than the United States. Tehran's concerns with the United States can be traced back to the 1953 when the CIA played an instrumental role in the coup d'etat of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in collusion with the Shah, who was largely detested by the Iranian masses. A series of tumultuous events following the overthrow of the Shah and the Islamic Revolution of 1979 strained relations between Tehran and Washington, and the Iranian clergy has been suspicious of US intentions since. In the eighties, bitterness over US support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war came to a brief thaw during the Iran Contra Affair-when senior Reagan administration officials indirectly sold arms to Iran through Israel-but returned in full force when the US Navy shot down an Iranian civilian plane killing 290 passengers.
The list of mutual grievances between the US and Iran is too long to numerate, and includes repeated attempts by both governments to sabotage each others' interests. Although cooperation undoubtedly would have served the national interest of both countries; neither side has been able to overcome a deep sense of animosity, preventing any kind of sustained or constructive dialogue. After 9/11, Iranian President Khatami surprised many by condemning the attacks on US soil and the spread of terrorism, offering his sympathy to the victims. This, coupled with the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, provided the Bush administration a narrow window of opportunity to alter the relations with Tehran, but the Bush White House made it clear that engagement was not on the new US agenda.
At the turn of the century, Iran was exceedingly concerned with the rise of the extremist Sunni Taliban state to the east, and welcomed the opportunity to topple such a government. Notwithstanding its enmity to the US, for its own national interests Iran provided the US with intelligence and worked to prevent the smuggling of weapons and materials to the Taliban and al Qaeda. This strategic change of heart however, failed to alter the Bush administration's policy toward Iran. Instead, shortly thereafter in January of 2002, President Bush used his State of the Union Address to publicly condemn Iran, Iraq and North Korea, declaring that: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." The Iranians, who have historically had serious misgivings about American intentions, felt directly threatened and insulted by President Bush's affront. The clergy then felt vindicated by their rejectionist policies toward the US, and continued to undermine US efforts throughout the region.
Not only did the Bush administration forsake another opportunity to mend relations with Iran; but this new approach represented a point of departure, from containment to active opposition-the ramifications of which became known only after the invasion of Iraq. President Bush's refusal to engage Iran directly, combined with Tehran's fear that its regime would be the next target following Iraq, resulted in an Iranian regime determined to counter any American interests in the region. As this schism widened, Iran worked fervently to upgrade its trade relations and alliances with partners such as Russia, China, Turkey, and Syria.
An integral part of Iran's greater regional strategy is based on the destabilization of Israel and the Arab-Israeli peace process. Ayatollah Khomenei once declared Israel an "enemy of Islam," and his predecessor Khamenei followed in suite, stating that "Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon [Israel]. We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." To this effect, Iran has spent much of the past decade expanding military and financial aid to both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, namely in Gaza. Iran has supplied short and intermediate range rockets to these two fundamentalist groups, introducing a new and far-reaching dimension to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both Hezbollah and Hamas have been emboldened by the Iranian courtship and support, and have waged active campaigns challenging Israel's occupation while destabilizing the region. The net result of Iran's determination to establish its foothold on the Mediterranean by instigating Hamas and Hezbollah helped facilitate two wars; the first in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, and then the major incursion of Israeli forces into Gaza to defeat Hamas in 2008. While the violence between Israel and these groups has dramatically receded since the start of the Obama administration, it is hard to gauge how Hamas and Hezbollah will behave in future conflagrations if Israel acts militarily against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Although Iran has made a continuous effort to undermine Israel through its proxies in Hezbollah, Hamas and other extremist groups like Islamic Jihad, Iran has also challenged Israel directly. On numerous occasions, Iran's president Ahmedinejad has threatened Israel's existence, denied the Holocaust, and systematically tried to persuade the Arab states from normalizing relations with Israel. Moreover, Iran has made the plight of the Palestinians its own cause, and insidiously attempted to perpetuate the violence between Israel and the Palestinians. Its tactic of pitting parties against each other to enhance its own dominance in the region has seen a fair amount of success. By providing money and training, Iran and its Revolutionary Guards became one of the main players behind the second Intifada (the Palestinian uprising between 2000 and 2005) that resulted in the death of more than a thousand Israelis and twice as many Palestinians. To be sure, the Iranian leadership remains committed to Israel's downfall and continues to pursue policies with this objective in mind.
Iranian-Syrian relations have been expanding for the past two decades, yet in the years since 9/11, the alliance became a deep and vested partnership. Unlike most of the Sunni Arab states that have serious trepidations about Iran, Syria has become a strategic partner and beneficiary of Iran. After negotiations with Israel collapsed in the nineties under the guise of President Clinton's Middle East team, President Bush labeled Syria a sponsor of terror and refused any form of engagement, making Iran a convenient ally. Many scholars continue to debate whether the Damascus-Tehran axis is tactical or strategic, perhaps resulting from the enmity the Bush administration displayed against both nations. Regardless, however, of the exact nature of the relationship, Damascus continues to act as a conduit for Iran to strengthen its foothold in Lebanon through Hezbollah, while also supporting Hamas' militancy in the Palestinian territories. Now that the Obama administration is in direct negotiations with Syria, Bashar Al-Assad may show an increased level of cooperation with the US, especially if he feels this can lead to discussions with Israel over the Golan Heights. While Assad maintains that Syria's relationship with Iran would not be jeopardized by a peace deal with the US or Israel, any deal with the US would lessen Syria's dependence on Iran for economic and military support.
Russia's relations with Iran also assumed a new dimension in the wake of September 11th. Russia, who is still smarting from the loss of the Soviet Empire, wasted no time to capitalize on the growing rift between the US and Iran and pushed further to expand its relations with Iran on several fronts, including trade, military sales, oil and gas explorations, and above all building nuclear plants while providing nuclear training to Iranian scientists. For Iran, courting Russia and establishing lucrative business relations has an additional strategic importance. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, Russia has provided Iran with political protection against tough sanctions and international pressure to halt its enrichment of Uranium. On more than three occasions, Russia managed to mitigate UN sanctions against Iran, thereby allowing Tehran to expand its nuclear program with impunity.
Iran has also fostered extensive trade relations with China, including tens of billions of dollars in contracts, especially in the gas and oil sectors. The expanded relations between the two countries and China's growing dependency on Iran as an energy supplier provides Iran with yet another layer of protection against international sanctions, especially since China, too, is a permanent member of the UNSC.
Iran has moved aggressively to further improve its relations in the immediate neighborhood. Here too, Iran has capitalized on its important partnership with Turkey, which is largely based on mutuality of interest in the energy area as well as their mutual interests in northern Iraq where they share a border. This relationship has flourished, in spite of Turkey's trepidations about Iran's nuclear program. For Tehran, forging a friendship with Turkey as a NATO member was critical in and of itself, as Iran is determined to ally itself with powerful nations in the East.
Throughout the tenure of the Bush administration, Iran wasted no time making several strategic moves to advance its regional ambitions by speeding up its nuclear program. In 2002, after it was discovered that Iran had secretly been developing a nuclear program in Natanz and Arak for the previous 18 years, Tehran moved pointedly to accelerate the enrichment of uranium. Iran has more than doubled its centrifuges every year through the use of its nuclear facility in Natanz, reaching a total number of 7,000 by September of 2009 and accumulating nearly 1,500 kilograms of low grade enriched uranium. This is enough, once further enriched to weapons grade, to make at least one nuclear weapon. Iran has further built several other nuclear plants dispersed throughout its countryside; most recently it was revealed that Iran built another secret plant near the city of Qom. Beyond that, Iran has continued to recruit Russian scientists to work on its nuclear weapons program, assuring that Tehran is bent on advancing its capacity for nuclear development. Iran is clearly committed to maintaining a uranium enrichment program on its soil, yet whether the international community will arrive at a consensus on this issue remains to be seen.
The recent alacrity around Iran's nuclear weaponization efforts has created a shared sense of urgency throughout the West. As a campaign promise, candidate Obama reassured his electorate that the US would open up to Iran diplomatically, while keeping a military option in tow. As President, Obama followed this momentum in his address to Cairo, declaring that, "It is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arm race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path."
The negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 may yield few results, and any agreement for Russia to enrich Iran's nuclear material could potentially fall through. The effect that additional sanctions might have on Iran will depend largely on Russia and China's support and enforcement. To this end, President Obama has worked to appease both nations, by scrapping US plans for a nuclear defense shield in Poland and easing up on demands for China to deal with the issue of Tibet. Meanwhile, as Israel feels directly threatened by Iran's nuclear program, it is carefully watching and weighing every turn that these developments take and will act based strictly on its national security concerns, including the option of striking Iran's nuclear plants.
To be sure, the Bush administration's post-9/11 doctrine and the two wars that followed in Afghanistan and Iraq placed Iran in the center of any future development in the Middle East. Whether this will lead to a new conflagration of terrible magnitude, or a new regional security arrangement and even peace, remains to be seen. Certainly President Obama's policy of engagement will be put to a real test.
*Sedat Laciner - Arzu Celalifer Ekinci (eds.), /11 Eylul Sonrasi Ortadogu/, (Ankara: USAK Yayinlari, 2009)

Hizbullah's arms hamper sovereignty - Saudi FM
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Thursday, December 17, 2009
RIYADH: Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said Lebanon would be denied true sovereignty as long as Shiite group Hizbullah “owns more arms than the military forces of the country.” The minister had accused Hizbullah of sparking the summer 2006 war with Israel, and described the party as “a bunch of adventurers.” In an interview with the International Herald Tribune published Wednesday, he added he was “suspicious” of Iranian claims that its nuclear program is peaceful, and that Tehran should never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, the IHT reported. Many Western states accuse Iran of trying to obtain nuclear arms, a charge it vehemently denies, saying its program is for peaceful energy purposes. The Saudi prince said Israel should also give up its nuclear arsenal, the existence of which it neither confirms nor denies. Separately, the prince said that US backing for Israel gave Tel Aviv the option of not making peace. “Absolute US backing … has made Israel see the option of living in the area without the acceptance of the people of the area,” Prince Faisal was quoted as saying in the IHT. “This has led to many years of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” The prince also lamented the failure of his efforts to establish a Palestinian state and regional peace during his almost 35 years as foreign minister. During this period, “we have seen only moments of crisis, we have seen only moments of conflict,” Prince Faisal said.
“And how can you have any pleasure in anything that happens when you have people like the Palestinians living as they are?” he asked. “Peace until now is like holding water or sand in your hand. You see the amount of water, you think you can hold something, but it falls away. Sand is the same thing. “So unless there is something to hold in your hand and to point to as a success and as an achievement, you have done nothing.” – AFP

Tribunal will be forced to run at 20 percent of estimated budget
United states has made $6 million pledge towards 2010 funding
By Michael Bluhm
Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 17, 2009
BEIRUT: The Special Tribunal for Lebanon will operate in 2010 with a $55.35-million budget, a figure almost 20 percent lower than an estimate provided in May by the tribunal’s chief executive at the time. Former tribunal registrar Robin Vincent told The Daily Star on May 26 that he was projecting budgets of $65 million for the tribunal in 2010 and 2011.
The tribunal was officially established on March 1 to try suspects in the February 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and other political violence, although investigators have been looking into Hariri’s killing since 2005 without presenting any indictments.
The tribunal’s management committee, consisting largely of representatives of those states which contribute to the court’s funding, approved the 2010 budget on December 9, said tribunal registrar David Tolbert. Bilateral agreements require Lebanon to provide 49 percent of the court’s funding for 2010 and 2011.
Vincent’s $65-million figure represented “just general estimates for overall planning,” said Peter Foster, the tribunal’s chief of public affairs and outreach. A September 2007 report to the UN Security Council from the office of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon forecast a budget of $40 million for the tribunal’s second year of operations, Foster added.
“Obviously, as with any estimation, the figures were bound to change once the [tribunal] organs were all fully operational and ready to provide a more detailed outline of how they see their work progressing during the year,” Foster said.
“The $55.35-million budget falls right in the middle of the previous estimate ranges and will provide the [tribunal] with the resources it needs to conduct its work using the highest standards of international justice,” he added.
Foster and Tolbert refused to provide any figures regarding contributions to the court’s 2010 funding, but officials have previously declared more than $10 million in pledges, led by a $6-million pledge by the US.
“We are now in the process of informing states of the budget’s approval, as well as appealing to them for support funds,” Tolbert said. “This is an ongoing process. However, we are confident that the funds required will be committed during the course of the year.” Tribunal deputy registrar Herman von Hebel has said that the financial condition of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is “much sounder” than during his tenures at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
The largest share of tribunal finances will go toward personnel, Tolbert said, adding that his priority would be in hiring staff for the continuing investigation, led by prosecutor Daniel Bellemare. The court has more than 200 employees, the registrar said.
The tribunal is also paying for the renovation of its building in a suburb of Holland’s The Hague in order to construct a courtroom and holding area for potential defendants. The courtroom should be completed before April next year, although the tribunal can provide temporary trial facilities if needed, Tolbert said.
Hariri’s February 14, 2005 assassination led to the exit of Syrian troops from Lebanon after 29 years, and the tribunal became one of the key issues polarizing Lebanon’s anti-Syrian March 14 and Syrian-backed March 8 political camps. March 14 figures have accused Damascus in Hariri’s killing and for the string of assassinations and attempted assassinations which continued to bedevil the country, while the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad has denied any role in the violence and has said it will not allow its citizens to appear before the tribunal.
Insiders in the international justice community have said that any potential verdicts remain years away. Anyone indicted by the tribunal, regardless of nationality, will certainly raise legal challenges to the tribunal’s legitimacy in advance of any potential trials, lawyers have said.
Defendants will question the circumstances of the tribunal’s founding, the Security Council’s authority connected with court and the Lebanese Parliament’s failure to approve the bilateral treaty establishing the tribunal, the legal insiders added.

Losing Lebanon
By BENNY AVNI
December 17, 2009
The Obama administration is effectively siding with America's enemies in Lebanon.
Sure, President Obama said all the right things after his Monday meet-and-greet with Lebanese President Michel Suleiman. But Suleiman is aligned with Syria -- and thus, by proxy, with Iran and the Hezbollah terrorists.
Hezbollah, recall, is responsible for killing 220 US Marines in 1993 and for the murder of scores of innocents in places as far as Argentina.
Meanwhile, the administration in the last few months has told the heads of the Western-allied Lebanese factions -- who used to visit Washington to discuss ways to confront Iran, Syria and Hezbollah -- not to bother, because no one would see them.
Suleiman: Pal of US enemies met with prez.
Sure, Obama noted Monday that "President Suleiman and I aren't going to agree on every issue with respect to how Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinians, Syria, are interacting." He also called for an end to arms smuggling to Hezbollah and repeatedly called Lebanon's place in the region "critical."
But simply by holding the meeting -- when he has yet to schedule one with Lebanon's pro-Western prime minister, Saad Hariri -- Obama was sending a message about who America sees as important.
The Suleiman visit comes after years when the White House avoided hosting any Lebanese officials. The invitation was extended months ago as part of Obama's signal to the region that President George W. Bush's go-it-alone era is being replaced by "engagement."
Note, too, that the visit came soon after the Beirut Cabinet gave its seal of approval for Hezbollah to keep its vast arsenal: On Dec. 2, the government declared that the southern Lebanon-based "resistance" organization (which is only second to al Qaeda on America's list of terrorist groups) can remain armed to the teeth, so it can "liberate" Lebanese lands from Israeli control.
Never mind that Hezbollah remains an illegally armed militia: The accords that ended the Israel-Hezbollah war were supposed to strengthen existing UN Security Council demands to disarm the terror group. (Ironically, law-breaking Lebanon will join the council Jan. 1.)
The Bush administration may have turned its back on Lebanon after initially supporting its attempt to become independent and democratic. But at least it always made clear to everyone in the region where it stood and what were its aims. The Obama team, by contrast, let the Lebanese president come calling shortly after the Lebanese government publicly thumbed its nose at what officially remains US policy.
And what tops Suleiman's shopping list? He wants Washington to increase military aid to his country. I'm told he might even get some -- if not the helicopters or fighter jets that he really wants.
Meanwhile, we're fast losing Lebanon. With Washington AWOL, the people who bravely shook off the Syrian occupation during the mid-decade Cedar Revolution have now fallen prey to Syrian and Iranian influence. The Shiite Hezbollah dominates the nation's politics.
Last month, as Hezbollah gathered for its yearly general conference, its activists spewed the usual anti-US and anti-Israeli hatred, but also put on a show of independence from Iran. Western analysts bought it -- dutifully reporting that Hezbollah is now completely "Lebanonized."
The reality is exactly the opposite: As Shimon Shapira of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs notes, Lebanon is now more "Hezbollahized" than ever.
Iran is laying low for now, keeping its ties to Hezbollah behind the scenes, but Tehran is still the puppet master. It's smuggling advanced missiles and other hardware to Lebanon, arming Hezbollah to the teeth and waiting for the right time to unleash its proxy army against Israel.
Nor has Hezbollah dismantled its worldwide terror organization that could strike anytime -- again at Iran's command -- from bases in Latin America and elsewhere.
America, therefore, should reject any Lebanese Army request for arms. In Lebanon's current reality, it's as good as sending arms to Hezbollah.
Most important, the administration should end its neglect of Lebanon. The country is fast reverting to its '70s role as a favorite base for terrorists affiliated with some of our worst enemies -- but today's terrorists can do far more harm.
Further negligence could see the Land of Cedars go the way Afghanistan went after the victory over the Soviet invaders. And we all remember how badly that turned out for us.
beavni@gmail.com
Have a comment on this PostOpinion column? Send it in to LETTERS@NYPOST.COM!

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 18/09