LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
June 30/09
Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 16:13-19.
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples,
"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the
Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said
to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the
Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are
you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but
my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against
it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on
earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven."
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special
Reports
Violence in Iran: What the West
Needs to Know. By Lt. Col. W. Thomas Smith Jr. 29/06/09
For Hariri to be successful, all he
needs is enough time and a good vision.
The Daily Star 29/06/09
Will Obama bow to Syria, too?.By:
By Pamela Geller/WND.com
29/06/09
Did anyone notice Mossad's new
outlook on an Iran bomb?
By Yossi Melman
29/06/09
The smoking gun is Iran's voting process.By
Michael Meyer-Resende and Mirjam Kunkler 29/06/09
Analysis: Syria's goose lays a golden egg-By:
Jonathan Spyer/Jerusalem
Post 29/06/09
What If Obama Did Want to Help Iran's Democrats?By:
By GABRIEL SCHOENFELD
Wall Street Journal 29/06/09
Latest
News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June
29/09
1 Killed, 6 Wounded in Beirut
Fighting Amidst Worrisome Report on Presence of Masked Gunmen-Naharnet
1 killed as rivals trade gunfire in Beirut-Washington
Post
Houri: militias cited a bloody
example in Aisha Bakkar/NNA
Opposition Media: This is What Saudi Requested and So Replied Damascus-Naharnet
Partnership, key to solution/Future
News
Facilitating cabinet formation
acknowledges elections results/Future
News
Sleiman: For a national unity
government-Future News
Hariri will not back away from
forming a new government -Future News
Souaid: state and illegitimate arms
cannot coincide-Future News
Mashnouk: To suspend consultations
until militias’ issues resolved-Future News
Militiamen attack a colleague in
almustaqbal.org-Future News
Baroud: The Lebanese Army, Attorney
General are looking into yesterday’s incident/Future News
Mitri: would the campaign against
El-Maleh escalate tension with Israel-Future News
Hariri
Hits Obstacles Ahead of Government Formation-Naharnet
Inter-Christian Reconciliation Moving Slowly-Naharnet
Raad: We Will Meet Every
Positive Step Towards National Consensus with 3-Naharnet
Hariri Ends Tour of Ex-PMs
With Call for End to Internal Divisions-Naharnet
Fears Iran will use Hezbollah to hit back-Brisbane
Times
'This is a sea change in Iran'-Atlanta
Journal
Iran detains staff from British
Embassy, blames mission for crisis-Star
Staff
Hariri to start consultations on
makeup of next cabinet-Daily
Star
Jumblatt vows to thwart efforts to
'privatize'-Daily
Star
LF MP says dialogue key part of
state-building-Daily
Star
Sfeir welcomes Hariri's appointment
as premier-Daily Star
Army tells citizens to ignore phone
calls from Israel-Daily
Star
Israel to leave Shebaa after peace
deal - UN envoy-Daily
Star
Justice minister signs MoU with
international tribunal-Daily
Star
Lebanon sees 28 percent rise in
government revenues-By
Regional Press Network (RPN)
World Bank lowers Lebanon growth forecast to 2.5
percent-Star Staff
Fire breaks out in forests near Batroun-Daily
Star
French comic Elmaleh scraps Beiteddine gig-Daily
Star
Five Arab figures receive AUB
honorary degrees-Daily
Star
Jackson fans stage mass 'moonwalk' in Gemmayzeh-Daily
Star
AUB graduates gripped by doubt amid
global economic downturn-Daily
Star
Sarkozy offered to recruit Syria, Qatar
to Shalit efforts-Ha'aretz
Aoun: We asked for partnership in
cabinet based on bloc sizes-Now Lebanon
Sakr: We want one group to govern,
another to oppose so we know where problems come from-Now Lebanon
Raad: Cabinet’s priority should be
how to face Israel-Now Lebanon
1 killed as rivals trade gunfire in Beirut
By HUSSEIN DAKROUB/The Associated Press
Sunday, June 28, 2009; 3:43 PM
BEIRUT -- Sunni supporters of Lebanon's prime minister-designate and Shiite
rivals from the parliament speaker's political faction traded gunfire in a
Beirut neighborhood Sunday. Security officials said one civilian was killed and
two others were wounded in the first outbreak of violence since this month's
elections. Automatic rifle fire and three explosions were heard in the brief
gunbattle that underlined the continued sectarian tensions despite recent
pledges by political leaders to work together. Those pledges followed a bruising
election campaign.
Hours earlier, the Western-backed billionaire who is to become the country's
next prime minister, Saad Hariri, was holding talks with his predecessors as
part of the delicate process of forming a government that can unify the deeply
divided country. Lebanese troops cordoned off the Aisha Bakkar neighborhood in
the capital's Muslim sector and deployed in force to restore calm Sunday
evening, security officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not
authorized to speak to the media. They said the dead victim was a 30-year-old
woman shot outside her home. The fighting was between supporters of Hariri, a
Sunni who leads the parliamentary majority, and rival followers of the
Hezbollah-allied Shiite parliament speaker Nabih Berri.
In May 2008, heavy clashes erupted between the same rival factions. Hezbollah
along with Berri's Amal movement later swept through Sunni neighborhoods to
briefly seize control. A political agreement that called for a national unity
government and the June 7 parliamentary elections restored peace for about a
year. Hariri was named Saturday by Lebanon's president to become the next prime
minister after his pro-Western coalition defeated a Hezbollah-backed alliance in
the election. All major factions have since pledged to turn a new page.
Sunday's gunfight is not expected to derail the reconciliation efforts, but it
showed once again how tensions could quickly spill over onto the streets. It was
not clear what sparked the gunfight Sunday, but tension has built up in that
neighborhood since Saturday's celebrations by Hariri's supporters, who set off
fireworks upon the announcement that he was named as prime minister. Among the
challenges facing Hariri is the opposition's possible demand for veto power in
the government - something the pro-Western majority has vowed not to give to the
militant group Hezbollah and its allies. Hezbollah and its political partners
negotiated veto power after Shiite gunmen overran Sunni neighborhoods in Beirut
and forced the government's hand in the May 2008 fighting. The veto power has
virtually paralyzed the government but ensured a year of relative calm.
Houri: militias cited a bloody
example in Aisha Bakkar
Date: June 29th, 2009 Source: NNA /Ammar Houri of the Almustaqbal and Lebanon
First parliamentary blocs said Monday the militias had resorted to violence on
Sunday in order to do what it was in what it was incapable of doing through
elections. “The remaining militias tried to impose through arms what it could
not impose through democracy when they attacked peaceful citizens in Aisha
Bakkar neighborhood,” Houri told the Voice of Lebanon radio.Houri was referring
to the violent armed clashes that erupted on Sunday in Aisha Bakkar neighborhood
in West Beirut when Amal movement militia men attacked Almustaqbal Movement
supporters who were celebrating the designation of their leader MP Saad Hariri
as premier. He described yesterday’s incidents as “the worst bloody incidents
since May 7, 2008.” He was recalling the May 7, 2008 incidents that erupted when
March 8 militia attacked several Lebanese areas that support the Almustaqbal
movement and Progressive Socialist Party. “It is no more acceptable to continue
with covering the illegitimate arms that keep on offending and attacking unarmed
citizens,’ he added.
Mashnouk: To suspend consultations until militias’ issues resolved
Date: June 29th, 2009 Source: Annahar-Al Sharq Al Awsat
MP Nohad El Mashnouk called on designated Prime Minister Saad Hariri to suspend
consultations over the government composition until a solution is found for the
militias in Beirut.
Mashnouk also urged President Michel Sleiman to hold a meeting for the Defense
Higher Council in order to take the necessary decisions. In a statement he
issued yesterday after the armed conflict that occurred in Beirut resulting in
the death of a woman and several wounded. “The painful incidents that occurred
the past two days made a return to the militias’ logic to take over the people’s
lives and the political life in Lebanon,” added Mashnouk who was elected on June
7 for the Sunni seat of Beirut’s second district. Mashnouk, member of the
Almustaqbal Movement that achieved an electoral victory along with its allies in
the March 14 coalition by winning 71 seats out of 128, considered that these
incidents aim at canceling the elections results which is a policy related to
the veto power at the government asked for by the opposition. The Beiruti MP
called on the parliamentary representative of Beirut to hold a meeting to adopt
the statement he issued and to announce the capital a safe place. He also
asserted that the effect of the Doha agreement had ended with the parliamentary
elections thus veto power that was granted to the March 8 opposition camp is not
valid anymore.
Mitri: would the campaign against El-Maleh escalate tension
with Israel
Date: June 29th, 2009 /Future News
Information Minister Tarek Mitri asked on Monday whether the campaign launched
against Gad El-Maleh that obliged him to cancel his concerts in Beiteddine
festivals would escalate the confrontational level between Lebanon and Israel,
and wondered how its impact would affect Lebanon’s image and interests. He said
that Lebanese people should abide by the obligation of boycotting Israel in all
ways and means. “That explains the campaign launched by many citizens, as well
as audio-visual Media, against eminent French-Moroccan stand-up comedian, Gad
El-Maleh,” Mitri argued. The case came to light this week when Web sites and
Lebanese media, including the TV channel of Hizbullah, “Al Manar”, presented El-Maleh,
of Moroccan origin and of Jewish faith, as a former Israeli soldier. French
stand-up comedian Gad El-Maleh announced Saturday that he had cancelled his
Beiteddine Festival performances scheduled for July 13, 14 and 15. El-Maleh said
his decision was due to "aggressive stances," which opposed his participation,
and "out of concern for his personal security and that of the Beiteddine
festival." Hizbullah's Al-Manar television and other pro-opposition media
outlets reported last week that Moroccan-Jewish stand-up comedian El-Maleh was
“pro-Israeli and served in Israel's army.”The organizing committee of the
Beiteddine Festival dismissed the reports. El-Maleh particularly denied that he
belonged to the Israeli army. The French singer Patrick Bruel had to cancel
concerts in Lebanon in the 1990s for his support for Israel.
Opposition Media: This is What Saudi Requested and So Replied Damascus
Naharnet/High-ranking diplomatic sources said Damascus and Riyadh exchanged a
basket of demands during talks between Saudi envoy Prince Abdul Aziz, King
Abdullah's son, and Syrian officials last Wednesday. The daily Al Akhbar said
the Saudi prince carried with him 4 demands -- end to armed Palestinian presence
outside refugee camps, demarcation of Lebanon-Syria border and Shebaa Farms,
Pressure on the Opposition to make it abandon its veto power demand and
elimination of the higher Lebanese-Syrian Council.
Syria's response was as follows, according to Al Akhbar: Palestinian arms
outside refugee camps are not Syrian weapons. It called on the Lebanese
government to hold talks with the concerned Palestinian factions to put an end
to this issue, stressing that this is a Lebanese-Palestinian issue and Syria has
nothing to do with it. It said Damascus expressed willingness to resolve the
border issue after the demarcation of Shebaa Farms "so the Jewish State will not
benefit." Regarding veto power, Syria insisted this is a Lebanese issue. On
demands for the elimination of the Higher Lebanese-Syrian Council, Damascus saw
no sense in canceling it before a "healthy" naturalization takes place between
the two countries. Beirut, 29 Jun 09, 11:04
Hariri Hits Obstacles Ahead of Government Formation
Naharnet/Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri on Monday kicked off consultations
on the formation of a new government as reports revealed obstacles facing the
Cabinet's composition, particularly with regards to veto power and proportional
representation. Hariri began his consultations by meeting Speaker Nabih Berri in
Parliament. The daily An Nahar quoted well-informed sources as saying that the
Opposition demand for veto power has not yet been "clearly articulated."The veto
power demand, however, does not imply that this proposal would not surface in a
"coordinated manner" during Monday's consolations, the daily added. Pan-Arab al-Hayat
newspaper, for its part, said the Opposition has not publicly made its demand,
while insisting on a national government. As contacts were still ongoing between
Qoreitem, Ain el-Tineh and Hizbullah, al-Liwaa daily quoted a Hizbullah source
as not ruling out another meeting between Hariri and Hizbullah chief Sayyed
Hassan Nasrallah. The Lebanon dossier was tackled during talks between Saudi
King Abdullah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Jeddah. Egyptian sources
told al-Akhbar daily that the Saudi-Egyptian summit discussed ways to prevent
possible Syrian intervention in the process of government formation.
As Safir newspaper, meanwhile, uncovered that Saudi Information Minister Abdul
Aziz Khoja made a brief visit to Beirut Friday evening. The visit came around 48
hours after a hush-hush trip to Damascus, it said. Beirut, 29 Jun 09, 10:04
1 Killed, 6 Wounded in Beirut Fighting Amidst Worrisome Report on Presence of
Masked Gunmen
Naharnet/A 30-year-old mother was killed and six other people were wounded in
overnight armed clashes in Beirut between supporters of Parliament Speaker Nabih
Berri and Mustaqbal Movement amidst a worrisome report on the presence of masked
gunmen in the streets. The daily An Nahar on Monday said facts showed the
presence of masked gunmen, not only in the neighborhoods where fighting took
place but also in their environs as well as other areas. According to
information obtained by An Nahar, armed groups opened fire and stormed Aisha
Bakkar neighborhood of Beirut around 8 pm Sunday. It said Zeina Miri, 30, was
killed by gunfire as she stood on the balcony of her apartment in Aisha Bakkar.
While some reports said that Miri was killed when gunmen opened fire on the
building, others said she fell victim to a stray bullet. As Safir newspaper, for
its part, said fighting broke out against the backdrop of what appeared to be a
non-politically motivated incident on Saturday that accompanied celebratory
gunfire when Mustaqbal Movement rejoiced Hariri's nomination for the
premiership. Security sources said fighting with automatic weapons and
rocket-propelled grenades erupted in Aisha Bakkar around 8 pm Sunday pitting
supporters of Berri's Amal Movement against Mustaqbal Movement of Prime
Minister-designate Saad Hariri. Clashes quickly spread to reach nearby areas of
Talet Khayyat, Mar Elias, Verdun, Hay el-Lija, Musaitbeh and Khandaq al-Ghamiq
before Lebanese troops stepped in to restore order. The Lebanese military
ordered its forces to open fire on any armed man in the street as troops
deployed en masse to prevent further escalation. Local media on Monday said
Lebanese troops arrested several suspects from both sides in overnight house
raids. They said Lebanese troops managed around 9 p.m. to regain control of the
situation. The fighting comes only a day after al-Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad
Hariri was named as prime minister, with the support of his parliamentary bloc
and Amal. It also followed the re-election of Nabih Berri as Parliament Speaker
on Thursday. March 14 Forces, to which Hariri belongs, clinched 71 of the
128-seat Parliament in general elections on June 7, defeating the Hizbullah-led
Opposition. In May 2008 after several months of political crisis and paralysis
in Lebanon, Hizbullah backed by Amal seized control of mainly Sunni parts of
west Beirut in sectarian clashes that killed more than 100 people. Beirut, 29
Jun 09, 09:03
Inter-Christian Reconciliation Moving Slowly
Naharnet/The Christian-Christian reconciliation is proceeding at a slow pace.
Despite the efforts of religious and non-religious leaders to bring Christian
parties together and find common grounds, the reconciliation is still at a
preliminary stage.
Informed sources told An Nahar daily that discussions have failed to set up a
clear reconciliation agenda and were instead concentrating on national subjects
and post elections phase.
Sources close to Marada movement said secret meetings held between the different
Christian parties before the June parliamentary elections were to ensure the
elections took place peacefully and calmly. "These meeting have succeeded in
maintaining calm among Marada and Lebanese Forces supporters who live in common
villages in north Lebanon," they added.
"The Maronite League has a planned agenda; however, it has not launched a
serious reconciliation yet," the sources added. "The party's (Marada's) priority
is reconciliation among partisans," they said, "conditions for personal
reconciliation will need more time." Informed sources close to the Lebanese
Forces said inter-Christian agreement was a cornerstone as reconciliations
between the Progressive Socialist Party and Mustaqbal movement on one hand and
Amal and Hizbullah on the other were taking place. "We have to overcome our past
and look together at the future," they added. Sources said the LF offered
concessions and was ready to conclude reconciliation prior to elections;
nonetheless, Marada movement leader Suleiman Franjieh wished to take things
slowly. The same sources denied any serious talks on this matter. Some fear
tensions between President Michel Suleiman and MP Franjieh have hindered
reconciliation, a process to take place under the patronage of the head of
state.LF sources said their party was on good terms with MP Michel Aoun; thus,
no reconciliation was required. "Every party has its own projects and visions
and differences can be solved democratically and in a civilized way," they
added. Sources denied any efforts to set up a meeting between Lebanese Forces
leader Samir Geagea and Free Patriotic Movement leader Aoun. Beirut, 29 Jun 09,
11:23
Raad: We Will Meet Every Positive Step Towards National
Consensus with 3
Naharnet/Loyalty to the Resistance bloc leader MP Mohammed Raad said Hizbullah
will meet every positive step towards building the state and achieving national
consensus, with three positive steps. "We will finalize all necessary steps in
order to achieve national consensus at this sensitive time when Lebanon is in
need for a unified stance among its different forces," he said Sunday. The
opposition "demands a national unity government and PM-designate Saad Hariri
said he cared about forming such a cabinet. We are hoping he meets our openness
with a rhetoric similar to ours," Raad said. Raad was commenting on
Hariri's latest speech during a celebration in Nabatiyeh. The Hizbullah MP hoped
his bloc would achieve its goals in cooperation with its allies in the
opposition. Beirut, 29 Jun 09, 09:37
Hariri Ends Tour of Ex-PMs With Call for End to Internal
Divisions
Naharnet/PM-designate Saad Hariri on Sunday wound up a protocol tour of former
prime ministers with a pledge to put an end to inter-Lebanese divisions. "We
should stop divisions and open a new page," Hariri said at the end of his tour
after visiting outgoing Premier Fouad Saniora late afternoon. Hariri kicked off
his tour at midday Sunday with a visit to Gen. Michel Aoun. From there he headed
to meet former PMs Amin Hafez, Rashid Solh, Salim Hoss, Omar Karami and Najib
Miqati.Also on Sunday, Hariri decided not to file lawsuits against insults and
accusations targeting his person or political affiliation. A statement from his
office said Hariri hoped that all those involved will repair the damage and come
together to rebuild national accord. Beirut, 28 Jun 09, 19:25
Fears Iran will use Hezbollah
to hit back
By: Damien McElroy
The Sun-Herald/June 28, 2009
THERE are fears of a new wave of international terrorism provoked by the
reaction to the presidential elections in Iran, after the regime backed an
expansion of the network operated by Lebanon's Hezbollah. The warnings about
global retaliation came after the US President, Barack Obama, and the German
Chancellor, Angela Merkel, held a joint news conference at the White House in
Washington calling for a halt to the Iranian Government's violent crackdown on
demonstrators or face isolation.
Mr Obama said: "A government that treats its own citizens with that kind of
ruthlessness and violence and that cannot deal with peaceful protesters who are
trying to have their voices heard in an equally peaceful way I think has moved
outside of universal norms." Since the elections, Iran's leaders have criticised
the West, blaming British and other foreign agents for inciting demonstrations,
after presidential candidates accused officials of rigging the election.
Intelligence experts have warned that, rather than merely seeking to distract
attention from its domestic turmoil with rhetoric, Iran will seek "retaliation"
beyond its borders. "Hezbollah has stretched, facilitated by Iran, across the
Middle East, Central Asia, Europe and Latin America," said Magnus Ranstorp, a
terrorism expert at Sweden's National Defence University. "Hezbollah has become
more susceptible to Iran's efforts to project its influence."
Intelligence experts believe that Germany, where Hezbollah has about 900
operatives, is the most vulnerable location in Europe. "Hezbollah is capable of
striking in Germany or planning an incident, like the al-Qaeda cell in Hamburg
that planned the attack on New York," said Alexander Ritzmann, a fellow at the
European Centre for Democracy.
Hezbollah says it is a Lebanese political party, although it acknowledges that
it maintains an arsenal of weapons as "resistance" against Israel. In recent
months it has been implicated in weapons smuggling, assassination attempts and
illicit smuggling schemes in other countries including Egypt, Azerbaijan,
Belgium and the US. Source:
Sfeir welcomes Hariri's appointment as premier
Daily Star staff/Monday, June 29, 2009
BKIRKI: Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir welcomed on Sunday Future
Movement Saad Hariri's designation for the post of prime minister as a "very
good" step. "We wish him luck in his mission to form a government," Sfeir said
during Sunday's sermon at the Notre Dame church in Bkirki. "Deputies will decide
whether or not the formation will face hurdles," he added. Tackling other
issues, Sfeir criticized the high cost of petrol, warning that it added to the
burdens of the Lebanese. - The Daily Star
Jumblatt vows to thwart efforts to 'privatize'
By Maher Zeineddine /Daily Star correspondent /Monday, June 29, 2009
BEIRUT: Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt said on Sunday that
the public sector should be preserved, adding that he would not be part of a
cabinet that promotes "privatization." He said Public Works and Transport
Minister Ghazi Aridi was criticized for proposing a plan to activate the public
transport sector. "He was fought by the premiership but he survived," Jumblatt
said. In a ceremony honoring retiring Director General of the Transport and
Railways Authority Radwan Abu Nasr, Jumblatt said that Lebanon was "meaningless"
without Arabism and Palestine.
LF MP says dialogue key part of state-building
Daily Star staff/Monday, June 29, 2009
BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces (LF) MP George Adwan was quoted as saying on Sunday that
dialogue was a quintessential component of state-building. Adwan reiterated to
Ad-Diyar newspaper that LF boss Samir Geagea was willing to meet with Hizbullah
chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and leaders of all other parties. Adwan said the
Shiite community was a fundamental component of Lebanese society. He added that
the Lebanese Forces were willing to give President Michel Sleiman the final say
"in all important issues." He added that the most acceptable structure for the
cabinet would be for the parliamentary majority to have 16 cabinet seats, the
opposition to have 10 seats and the president to have four. - The Daily Star
For Hariri to be successful, all he needs is enough time and a good vision
By The Daily Star /Monday, June 29, 2009
Editorial
Now that Saad Hariri has officially been appointed to become Lebanon's next
prime minister, his first responsibility will be to form the country's next
government. The challenge will not be as vexing as it seems if Hariri keeps two
things in mind as he proceeds. First, there is no reason for him to rush the
process. Any problems and divisions that exist in the country now would only be
aggravated if the process of choosing ministers were a hurried and haphazard
one. Nothing can stop Hariri from taking all of the time permitted by the
Constitution for forming the cabinet, and it would be worthwhile for him to give
appropriate consideration to a variety of issues before deciding on the final
makeup of the government.
Second, a good starting point for any venture is a fleshed-out vision. A cabinet
should not be formed just for the sake of forming a cabinet. Rather, it should
have a purpose, procedure and plan that can only emerge from a specific vision
that is articulated by Hariri.
Perhaps no one understands this second principle better than Hariri himself. As
a successful businessman who has managed a variety of companies, Hariri knows
that any good business deal starts with a good vision. The multiple projects
that his companies have carried out across the Middle East, Africa and Europe
have all started with a specific vision, and this way of doing things has
enabled his companies to achieve a reputation for delivering the highest
standard of quality
It is likely that Hariri will choose to pursue the cabinet formation in a
similar manner, and if he does, he will be the first premier, with perhaps the
exception of his father, the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, to start his
premiership with a vision.
A good vision would allow for a new way of doing business in cabinet. It would
also mark the start of what is likely to be a decade-long journey of
reconstituting the relationship between the citizen and the state. Hariri would
find in President Michel Sleiman a good ally for such a bold mission.
Once he has outlined his vision, he can discuss it with the major party leaders
before revealing it to the public. And the Lebanese people would likely warmly
support such a sense of professionalism when it comes to running the cabinet.
Citizens have grown exasperated with politics as usual and would welcome any
change, especially one that is aimed at serving their interests. An appropriate
vision would lay the groundwork for the cabinet to tackle a variety of issues,
such as bolstering the independence of the judiciary and streamlining
bureaucratic procedures. Such steps would move the culture of the state away
from its current "control mode" and toward the notion of serving the citizens.
The smoking gun is Iran's
voting process
By Michael Meyer-Resende and Mirjam Kunkler
Daily Star/Monday, June 29, 2009
Iran's Guardian Council has ruled out an annulment of the controversial Iranian
presidential election, but the debate about the credibility of the official
results will not go away any time soon. Detailed analyses, such as a recent
Chatham House study, raise serious doubts about the results, although until now
they have produced no "smoking gun." But the smoking gun is in fact the election
process itself. Iran's election laws are so short of minimal guarantees of
transparency that any less-than-plausible results are bound to provoke a lack
public confidence. There is no remedy now to a process that was so opaque that
it could have been manipulated at any stage. The only solution is to hold new
Iranian elections, with basic transparency safeguards.
From the outset, Iranian elections have been flawed. They are administered by
the Interior Ministry and supervised by the Guardian Council - two institutions
that lack independence and impartiality. The right to freely stand in elections
is often violated, because numerous candidates are rejected by the Guardian
Council.
Beyond these shortcomings, in the aftermath of the recent elections, human
rights have been widely abused - student activists and street protestors have
been killed, opposition leaders hindered from appearing in public rallies, and
peaceful demonstrations broken up.
As far as transparency is concerned, Iranian election laws omit basic
safeguards, necessary in any tense and conflict-prone election. A key feature of
a transparent election is that all parties are provided with official result
sheets of polling stations that can later be compared in case of dispute. These
also need to be immediately displayed at polling stations so that both the
public and the media can take note. When the results of various polling stations
are added together at higher levels of the election administration,
representatives of candidates should be permitted to be present and able to sign
the official result sheets or register an official complaint. The aggregated
results should then be immediately publicly displayed and placed on the
internet.
Nothing of this nature is required in Iranian election laws.
Instead, nationwide results were announced a few hours after the close of
polling stations. Three days later, the Interior Ministry published a breakdown
of results by province and sub-province, but did not make public the official
polling station results sheets. After a further three days, the ministry
published the results of each polling station. Publication of the results in
this way - top down rather than bottom up and without sufficient transparency -
created a possibility of widespread manipulation.
The state authorities called on the opposition to substantiate fraud in front of
the Guardian Council, which is responsible for reviewing election complaints.
But the council is not impartial and the lack of transparency in the election
process has prevented the opposition from gathering evidence. Having not been
given copies of official result sheets, how can it prove the official numbers
are wrong? The opposition's ability to follow the results process was further
hampered on election night when their communications were cut and their offices
blocked.
The burden of proof should have been on the authorities to back up the official
results. The Interior Ministry should have published detailed results
immediately after the elections, not one week later. Furthermore, to this day,
the results have not been substantiated. By law, five official sheets of polling
station results had to be prepared, which are kept by various branches of the
electoral administration. None of these have been published.
The problem now is that a process so lacking in transparency from the outset
cannot be remedied in retrospect. Even a recount, whether partial or total, will
not do. If the authorities wanted to commit fraud, the legal framework gave them
ample time and opportunities to manipulate the numbers, change the result
sheets, and swap ballots in the boxes. Only a complete re-run of the election
with much greater transparency and a conducive human rights context can be a
solution.
In the long term, the Iranian electoral framework should be overhauled to
establish independent bodies that can manage the voting process and address
complaints with impartiality. This would enhance public confidence in the
elections and help avoid the controversy and bloodshed that have marred the
elections over the past two weeks.
***Michael Meyer-Resende co-ordinates Democracy Reporting International, a
Berlin-based group that has analyzed numerous electoral frameworks in the Middle
East (www.democracy-reporting.org). Mirjam Kunkler is an assistant professor of
Near Eastern politics at Princeton University. They wrote this commentary for
THE DAILY STAR.
Did anyone notice Mossad's new outlook on an Iran bomb?
By Yossi Melman /Daily Star
Monday, June 29, 2009
Paradoxically, the current crisis in Iran is producing two contradictory impacts
on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first clear outcome was the statement
made by head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, two weeks ago. In a surprise move, Dagan
dismissed the previous assessments of the Israeli intelligence community
regarding Iran's nuclear program and stated that Iran's secret military program
would mature only in 2014.
For 15 years, Israel's Military Intelligence and the Mossad have regularly
altered their assessment regarding the date when Iran's nuclear program becomes
operational. The deadline has been constantly pushed forward, from the late
1990s to the beginning and then the middle of this decade, and finally to the
2009-2010 period. And now suddenly, out of the blue this has become 2014. These
frequent fluctuations have damaged the reputation of Israel's intelligence
agencies worldwide and have confused the public. The intelligence estimates have
been perceived by many in the world as "alarmist" and designed to serve
political and diplomatic goals.
In saying that the deadline for an Iranian bomb is 2014, Dagan accepted a
Central Intelligence Agency assessment that Israel had criticized in the past.
The CIA has repeatedly and consistently determined that Iran would have its
first bomb not before 2015.
Seemingly, there is no direct connection between the semi-revolution that has
been taking place in the streets of Iran and the Mossad analysis. Conceivably,
Dagan unintentionally and even innocently introduced his estimate in the midst
of the Iranian crisis. But the timing of his declaration evidently proves the
opposite. Knowing how cunning and calculating the chief of Mossad is, I can only
wonder why he chose this occasion to publicize his estimate and did not wait,
say, for a few weeks or at least days. Thus, it should not be ruled out that he
has a hidden personal or organizational agenda.
One way or another, Dagan effectively undermined the "party line" and the agenda
of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who only a few weeks ago tried to convince
the Obama administration that "Iran [must come] first." Netanyahu and his
government, who are not ready to freeze the settlements, withdraw from the West
Bank and enter into a peace deal with the Palestinian Liberation Organization,
hoped to persuade the world that the Iranian nuclear threat was more dangerous
and acute not only for Israel but for the stability of the Middle East;
therefore, that this required immediate attention, while peace with the
Palestinians and with Syria could wait.
No more. Not only has a military option, in other words an attack by the Israel
Air Force on Iranian nuclear installations, become more remote, but Israel has
also lost its Iranian excuse not to accelerate peace negotiations with the
Palestinians.
Still, this severe home-made blow to Netanyahu's hopes and plans is balanced off
by another ramification favorable to Israel. Iran's foreign and defense policy -
its nuclear program and support for Hamas and Hizbullah - has not been a real
issue in motivating the Iranian demonstrations and protests. True, during the
election campaign opposition leader Mir Hussein Mousavi publicly expressed his
opinion that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's provocative statements didn't serve
Iranian interests and image abroad. Nevertheless, foreign policy issues were a
minor factor in these demonstrations, if at all.
Yet, regardless of the final outcome of the crisis, and even if Ahmadinejad
comes back as president for a second term, the ayatollahs' regime has clearly
suffered a major blow, and its self-confidence has been shaken. This will force
the regime to devote more time, energy and resources to fixing the economy and
trying to accommodate some of the concerns raised by the demonstrators. Foreign
policy is bound to be a lesser priority.
The first victims of such a development will be Hamas and Hizbullah. They will
most probably be marginalized in the Iranian's regime's inner discourse and will
get less financial, military, diplomatic and moral support from their Iranian
benefactors.
This can be good news for Israel as well as for the Palestinian Authority and
moderate forces in the Arab world. Under normal circumstances, such a
development might serve as the launching pad for a peace process. Yet that is
doubtful. Netanyahu has no serious intention of moving forward on peace and will
continue to search for new excuses to replace the vanished Iranian pretext in
order to prolong his delaying tactics and politically survive and hang onto
power.
On the other hand, the Palestinian leadership is highly divided and lacks the
courage, vision and power to compromise on core issues important to the Israeli
national consensus (Jerusalem and the refugees) and thus will play once again
into the hands of a rigid Israeli government.
All in all, the opportunity that the Iranian crisis is providing will probably
evaporate sooner rather than later.
**Yossi Melman writes for the Israeli daily Haaretz on intelligence and
strategic affairs, including nuclear and regional issues. He is coauthor of "The
Nuclear Sphinx: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran" (Carroll & Graf, New
York). This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons.org, an online newsletter
that publishes articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Violence in Iran: What the West
Needs to Know
By Lt. Col. W. Thomas Smith Jr.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The violent crackdown continues in the wake of Iran’s disputed June 12
presidential elections in which—according to the Wall Street Journal—“hard-line
clerics have rallied behind Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in supporting
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s declared landslide poll victory.”
Hardly a “victory,” much less a “landslide,” so-say supporters of opposition
candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and and Mehdi Karroubi, who have “challenged the
vote, alleging widespread vote-rigging.”
Despite restrictions on media, at least 20 people have reportedly been killed
and hundreds wounded by Basij militia forces. Some sources suggest the death
toll is much higher. And it doesn’t appear as if the mullahs, Ahmadinejad, and
their cronies are going to let up until any hint of expressed opposition is
crushed.
Additionally, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Alseyassah, the leadership of
Lebanon-based Hizballah is appealing to the Iranian regime—literally the hand
that feeds Hizballah—to use all means to quash the opposition movement in Iran.
Alseyassah also reports “a number of troops of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps [IRGC] in Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria have been recalled to
Tehran ... to join the Tha’r Allah [Vengeance of God] forces ... These special
forces are in charge of protecting the regime.”
Saturday, I discussed Iran with Middle East expert Dr. Walid Phares—director of
the Future of Terrorism Project for the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies—for the initial Q&A in what will be an ongoing series of interviews,
Three Questions for Dr. Walid Phares, providing timely perspective on Middle
East issues and international terrorism as events unfold.
W. THOMAS SMITH JR.: Considering the large pro-democracy turnouts in recent
elections in Lebanon and Iran—and the now seeming desperation on the part of
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to quash all dissent—is the IRGC, its
Quds force, Hizballah, etc., on the ropes? Does the West now have a strategic
opportunity here?
DR. WALID PHARES: The Iranian people have a unique opportunity to liberate
themselves from 30-years of oppression embodied by the Vilayet e-Faqih Jihadist
regime with its Pasdaran and Basij militias. Such windows of opportunity come
only once every one or two decades, and many young Iranians understand this.
Hence we have this explosive uprising in the streets of Tehran, and we will
continue to see urban opposition for a long time inside Iran.
Moreover, the Lebanese people, who have been under the yoke of Hizballah terror
for a quarter century, also have an unexpected opening wherein regional support
for Hizballah may be declining inasmuch as Iran’s regime may well lose its
ability to support Hizballah. Lebanon’s Cedars Revolution, which has been under
attack for the last four years may also derive tremendous benefit from the youth
uprising in Tehran. But even though both civil societies in Iran and Lebanon are
looking at a generational opportunity to defeat the terror system in the region,
it is really in the hands of the free world and particularly in the hands of the
United States to either hasten the advance of democracy or let go of the latter,
allowing the Pasdaran to win.
There seems to be an amazing alignment of the planets in favor of pushing back
against these terror forces in the region, but Washington will have to say “yes”
or “no” to the international push. Iranians and Lebanese can only struggle, but
America and other democracies can make it happen soon or in the far future. So,
Pasdaran, Quds force and Hizballah aren’t on the ropes as you say. But with a
quick, serious international alignment of the international community
coordinating with the uprising, these militias can be isolated and their terror
power significantly reduced. If the West doesn’t realize this huge change taking
place now out of Tehran and take action, the so-called “Tha’r Allah” forces will
become an extremely dangerous tool in the hands of a surviving angry regime.
SMITH: Is there not also an increased danger of an IRGC-inspired attack
elsewhere in the world, to divert attention from Thar Allah operations in Iran?
PHARES: Obviously. Strategically, the Iranian regime is bleeding politically.
Its credibility is gone, even if it crushes the opposition and pursues the youth
across the country. And when such regimes see their political shields shattered,
they begin acting irrationally and preemptively. Iran’s billions of petrodollars
invested in propaganda via satellite TV, as well as the infiltration and
influence of Western media have built an unnatural image of the regime
camouflaging the oppression. As a result, journalists and academics have
described Iran’s Khomeinist regime as “reasonable, stable, and with whom
democracies can conduct business.” The young men and women on the streets of
Tehran have come very close to destroying this expensive public-relations image.
Hence, the IRGC could be tasked to strike at targets overseas and engage in
terror regionally as a means of deflecting attention from the “Tha’r Allah”
operations inside the so-called “republic.” The international community in
general, Western democracies in particular must be very attentive to the
possibility of Pasdaran-guided, ordered and/or inspired terror operations
worldwide as the crisis inside Iran persists. Therefore, it is crucial that the
West in general and the United States in particular work on backing the
democratic uprising in Iran now before the Pasdaran takes them by surprise. This
is not an issue of luxurious choice, it is a matter of national security.
SMITH: What is the West failing to understand, that we must get our heads around
regarding the IRGC—its subsidiaries like Hizballah—and the “Tha’r Allah” forces?
PHARES: As of the fall of 2006, early 2007, the pro-Iranian-regime lobby in the
United States—and some other Western countries—has succeeded in imposing a new
equation regarding Iran. Whether it is because of propositions of oil advantages
or false promises of help in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is a fact that the Iran
policy in the United States has shifted during the last two years of the Bush
Administration and throughout the current Obama administration from considering
the Iranian regime as a strategic foe supporting terrorism to just a nuisance
with which one might cut a deal. U.S. policy has reached a summit of
contradictions as its intelligence and legal components consider the Pasdaran
and Quds force, as well as Hizballah, as terrorists; yet our political
decision-makers look at the Iran of Khamenei as a potential partner in regional
political business. The West—particularly the U.S. and the UK—knows all too well
that the IRGC and Hizballah are strategic threats but a political decision was
made to disregard this reality hoping that it would—or could—end when the
“engagement path” would bare fruit. This is a dangerous game, a bet that is
irrational, which may cost democracies greater losses and the region’s civil
societies longer oppression. The Tehran uprising should be viewed as an event of
destiny, and it should open Western eyes. Let’s see if Washington and London
figure it out and change course or stubbornly continue toward the precipice.
**Thomas Smith Jr. – a former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and
counterterrorism instructor – is a journalist, author, and military analyst
whose work has appeared in the New York Post, USA TODAY, U.S. News & World
Report, BusinessWeek, CBS News, and many others. Smith writes about
military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West
Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. Visit him online at uswriter.com.
*Thomas can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
W. Thomas Smith Jr.
“a military expert” — USA TODAY
Analysis: Syria's goose lays a golden egg
By JONATHAN SPYER
Jerusalem Post 28/06/09
Washington's decision to return its ambassador to Syria is the latest stage in
the present administration's policy of engagement with Damascus. It relates most
importantly to the US desire to secure Syrian cooperation in the build-up to the
departure of American combat troops from urban areas in Iraq. The decision is
related to the broader American ambition of drawing Damascus away from Iran.
Hopes for a revival of talks between Israel and Syria, and the desire to enlist
Syria in the ongoing effort to bring about a rapprochement between the
Palestinian Fatah movement and the Damascus-domiciled Hamas may also have played
a role.
Regarding Iraq, the US is aware that Sunni insurgents will have an interest in
ratcheting up the level of violence as the US prepares to draw down its combat
forces - to give the impression that it is they who are bringing about the
American redeployment. Syria has served as a key ally of the Sunni insurgency
since its beginnings. For a period, the route between Damascus airport and the
Syrian-Iraqi border was a favorite one for Sunni jihadis seeking to enter Iraq
to take part in the insurgency.
In recent months, US officials have reported an improvement in Syrian control on
the border, and a reduction in the number of insurgents crossing over. In the
familiar Syrian fashion, Damascus's promotion of violence against Americans, and
its subsequent willingness to partially reduce this promotion, is used as a tool
to reap diplomatic rewards.
Regarding the Palestinian angle: ongoing Palestinian unity talks in Cairo have
so far proved fruitless. Despite its focus on a revived Israeli-Palestinian
peace process, the administration is aware that for as long as an openly
rejectionist Hamas entity continues to rule over 40 percent of the Palestinian
population, hopes for a meaningful negotiating process belong largely to the
realm of fantasy.
There is therefore a real determination, shared by Egypt and the Palestinian
Authority, to make a success of the unity effort. Hamas's leadership is based in
Damascus, so efforts to bring Syria closer to Washington may also be intended to
enlist Syrian support in pressuring Hamas towards greater flexibility.
The revival of Israeli-Syrian talks is likely to feature on the administration's
agenda at some stage in the coming period. The presence of a US representative
in Damascus would facilitate US mediation.
The biggest prize, however - a Syrian strategic reorientation away from alliance
with Iran - is likely to continue to prove elusive.
An angry, more openly militant Iranian regime is likely to emerge in the coming
weeks from the current unrest. It will be hated by a large section of its
people. But this will not harm either its desire or its ability to support
radical forces in the region.
For the Syrians, the maintenance of alliances with various Islamist and radical
regional elements forms a key element of national strategy. It is one which
continues to pay dividends. The past months have shown that the Syrians may
repair relations with the West at little cost to themselves, while maintaining
this stance. One does not, as the saying goes, kill the goose that lays the
golden egg. The Syrian "goose" combines alliance with Iran and support for
regional instability with occasional gestures of cooperation to the West. It has
just delivered the "golden egg" of a new US ambassador in Damascus in return for
no concessions on issues of core importance to the Assad regime.
**Jonathan Spyer is a senior researcher at the Global Research in International
Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.
Will Obama bow to Syria, too?
Posted: June 29, 2009
By Pamela Geller
© 2009
Barack Obama is going full throttle with his wrong-headed policy of appeasement
and capitulation: The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it was
sending an American ambassador back to Syria, after a four-year gap. White House
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "This strongly reflects the administration's
recognition of the role Syria plays, and the hope of the role that the Syrian
government can play constructively to promote peace and stability in the
region."
CNN reported that Syria's ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, said
essentially the same thing – that "the decision reflects the genuine desire by
the United States to reverse Bush administration policy and engage Syria, which
he said would be good for both nations and for the region."
What's wrong with this? For one thing, Syria is on the U.S. State Department's
"State Sponsors of Terrorism" list. It has been on that list since December 29,
1979, when the list was created. What has changed? The United States has not had
an ambassador in Damascus since February 2005, when the Bush administration
recalled its ambassador and expressed its "profound outrage" over the
assassination of the Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon, a foe of Syrian
hegemony over that country.
Of course President Bush withdrew the American representative – because Syria
was assassinating the leaders of Lebanon, was and is supporting Hamas and
Hezbollah, and was meddling in Iraq and Lebanon. Again, what has changed? Only
our president
Obama's latest handover of Lebanon to Syria has generated outrage and
frustration among reformers and freedom lovers in the Middle East. And that's
understandable: When John Bolton was at the United Nations, we held Syrians
accountable for their assassinations of pro-Lebanon political figures and
anti-Syrian cabinet ministers and journalists. It was a U.N. investigation in
2006 that found links between Syrian President Bashar Assad and company and the
assassinations of anti-Syrian politicians and journalists in Lebanon, including
Hariri, Bashir Gemayal and others. Syria fully intends to marginalize and
neutralize the small Christian population of Lebanon and install Islamic rule,
and Hezbollah is complicit in this effort. Hezbollah is not Lebanese – it is an
Iranian foreign legion. It's ironic that the loser in Iran's disputed
presidential election, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, was a founder
of Hezbollah. He is not at all the champion of freedom that some in the West
like to imagine that he is.
Syria also remains a lethal threat to the rest of the world. Remember that it
was a nuclear bomb making factory in Syria that Israel took out on September 6,
2007 – and the North Koreans provided that factory. Meanwhile, the world
continues to turn a blind eye to the fact that, for the Islamic world, the mere
existence of Israel is enough to sanction countless murders of Jews and calls
for the "removal of Israel."
Nor is that likely to change. The world is spinning out of control since the
U.S. switched sides (against itself, I might add) and elected a jihad president
– the world's policeman is off duty. Now that Obama has given the Islamic
supremacists in Damascus and Tehran all but a free pass, the barbarians are
killing without fear of reprisal. The Islamonazis can kill anyone they want,
murder with utter abandon, and the world yawns – or speaks about some ambiguous
humiliation to which the jihadists are legitimately responding.
This, of course, is not new. This has for quite some time been Democratic Party
policy: to side with America's enemies. After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit
with Assad (where clearly a deal with the devil was made), I interviewed the
courageous Egyptian blogger who calls himself "Egyptian Sandmonkey." He said: "I
was in Turkey a couple of weeks ago and I met a couple of Syrian activists. They
told me one thing that was really funny about the Pelosi visit. After Pelosi
came to Syria two things happened. People on Syrian TV were saying, 'We forced
the Americans to knock on the Damascus gate!'" Even worse, he noted that "the
day after Pelosi's visits there were immediate arrests of Syrian activists. That
was the fruit she yielded. 'Oh, the Americans came over and they said they have
a different foreign policy and they're more interested in placating Bashar's
ego.' And he went out and got [arrested] everyone he wanted because he knew he
had an ally in Washington that wouldn't pressure him as much."
That was Pelosi. And now Syria has an even greater ally in Washington.
*Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and
former associate publisher of the New York Observer. Her op-eds have appeared in
The Washington Times, The American Thinker, Israel National News and other
publications.
What If Obama Did Want to Help Iran's Democrats?
By GABRIEL SCHOENFELD
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623147117266147.html
Thus far, debate over American policy toward Iran has revolved around President
Barack Obama's various responses. When Iran's electoral crisis first erupted, he
downplayed its significance, calling the two rival candidates, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi, "tweedledum and tweedledee." A week later,
he sharply condemned the Islamic regime, describing himself as "appalled and
outraged" by the government's actions.
But are presidential pronouncements -- however pusillanimous or intrepid -- the
limit of American power?
The ayatollahs' nuclear ambitions make Iran one the most critical countries for
the future of U.S. foreign policy. Beyond the immediate problem of nuclear
proliferation, there is the broader issue of Iranian influence spreading via
proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. And even beyond that, the Iranian
Revolution of 1979 is the original wellspring of the Islamic fundamentalism that
has swept the world over the past three decades.
In a better world, toppling this vicious regime and altering the tide of history
would be a primary objective of U.S. foreign policy. Yet even if President Obama
miraculously came to that conclusion, how could he realize such an objective?
This is a useful question to ask because it reveals how much the United States
has disarmed itself in the vital realm of intelligence.
In the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the U.S. faced similar problems in
various locales around the world. One of them was Italy, where there was a very
real danger that the highly organized Italian Communist Party -- benefiting from
huge covert subsidies from the Kremlin -- would come to power via the ballot
box. Soviet funds had enabled that party to build a dense network of paid
organizers that operated in every region and created front groups in every
sector of society, from farmers to veterans to students.
The prospect of Italy becoming the first country in Europe to fall to Communism
via subversion rather than direct force of Soviet arms was not, at the height of
the Cold War, something the U.S. could abide. So the CIA was instructed, first
by Harry Truman and then by Dwight Eisenhower, to stop it. It was the challenge
presented by Italy's vulnerability in its 1948 election that prompted the
fledgling spy agency to create its Office of Policy Coordination. The
banal-sounding name was a cover for what was an aggressive tool of covert
political propaganda and paramilitary operations.
Over the course of the 1950s, the CIA secretly funneled money to forces in
Italy's political center. This enabled democratically oriented parties to match
the Italian Communist Party activist for activist. When revealed years later,
the policy was subjected to scathing criticism. But it had worked. Fragile Italy
remained democratic in the 1950s and is a stable democracy today.
Harsh criticism of such operations -- beginning in the 1970s when all the CIA's
secrets spilled out -- is what prompted the U.S. to dismantle its capabilities
in covert political action. Interfering in the internal affairs of other
countries, legions of agency critics said, was both immoral and illegal.
As a matter of law, the critics are right. Such covert action is indeed illegal.
But legality is beside the point. Espionage is by definition illegal and yet all
countries engage in it. This is what the Soviet Union did in Italy, and it is
what Iran, by organizing terrorist structures in the Middle East, Europe and
elsewhere, has been doing intensively for 30 years.
As for the moral issues involved in covert operations, they are the standard
ones of balancing means and ends. Self-defense is the basic right of every
state; open warfare is certainly permitted to uphold it. Covert warfare, so long
as it is similarly defensive, is no different. Yet throughout our history, a
higher moralism has periodically come along and led us to shun intelligence
operations, as when Herbert Hoover's Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson
famously declared that "gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's mail." Stimson
then shuttered his department's code-breaking operation just as terrible storms
were beginning to gather across both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Today, as a breaking point in the Islamic Republic appears to recede from view
as a result of brutal violence, the U.S. appears utterly powerless to influence
the course of events. Yet how much better off both Iran and the world would be
if the CIA, operating covertly through local friendly forces, could have helped,
say, to spark a general strike to topple the ruthless regime of the ayatollahs.
The great irony in all this is that even as the U.S. seeks to claim the moral
high ground by not "meddling" -- to use Mr. Obama's term -- we and our allies
are getting blamed all the same. "There are riots and attacks in the streets
that are orchestrated from the outside in a bid to destabilize the country's
Islamic regime," says Sheikh Naim Qassem, a ranking figure of Hezbollah, Iran's
obedient instrument in Lebanon.
We are thus paying the price of running covert operations even as we gain
absolutely none of the benefits. Rebuilding our capacity in this area cannot be
accomplished overnight. Meanwhile, as Iran's nuclear ambitions continue
unabated, we may in the end have to pay a high price in treasure and blood for
having declined to pay the relatively low cost of mounting secret warfare.
Mr. Schoenfeld, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and
a resident scholar at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J., is the
author of "Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law"
to be published by W.W. Norton in 2010.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 16:13-19. When Jesus went
into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say
that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others
Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who
do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son
of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of
Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you
the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."