LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 25/09

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 6,1-15. After this, Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee (of Tiberias). A large crowd followed him, because they saw the signs he was performing on the sick. Jesus went up on the mountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. The Jewish feast of Passover was near. When Jesus raised his eyes and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, he said to Philip, "Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?"He said this to test him, because he himself knew what he was going to do. Philip answered him, "Two hundred days' wages worth of food would not be enough for each of them to have a little (bit)." One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, said to him, There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what good are these for so many? Jesus said, "Have the people recline." Now there was a great deal of grass in that place. So the men reclined, about five thousand in number. Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted. When they had had their fill, he said to his disciples, "Gather the fragments left over, so that nothing will be wasted." So they collected them, and filled twelve wicker baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves that had been more than they could eat. When the people saw the sign he had done, they said, "This is truly the Prophet, the one who is to come into the world." Since Jesus knew that they were going to come and carry him off to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain alone.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
The Logical Fallacies of Appeasing Iran. by Nicholas Guariglia. Pajamas Media 24/04/09
Iranian illusions/Future News 24/04/09
The Taliban’s “AfPak” Strategy: A Jihadi Preemptive War.By Walid Phares 24.04.09
Nasrallah's gamble/By: Gamal Essam El-Din/Al-Ahram Weekly 24.04.09 
Murky waters'. By:Jailan Halawi/Al-Ahram Weekly 24.04.09 
Eyeing the day after.By:Omayma Abdel-Latif/Ahram Weekly 24.04.0
Caught in two minds.By: Amr Hamzawi/Ahram Weekly 24.04.0 
Reality below the surface. By:Abdel-Moneim Said/Ahram Weekly 24.04.0  
Hizbullah's debacle.By: Salama A Salama/Ahram Weekly 24.04.0 

 Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for April 24/09-Naharnet
Mossad warns businessman of Hizbullah/Israel News
Hezbollah win in June 7 Lebanon poll would be a big upset-The Canadian Press
Clinton: 'Israel may lose Arab support on Iran'JPOST.COM
Excluding Husseini a further step towards eliminating Taëf/Future News
Hariri discusses general situation with Bukin, Sisson, and Allawi/Future News
Port Saeid-Hizbullah group’: We were assigned to monitor Suez Canal/Future News
Hazim’s statement intimidates Abu Jamra/Future News
Bellemare to Announce Decision on 4 Generals April 27-Naharnet
Hizbullah Cell Planned to Monitor Suez Canal, and 3 Major Bomb Attacks in Egypt-Naharnet
Clinton Fears Hizbullah Victory in Elections-Naharnet
Lebanese Elections: The Most Expensive in the World-Naharnet
Allouch: Rifaat Ali Eid does not represent Jabal Mohsen/Future News
Jezzine: Berri Considers Azar a Red Line, Aoun Adamant-Naharnet
6 Years in Prison for 'Hizbullah's Man in New York'-Naharnet
Najjar: No Official Word from UAE on Siddiq Arrest-Naharnet
Tueni Files Judicial Complaint Against FPM Media-Naharnet
Retired Lebanese General Charged With Spying For Israel-Naharnet
French Justice Minister Arrives in Beirut-Naharnet
Lebanon's First Syria Ambassador Begins Work-Naharnet
Aoun Announces Metn, Jbeil Electoral Lists-Naharnet
Vatican, Arab League Sign Accord for Peace Cooperation
Lebanon beyond sectarianism-guardian.co.uk
6 years in prison for airing Hezbollah TV in NYC-The Associated Press
Clinton: US will not sacrifice Lebanon in Syria agreement-Daily Star
Egypt warns of 'fury' over security breaches-Daily Star
Egypt's Brotherhood backs Hizbullah in spat with Cairo-Daily Star
Aoun unveils electoral lists for northern Metn, Jbeil-Daily Star
Ralph Riachi appointed deputy president of Hariri Tribunal-Daily Star
Lebanon to host Middle East's first forum for entrepreneurs-Daily Star
Assad reshuffles Cabinet, appoints six new officials-GulfNews

NY man sentenced to 5 years for aiding Hezbollah
Thu Apr 23, 2009
Christine Kearney
NEW YORK, April 23 (Reuters) - A Pakistani man was sentenced in New York to more than five and a half years in prison on Thursday for broadcasting the Hezbollah television channel Al Manar and selling it to U.S. customers. In one of U.S. prosecutors' more unusual terrorism cases, Javed Iqbal, a 45-year-old Pakistani citizen living in New York, was charged with supporting Hezbollah in 2006. He pleaded guilty to the charges in December. "I did not make a profit off of broadcasting Al Manar and it cost me my life," Iqbal's lawyer, Joshua Dratel, read out in a prepared statement on behalf of Iqbal which included an apology to the judge before he was sentenced to 69 months. "I am a human being and human beings make mistakes," Dratel said on behalf of Iqbal, who owned a small satellite television company, HDTV Ltd. The U.S. Treasury branded Al Manar a terrorist organization in March 2006, saying it supported Hezbollah's fund-raising and recruitment activities.
Prosecutors said Iqbal, who moved to the United States more than 26 years ago, provided transmission services to the Beirut-based channel in return for payment between 2005 and 2006 and then sold the channel to U.S. customers. "He was, in a very real sense, Hezbollah's man in New York City," prosecutor Eric Snyder said during the sentencing hearing, adding Hezbollah used the channel to recruit new members. But Iqbal's defense lawyer Joshua Dratel said Iqbal had no ideological support for Hezbollah and sold the channel to make money as part of his satellite television business that also included Christian channels and adult entertainment. Iqbal was broke and the charges "had devastated him and his family," including his pregnant wife who sat behind him in court and five children, Dratel said. He also suffered from anxiety and depression. "This is someone who made bad judgments for a reason that had nothing to do with terrorism or supporting terrorism and he paid a very high price for it," Dratel said after the hearing. He added he believed it was the only terrorism case in the U.S. courts that had been brought against a person providing satellite services. A second man, Saleh Elahwal, who also worked for the company, has also pleaded guilty. (Editing by Michelle Nichols)

Newspaper under pressure because of political tension and rivalry
Reporters Without Borders condemns the distribution ban which the Syrian authorities have imposed on the privately-owned Lebanese daily Al-Diyar since 22 April and the threats that have been made against its editor, Charles Ayoub, a Lebanese politician with a pro-Syrian stance.
The ban follows the publication in the newspaper of a series of columns by Ayoub criticising another politician with a pro-Syrian position, Michel Aoun, accusing him of corruption. The two men are rival candidates in the June parliamentary elections for the Mount Lebanon district.
“Political tension is mounting in Lebanon in the run-up to the election,” Reporters Without Borders said. “The Syrian ban on Al-Diyar is further evidence of this. Nonetheless, the political in-fighting should spare the media and allow room for a wide range of views to be expressed.”
Al-Diyar has been having problems ever since Ayoub announced that he would be a rival pro-Syrian candidate to Aoun in the election. Several issues were censored in Syria in recent months. The activities of its journalists have been monitored. And Ayoub was told he would be killed if he did not stop publishing his controversial columns. The Syrian distribution ban, introduced on 22 April until further notice, has reinforced the impression that the pro-Syrian camp has closed ranks against Ayoub’s candidacy in the elections.
Ayoub told Reporters Without Borders: “I refuse to change the content of my newspaper despite the warnings I have received. I will continue to express my opinions about the elections and the candidates, and about corruption. For example, I proposed to Michel Aoun that we both release our bank account details for the sake of more transparency. I am surprised by this ban, but it is the censors who decide.”

The Taliban’s “AfPak” Strategy: A Jihadi Preemptive War
By Walid Phares
As the U.S. administration and its allies are devising a new strategy for the next steps in Afghanistan, the jihadists have already begun their next move — but this time it’s inside Pakistan. As I’ve written over the past few months, we need to look at Afghanistan, Pakistan and India as one regional battlefield where the “other side” is coordinating strategically, acting methodically and for sure beating the international coalition in speed. If Washington and its allies fail to see the big picture in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which unfortunately may be the case now, the rapidly deteriorating situation will soon exceed the northwestern provinces of Pakistan to spill over to both Afghanistan and India, if not beyond. That’s how I suggest “reading” the recent worrisome leaps achieved by the Taliban from the SWAT valley into the neighboring district of Buner. So what’s the story and why should we consider it as a crossing of the red lines?
Taliban, 70 miles from Islamabad
For over two years both the past government of General Musharraf and the current democratically elected government of President Asif Ali Zardari have been advised to “engage” the Taliban, or rather what they perceived as “reconcilable” leaders of the Jihadi militia in control of large areas in Waziristan and the adjacent districts. Despite the fact that the Taliban protects Al Qaeda (openly), obstruct the army from bringing legal order along the borders with Afghanistan, controls training camps for international terrorists, wages attacks against security forces and have been involved in car bombs, suicide attacks and assassinations for years now, advice was given to high authorities in Islamabad (both from inside and outside the country) that “accommodating” some of the Taliban’s basic requirements will bring stability, at least for a while. Musharraf, whose intelligence services had kept good relations and friendships with the Jihadists of “AfPak” (Afghanistan and Pakistan combined), attempted to calm down some of the radical war lords even though he accused the Taliban at large of attempting to kill him and “Talibanize” the country. This dual and contradictive approach between shouting at them and engaging them at the same time allowed the jihadi militias to survive across Waziristan and other locations between 2001 and 2008.
The missing link has always been the failure in winning the war of ideas against the radical networks. As long as the jihadi madrassas are operational, droves of “graduates” enlarge the ranks of the Taliban and their other associates such as Laskar Taibah (accused of masterminding the Mumbai attacks), Jaish e Muhammed and other armed Islamist factions. In short, the strength of the Jihadi machine in Pakistan today is a direct result of the non-action by the Musharraf government against the network, particularly along the western borders for eight years.
The reasons for this restraint are numerous and aren’t all the product of presidential inaction. Rather they are embedded in an international consensus not to “touch” the ideology of the radicals. That is an overarching problem hovering over many other areas of crises including Iraq, the Horn of Africa, Sudan, and even within Western countries. This is another discussion.
With the election of a new president of Pakistan, the widower of the late Benazir Bhutto assassinated by the Taliban, and the formation of a new cabinet dominated by the secular “Party of the People,” conventional wisdom would project that Islamabad would mobilize wider and stronger against the creeping militias. Although during the election campaign and for the first few months of its tenure government figures blasted the “extremists” and pledged for shutting down the ideological madrassas across the country, the “engagement policy” persisted and ironically went farther than under Musharraf. Over the past few months, Pakistan’s government authorized governors in the Northwest part of the country to sign agreements with the leaders of the “Sharia Movement” in the Swat valley, a Jihadi front, to apply their interpretation of religious laws. The founder of the movement, Sufi Mohammad accepted the terms of the settlement with Islamabad. But his son in law Maulana Qazi Fazlullah the chief of the Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi organization (TNSM), who since 2007 has deployed his 5,000 militiamen in 60 villages forming a “parallel emirate,” is now on the march to expand Taliban influence beyond the “authorized” district. In short, the cohort of jihadists is not stopping, not reconciling, not de-radicalizing but seeking to eventually reach the capital.
First in Waziristan, then as of last year in Swat, and now seizing the district of Buner, the Taliban are conquering Pakistani land. Their technique is simple: Give us Sharia implementation or endure terror. Authorities have been choosing the morphine option: let them apply Sharia if they seize fire. But as soon as an area is “granted” to the jihadists, a new “jihad” begins towards the adjacent district. The “forced Sharia” gives the Taliban more than just catechism: full control, broadcast, courts, training facilities, and money. It just cedes territory and people to a highly ideological force. Their Sharia-based “Talibanization” grants them harsh show of severity and intimidation: girls and women punished, opponents eliminated, civil society repressed, a copycat of pre-2001 Afghanistan.
But the strategic consequences of the last “offensives” inside Pakistan are boundless. By reaching a distance of 70 miles or so of the capital the Taliban are putting the government under their direct menace. Pushes elsewhere are expected southbound and northeast bound. The army is deploying around public buildings; that is a bad sign. I’d also project a Jihadi push along the Kashmir borders with India. The hydra is expanding gradually, preparing for a massive squeeze.
We should be concerned about two titanic effects on international security: Obviously, the nukes of Pakistan are on the minds of the Al Qaeda leadership, hidden comfortably in the belly of the Taliban. But also the US-led coming campaign in Afghanistan. The Taliban are attempting to change the landscape inside Pakistan and along its northwestern borders so that when the new push begins in Afghanistan, the Taliban would already have a deep hinterland east of the borders and so that the Pakistani Army busy is protecting the government, not in encircling the jihadists. The war room of the terror forces has begun fighting America’s new terrorism strategy before the latter starts. I can only characterize it as a “jihadi preemptive war.”
*****
Dr. Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of “The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.”April 23, 2009

Mossad warns businessman: Hizbullah may target you
Israeli businessman returns from Europe after Mossad warns him of kidnapping plot
Roni Sofer Published: 04.23.09, 23:12 / Israel News
Terror alert: An Israeli businessman who is also an IDF lieutenant-colonel (res.) has returned to Israel from Europe recently after being warned that he may be a Hizbullah target. Channel 10 reported Thursday that Israeli businesspeople have been returning to the Jewish State from Europe as of late due to similar threats. However, officials at the Counter Terrorism Bureau said they were not familiar with any other specific cases aside from the above-mentioned one.
Israel's security establishment has warned that Hizbullah plans to commit terror attacks against Israelis and Jews across the world in retaliation for the killing of Imad Mugniyah, a senior member of the group, in Damascus in February of 2008. The group accused Israel of the assassination, even though Jerusalem did not claim responsibility for it. A senior security official told Ynet that the businessman returned to Israel due to fears that he would be kidnapped. According to the few details that have been cleared for publication, the man received a warning to this effect from the Mossad. Hizbullah's other assumed targets include Israeli and Jewish institutions throughout the world, as well as Israeli airlines and delegations.

Iranian illusions
Date: April 24th, 2009 Source: Future News
The Iranian policy shows the “illusions” of Iran about its ability to share the authority of the Arab countries, or at least cut down part of it.
This policy of illusion begins from Palestine and includes the entire Arab region. Iran attempts to sneak into each and every part of the Arab region, sometimes under the pretext of the Palestinian Cause and other times using sectary pretexts. Iran speaks of the right of the peoples to decide their own destiny as part of its “investment” of the Palestinian Cause; however it refuses to perceive the historic and geographic facts in the case of the three Emirati islands. Iran suppresses the Kurds and denies them their cultural rights, while it uses the sectary policy to sneak into the Arab countries through stimulating sedition, as it imposes its presence through the security tensions. Iran calls for the sovereignty of each country over its territory while it encourages its groups in Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, Iraq and Yemen, and sponsors them in order to haul out negotiation offers from the United States at the expense of the Arab countries. Iran prohibits Arabs from expressing the specificities of their culture in Ahvaz region while claiming that it is struggling in “Durban II” conference to fight racism in order to protect the rights of the Palestinians. This is Iran since the days of Cyrus the Great, and the Shah, to the days of Khomeini, Khamenei, and Nejad, and this is how it will probably stay as long as its objective is limited to building the empire. Iran can overlook a lot of political facts, but it must remember what the US declared, since the arrival of President Barak Obama, about the “soft force” and then reminded of it through declaring that there are “numerous possibilities” if Iran did not respond to the talks.

Clinton: 'Israel may lose Arab support on Iran'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Israel on Thursday that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testifies on Capitol Hill before the House State and Foreign Operations subcommittee on Thursday.
"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go hand in hand," Clinton told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. She added that Arab countries "believe that Israel's willingness to re-enter into discussions with the Palestinian Authority strengthens them in being able to deal with Iran." Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is set to visit Washington in May and Clinton stressed she was not going to jump to any conclusions regarding Israel's stance until the upcoming talks with him. "The prime minister will be coming to Washington in May, and we think that it is important not to prejudge what their view is and how that can best be approached," she said. Concerning a funding request for the Palestinians, Clinton said the State Department would ensure that no US taxpayer money goes to Hamas. "No aid will flow to Hamas or any entity controlled by Hamas," she said. Clinton repeated that any new Palestinian Authority government that included Hamas must recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous agreements. However, she indicated that the US would not necessarily cut funding to the Palestinians even if Hamas joins the unity government and fails to meet the three above conditions, noting that the US continued to provide funds to Lebanon, whose government includes Hizbullah. "We are doing that because we think, on balance, it is in the interest of the United States," she said. The US secretary of state went on to defend US President Barack Obama's effort to engage diplomatically with Iran, calling it a reasonable alternative to what she called a failed Bush administration policy. "We tried the policy of total isolation for eight years," she said in a rising voice, "and it did not deter Iran one bit. The nuclear program has continued unabated. They weren't supporting Hamas before. They are supporting Hamas now." *AP contributed to this report

Bellemare to Announce Decision on 4 Generals April 27
Naharnet/The prosecutor in the international tribunal Daniel Bellemare will announce his decision on Monday regarding the fate of the top four security generals held in custody in Lebanon in the murder case of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The daily As Safir on Friday quoted Bellemare's spokeswoman Radiya Ashouri as saying that the tribunal's prosecutor will announce his decision on April 27 and not earlier than the specified date. Pre-trial judge Daniel Fransen has issued a ruling asking Daniel Bellemare to "either justify the need to keep the prisoners in Lebanon in custody or to order their release by April 27." The four generals are Jamil Sayyed, Ali Hajj, Raymond Azar and Mustafa Hamdan who respectively headed the General Security Department, the Internal Security Forces, Military Intelligence and the Presidential Guards Brigade.
Ashouri stressed from The Hague Bellemare's keenness to commit by the deadline "unless circumstances warrant otherwise."
An Nahar newspaper, however, said Fransen approved Bellemare's request to give him until Friday to decide whether or not he needed to extend the April 27 deadline. Meanwhile, STL President Antonio Cassesse said the tribunal now possesses the "necessary legal tools" to deal with the initial files related to the Hariri murder. Beirut, 24 Apr 09, 08:25

Egypt warns of 'fury' over security breaches
Daily Star staff/Friday, April 24, 2009
BEIRUT: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said Thursday his country will "hit with an iron fist anyone who messes with its national security." "Egypt will not allow the presence of anti-peace powers on its territories," Mubarak said in a veiled attack on Hizbullah. The president was speaking to troops stationed in the Red Sea city of Ismailia on the occasion of the liberation of the Sinai Peninsula in 1979. Mubarak also called for an end to the exploitation of the plight of the Palestinian people.
Earlier this month, Egyptian security officials said 25 members of an alleged Hizbullah cell had been arrested. Official media have reported that a Lebanese commander of the group admitted to plotting attacks on resorts in Egypt.
Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah confirmed that the man, identified as Sami Shihab, was a Hizbullah agent but denied that he was planning to carry out any attacks in Egypt. He said Shihab had been tasked with providing logistical assistance to Palestinian resistance fighters in the Gaza Strip.
Mubarak accused "certain forces" in the Middle East of attempting to harm Egypt's security, adding that the country's enemies were cynically taking advantage of the Palestinians for their own narrow interests. "We are aware of your plans ... We will expose your plot and catch you," he vowed. "Stop [exploiting] the Palestinian issue and be warned of Egypt's fury." - The Daily Star

Clinton Fears Hizbullah Victory in Elections
Naharnet/U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has expressed concern about a possible win by Hizbullah in the June 7 parliamentary elections and said Cairo realized the increasing alliance between the Lebanese group and Hamas after the alleged Hizbullah cell was seized in Egypt.
"We are currently supporting the Lebanese government, which has Hizbullah in it and we are doing that because on balance it is the interest of the U.S." to back efforts against extremism, Clinton said in a testimony before a House appropriations subcommittee Thursday.
Her comment on Lebanon came as she reiterated that the Obama administration expected any new government that included Hamas to meet three conditions -- to recognize Israel, renounce violence and sign on to previous Palestinian peace accords.
But Clinton hinted that some flexibility might be needed, pointing to U.S. funding for Lebanon.
On Iran, the Secretary of State said isolation did not deter Tehran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support of Hizbullah and Hamas.
She told the panel the Obama administration is working with its allies to engage Iran, whose nuclear ambitions and increasing influence in the Middle East are causing concern throughout the region.
"We are concerned both about their pursuit of nuclear weapons and about their interference in the internal affairs of their neighbors and their support for terrorism and organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah," she said. "But, we tried the policy of total isolation for eight years and it did not deter Iran one bit. The nuclear program has continued unabated. They weren't supporting Hamas before; they're supporting Hamas now."
Clinton said "no U.S. aid will flow to Hamas or any entity" controlled by the group, which the United States considers a terrorist organization, even if Hamas ends up in a unity government with the Palestinian authority. The appropriations panel is reviewing the administration's request for additional funds for the State Department budget this year. Beirut, 24 Apr 09, 08:58

Hizbullah Cell Planned to Monitor Suez Canal, and 3 Major Bomb Attacks in Egypt
Naharnet/Interrogation of the so-called Hizbullah cell has uncovered that the group was tasked with monitoring the Suez Canal.
Press reports from Egypt said Hizbullah detainees belonging to a six-member "Port Said cell" have confessed that prime suspect Sami Shehab has assigned them to buy a boat to monitor Suez Canal. Egypt's Al Akhbar newspaper identified them as Ayman Mustafa, Ihab Ahmed, Ihab Assayed, Ibrahim Issam, Mohammed Abdelfattah and Hasan al-Manakhli. It said the detainees also confessed that Shehab, whose real name is Mohammed Youssef Mansour, had asked them to rent a fish shop in Port Said for use as cover-up to monitor the Suez Canal and ship activity. Meanwhile, pan-Arab Asharq al-Awsat daily quoted well-informed sources as saying that interrogation has uncovered that the Hizbullah cell, which includes 49 suspects – including Egyptian, Lebanese, Palestinian and Sudanese – had planned three major car bombing attacks in tourist cities on the Red Sea and the Sinai area. The sources said the suspects admitted to knowing key Hizbullah suspect Mohammed Qabalan and that they have confessed to meeting him several times. Interrogation has also revealed that Qabalan was planning, with the help of other Hizbullah intelligence men who accompanied him to Egypt, to carry out three major attacks using explosive belts and booby-trapped cars in Taba. Sources in Lebanon, meanwhile, said Hizbullah is avoiding an escalation of the crisis with Egypt and is showing flexibility toward resolving the issue in the best possible way. They said Hizbullah was willing to engage in Lebanese-Egyptian talks to find a "proper exit" similar to that in 2003 when three Hizbullah suspects were arrested in Jordan on charges of smuggling arms to the West Bank. Hizbullah back then pledged not "to repeat the attempt." Well-informed sources said Hizbullah was willing to "turn the page on the crisis" if Egypt hands over Shehab to Lebanese authorities. Beirut, 24 Apr 09, 09:19

Lebanese Elections: The Most Expensive in the World
Naharnet/The parliamentary elections are shaping up to be among the most expensive ever held anywhere, with hundreds of millions of dollars streaming into Lebanon from around the globe, the New York Times reported. The newspaper said that Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region are arming their allies with campaign money in place of weapons. "The result is a race that is widely seen as the freest and most competitive to be held here in decades, with a record number of candidates taking part. But it may also be the most corrupt," according to the Times. "Votes are being bought with cash or in-kind services. Candidates pay their competitors huge sums to withdraw. The price of favorable TV news coverage is rising, and thousands of expatriate Lebanese are being flown home, free, to vote in contested districts," the newspaper said. Even a narrow win by Hizbullah and its allies would be seen as a victory for Iran and a blow to U.S. allies in the region, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the newspaper said. "So the money flows."
"We are putting a lot into this," said one adviser to the Saudi government, who added that the Saudi contribution was likely to reach hundreds of millions of dollars in a country of only four million people. "We're supporting candidates running against Hizbullah, and we're going to make Iran feel the pressure."
Some voters, especially in competitive districts, receive cold calls offering cash for their vote, according to the Times.
All the major political groups deny buying votes, which is illegal under Lebanese law, but election monitors acknowledge that it is a routine practice. "Since the 1990s, more money has been coming in," said Paul Salem, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center. "Unfortunately, the system adjusts to that and in a way comes to expect it, especially among the poor." The newspaper said thousands of expatriates are being offered free plane trips back home to vote, adding that al-Mustaqbal movement leader Saad Hariri is reputed to be the biggest election spender. "It may not have helped that he kicked off his campaign with a gaudy televised event that resembled the set of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," the Times said.
But members of his movement say that the accusation is unfair, and that their own money is outmatched by the hundreds of millions of dollars Iran has given to Hizbullah over the years. Candidates generally to not admit to receiving money from abroad. One of them, however, recently broke with convention by acknowledging it openly. Ahmed al-Asaad said that Saudi Arabia's government was a "significant source of support" for his campaign against Hizbullah in southern Lebanon. "I need tools to fight back, and if the Saudis have an interest in building a state here, why shouldn't I take advantage of that?" said Asaad during an interview. Beirut, 24 Apr 09, 10:07

Vatican, Arab League Sign Accord for Peace Cooperation
Naharnet/The Vatican said Thursday it had signed a deal with the League of Arab States outlining cooperation aimed at promoting "peace, security and stability."
The agreement, signed by the Vatican's senior diplomat Dominique Mamberti and Arab League's Secretary-General Amr Moussa, comes ahead of Pope Benedict XVI's trip to Jordan and Israel from May 8 to 15. The pact, which covers political and cultural cooperation, will be symbolically sealed when the pope hosts Moussa on Friday, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi told AFP. The League's website lists its members as: Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Tunisia, Algeria, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Somalia.(AFP) Beirut, 23 Apr 09, 19:01

Tueni Files Judicial Complaint Against FPM Media
Naharnet/Parliamentary Greek Orthodox candidate for Beirut 1 district Nayla Tueni is legally suing Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) media for news falsification, sedition and for breaching all legal rules during electoral campaigns. In an issued statement on Thursday, Tueni said that FPM media deliberately sought to spread rumors and falsified news against her."The FPM website claimed that I had intervened to secure the release of individuals detained over a shooting that took place prior to my press conference in Ashrafiyeh, knowing that I have nothing to do with the incident, nor did I interfere in the affair," Tueni said.
She added that the FPM website also claimed that during her press conference she asked one conference participant to remain silent while he attempted to clarify an issue regarding his rights with the municipality of Beirut. "On the contrary, Beirut municipality members were present at the conference and expressed their willingness to settle this individual's issue," she said. OTV news' Wednesday evening broadcast claimed that Tueni's Lebanese Forces bodyguards initiated the Ashrafiyeh incident.
Suspected gunmen started shooting near a hotel in Ashrafiyeh Tuesday shortly before parliamentary contender Nayla Tueni launched her electoral platform at a gathering being held there. One man was wounded.  The National News Agency (NNA) reported the shooting came from a convoy of cars as they passed by Hotel Le Gabriel at 6:45 pm, only fifteen minutes before Tueni's scheduled appearance. The wounded man, identified by his last name Abu Shaqra, works in the hotel's parking lot. Security forces are investigating the incident. Tueni added that she decided to take legal action against the FPM website and OTV "following this dangerous persistence of media falsification and truth distortion."She is to also present an urgent complaint to the Election Monitoring Authority against both media outlets. Beirut, 23 Apr 09, 16:55

Clinton: US will not sacrifice Lebanon in Syria agreement
Daily Star staff/Friday, April 24, 2009
BEIRUT: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying that the US would not reach any agreement with Syria at the expense of Lebanon. During a testimonial for the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs committee, Clinton stressed the need to cooperate with the international community to adopt a strategy of openness toward Iran. She added that the US would not deal with or finance any Palestinian government that includes Hamas, "unless Hamas abandons violence and recognizes Israel." As for Syria, Clinton was quoted as saying that the US would not forge an agreement with Damascus at the expense of Lebanon. - The Daily Star

Egypt's Brotherhood backs Hizbullah in spat with Cairo
By Andrew Wander/Daily Star staff
Friday, April 24, 2009
BEIRUT: The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest opposition group, has pledged its support for Hizbullah as a much publicized spat between the Lebanese group and the Cairo government deepened this week. In a statement released late on Wednesday, the Brotherhood said that Hizbullah's admission of using Egypt as a base to facilitate weapons shipments to Hamas in the Gaza Strip did not constitute a threat to national security.
Instead, the statement said, all Muslim governments have a duty to supply Palestinians with weapons to resist Israeli attacks on their territory.
The news is likely to further politicize a growing row over Hizbullah's activities in Egypt sparked by a security operation earlier this month.
Authorities in Cairo arrested 49 men accused of working on behalf of Hizbullah to plot attacks against Egyptian institutions and Israeli tourists in the Sinai region of Egypt. The allegations prompted Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to give a televised address in which he denied planning attacks but admitted that one of the men seized by Egyptian security officials, Sami Shehab, was a member of Hizbullah who had been tasked with overseeing arms shipments to Hamas in Gaza.
However, Egyptian authorities released what they say is evidence that Shehab and a fugitive called Mohammad Qabalan were engaged in a raft of illegal activities including bomb construction. They released pictures of Qabalan on Wednesday and said that suspects in the enquiry had admitted to recognizing him. In particular, Ayman Mustafa, an Egyptian national being held in connection with the case, is said to have admitted to being in contact with Qabalan.
Mustafa has allegedly admitted to traveling to Lebanon via Syria to receive training in countering Egyptian security measures, the Al-Hayat newspaper reported on Thursday, as further details of the "Port Said" cell emerged.
Two suspects have apparently told security services that Shehab had instructed them to set up a fish shop as a cover for their activities, but that they failed to do so because of lack of funding. Others say they were tasked with building boats with which to transport weapons and one said that Shehab had instructed him to build a bomb out of a propane gas canister, Egyptian sources told the newspaper.
Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian group that controls the Gaza Strip, emerged as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in the late 1980s and Hizbullah's support for them is seen by Egypt as part of wide-ranging attempts by Iran to spread its influence across the Middle East.
Cairo and Tehran have not had diplomatic relations since shortly after the Islamic revolution in 1979, and comments made by Iranian officials that described the arrest of the Hizbullah cell as an attempt to influence the Lebanese parliamentary elections sparked an angry response from Egypt's Foreign Ministry.
Earlier this week, security officials in Cairo revealed that Shehab had traveled to the country on a false passport and suggested that Lebanese officials had been involved in a "conspiracy" with Hizbullah to carry out attacks in the country. Cairo is demanding a full investigation into the origin of the false documents, which it says represent a "grave breach" of Egypt's security, and has said all Lebanese passports will be treated with suspicion as a result. But Lebanese Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar warned against jumping to conclusions, pointing out that the issuance of false passports "rarely happens." He said that the passport was probably issued as the result of false identification used to support the application for it.

Lebanon, France to boost judiciary cooperation
By Mirella Hodeib/Daily Star staff/Friday, April 24, 2009
BEIRUT: Lebanon and France will sign a joint agreement for cooperation at the level of the judiciary, the French and Lebanese Justice Ministers said Thursday. "The agreement aims at combating organized crime, money laundering and terrorism, in addition to providing necessary training for the judicial police," French Justice Minister Rachida Dati told reporters after talks with her Lebanese counterpart, Ibrahim Najjar.
Dati arrived in Beirut Thursday for a two-day official visit at the invitation of Najjar.
"The joint agreement also allows for judicial training and exchange of expertise between France's National School of Magistrates and Lebanon's Institute of Judiciary Studies in order to boost the Lebanese judicial body by bringing in new judges building on the French experience," Dati said.
"Also," she added, "France will help train and form prison wardens especially since the Interior Ministry is [gradually] turning over prison administration to the Justice Ministry." She stressed the need for the full implementation of a 2002 law, under which judges can reduce prison verdicts. "This issue is of international concern, especially the aspect related to facilitating reintegration into society once freed," Dati said.
Dati and Najjar also discussed measures adopted for judicial appointments, mainly the appointments of Lebanon's Higher Judicial Council, which are still pending.
Dati briefed Najjar about the techniques used in France and the reforms introduced to the system of judicial appointments.
Najjar, meanwhile, said the Justice Ministry will launch on Wednesday from Lebanon's notorious Roumieh prison a campaign for the implementation of Law 422 of 2002, which gives magistrates the right to reduce prison sentences.
Dati also held separate talks with President Michel Sleiman and Speaker Nabih Berri on Thursday. On Thursday evening, Dati gave a talk entitled "Reforms of the Judicial System in Lebanon" at Lebanon's prestigious French-medium University Saint Joseph. "The judiciary should preserve certain maintenance but shun away from immobility and conservatism," Dati told the audience at a jampacked Pierre Abu Khater Amphitheatre. Dati explained that the judiciary should "stay in line with the general principles that structure it."
"However," she added," "the judiciary should learn how to adapt itself, how to modernize its principles, and how to conduct self-reform." The French Justice Minister said the judiciary was "in permanent contact with the people and with the difficulties they face; therefore the judiciary has a long tradition of constantly adapting itself to new situations.""Justice should communicate confidence," she said. Dati said that since the Lebanese judicial system was "closely tied to the French judicial system and consequently should benefit from each others experiences." "It's high time to set the foundations for a more strict and effective but at the same time protective and humane judiciary," she added.

French justice minister faces protesters in Beirut
BEIRUT: Visiting French Justice Minister Rachida Dati was met by about 30 left-wing protesters outside Beirut's Justice Ministry Thursday demanding the release of Lebanese communist fighter Georges Ibrahim Abdullah from a French prison. Responding to a question, Dati said Abdullah, who has been in a French jail since 1984, has repeatedly appealed for a term reduction but was turned down by France's judiciary. "He has recently submitted another request and the French judiciary has yet to pronounce a decision," Dati added. "Free Georges Abdullah," and "Zionists, fascists, you're the terrorists," the activists shouted in French as Dati's convoy arrived at the ministry, where she was due to hold a meeting with her Lebanese counterpart. Abdullah is serving a life sentence for the murder of a US and Israeli diplomat in France in 1982. A French court ordered his conditional release in 2003 but the decision was overturned by the Justice Ministry. The protesters, all members of the Union of Lebanese Democratic Youth (ULDY), also held up signs in Arabic and French, one reading: "It's JUST the French minister of justice who is UNJUST." "The French authorities have exhausted the life of Georges Ibrahim Abdullah in your jails although he has spent all his prison sentence for his struggle against Zionist terrorism which continues," said ULDY member Nidal Mokdad as she read off a letter addressed to the minister. A life sentence in France lasts for 18 years in jail before the prisoner may become eligible for parole. - Marc Abizeid

Aoun unveils electoral lists for northern Metn, Jbeil
Three Armenian candidates win uncontested seats
By Therese Sfeir /Daily Star staff
Friday, April 24, 2009
BEIRUT: Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) leader MP Michel Aoun announced on Wednesday his party's electoral lists for the northern Metn and Jbeil districts. The Metn list includes MPs Edgard Maalouf, Salim Salhab, Ghassan Mokheiber, Hagop Pakradounian, Ibrahim Kenaan and Nabil Nicolas, as well as musician Ghassan Rahbani and Ghassan Achkar. Speaking in Rabieh, Aoun called on his supporters to vote for the complete list to achieve the FPM project and vision.
As for the Jbeil list, the movement's candidates include MPs Abbas Hashem and Walid Khoury and Simon Abi Ramia. Aoun said the candidates represent the whole district, stressing that one deputy "cannot work alone but a unified parliamentary bloc can impose itself" and have a say in Parliament. Aoun added that the FPM's electoral program would be announced in an event on May 7.
Meanwhile, Interior Minister Ziyad Baroud announced Thursday at midnight the end of the constitutional deadline for withdrawing candidacies. In a news conference, Baroud said the final number of candidates reached 587 and the last candidate who withdrew from the elections was Abbas Jafal.
The interior minister added that three Armenian candidates won uncontested in the districts of Metn and Beirut's second district. Those are Pakradounian for the Armenian Orthodox seat in northern Metn district and Artur Nazarian and Sebouh Kalbakian for the Armenian seats in Beirut's second district.
Baroud also said the total number of candidates who withdrew from the elections reached 115. He stressed that the elections would not be delayed and would be held on June 7.
On the security situation, Baroud said the Lebanese Army and security forces would spare no efforts to protect the citizens.
"Political parties are cooperating with the Interior Ministry and the security forces to prevent any problems and to resolve any disagreement that might occur," he said. Baroud criticized electoral propaganda, mainly posters and photos of candidates, calling on the Lebanese to abide by the election law.
In other developments, Beirut's first district candidate for the Orthodox seat, Nayla Tueni, said on Thursday that she decided to file a lawsuit against the FPM's website and OTV for spreading false news on the incident that occurred on Tuesday in Achrafieh.
In a statement, Tueni said: "The FPM website claimed I intervened to release individuals who were detained over a shooting that took place prior to my news conference in Achrafieh, knowing that I have nothing to do with the incident, nor did I interfere in the affair."
She said the FPM website also claimed that during her press conference she asked a participant to remain silent while he sought to clarify an issue regarding his rights with the municipality of Beirut. "Beirut municipality members were present at the conference and said they were willing to settle the person's issue," Tueni added.
OTV news on Wednesday evening claimed that Tueni's bodyguards initiated the Achrafieh incident.
Separately, the Democratic Renewal Movement press office stated that former MP Nassib Lahoud's withdrawal from the parliamentary elections was not due to personal reasons as had been announced by MP Michel Murr and former President Amin Gemayel. Lahoud, according to his press office, would "remain silent over the true reasons for his withdrawal, in order not to engage in polemics with the two politicians."
Separately, Hizbullah MP Mohammad Raad said Thursday the opposition would deploy all efforts to "grant Lebanon a chance for stability." Raad added: "We want the opposition to win the majority of seats in order to preserve the identity of this country."
Meanwhile, Sidon MP Osama Saad denied any negotiations between him and Al-Jamaa Al-Islamiyya.
The Islamic group said earlier in the week that no agreement had been reached with the Future Movement over the upcoming polls.
Saad - the opposition candidate in Sidon - said that the Future Movement did not want to forge any agreement with the group because of its support for the resistance.
In remarks to The Daily Star, Al-Jamaa Al-Islamiyya's political official in Sidon, Bassam Mahmoud, said the group "offered many concessions" to the Future Movement, but were surprised by the nomination of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora in Sidon.
He added that the group accepted to relinquish the Sidon seat, for a seat in another district, "but no agreement could be reached."
Education Minister Bahia Hariri, who is running for Sidon with Siniora, stressed the importance of the opposition in "rectifying the role of the loyalty forces."
In remarks on Thursday, Hariri said: "No work can be done right if there are no loyalty and opposition groups."
"The opposition rectifies the role of the pro-government group if it assumes its role in an appropriate manner," she added.
Hariri also stressed the importance of "dialogue, communication and partnership" to serve Sidon's interests. - Additional reporting by Mohammed Zaatari

Ralph Riachi appointed deputy president of Hariri Tribunal
'Sharjah police hand over Siddiq to Abu Dhabi counterparts'
By Dalila Mahdawi /Daily Star staff
Friday, April 24, 2009
BEIRUT: Lebanese judge Ralph Riachi has been appointed deputy president of the international tribunal charged with investigating the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, media reports said on Thursday. Antonio Cassisse, presiding judge for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, announced Riachi's appointment during a joint interview with his new colleague published by the Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper. The names of the Lebanese judges had previously been kept under wraps due to security concerns. Riachi has already relocated to the tribunal's headquarters in Leidschendam, a suburb outside of The Hague. Commenting on security measures, he told the paper he felt adequately protected. "I live with policemen," Riachi said jokingly. "I have a team to protect me in The Hague and in Beirut, and I have a sufficient number of security guards." Riachi's appointment came less than one week after the tribunal's registrar, Robin Vincent resigned unexpectedly, citing personal reasons. Vincent will stay on in The Hague until June.  Cassisse meanwhile told the paper he intended to visit Lebanon and Syria in May, and would submit a request to the Syrian authorities to discuss a memorandum of agreement on the extradition of any Syrian suspects of witnesses to The Hague. He reiterated the Tribunal's neutrality, adding that the court was "pursuing a serious endeavor, not seeking any political gains and refused any sort of political interference."
Meanwhile on Thursday, Lebanon's As-Safir newspaper reported that police in Sharjah handed over a key suspect in the Hariri tribunal to their Abu Dhabi counterparts. Mohammad Zuhair Siddiq was transferred as he posed a threat to national security in the United Arab Emirates and possessed a fake passport, the newspaper said.
Abu Dhabi police will now decide whether to imprison Siddiq or surrender him to Syria, should Damascus submit an extradition request. The tribunal's spokesperson, Suzanne Khan, refused to comment on Siddiq's arrest, telling the newspaper the Hariri tribunal had "nothing to do with the handover of Siddiq."
The news came after Dubai's top police officer General Dahi Khalfan denied on Tuesday reports that Siddiq had been detained in Dubai. The allegations first emerged last Friday after an unidentified Arab diplomat in Dubai told reporters that Siddiq had been arrested in the United Arab Emirates.
Siddiq, allegedly a former Syrian intelligence agent, was arrested in Paris in October 2005 under an international arrest warrant requested by a Lebanese prosecutor. He was put under house arrest after the French government refused a request to extradite him to Lebanon, saying it had failed to receive guarantees that Siddiq would not face the death penalty if convicted. Siddiq disappeared in March 2008, prompting accusations by his brother that France had "liquidated" him.
In 2006, Siddiq claimed Syrian President Bashar Assad and his then-Lebanese counterpart Emile Lahoud had ordered Hariri's murder, which also killed 22 others along Beirut's seafront in February 2005. The UN tribunal prosecuting Hariri's assassins initially considered Siddiq a key witness in their probe, but made him a suspect after his testimonies were discredited.
In March, tribunal officials said they had received a number of phone calls from Siddiq but did not know his whereabouts.
Four other suspects - Generals Raymond Azar, Ali Hajj, Mustafa Hamdan and Jamil al-Sayyed - are being held in connection with Hariri's death, after three civilians were released on bail in late February. The tribunal's prosecutor Daniel Bellemare was expected to recommend whether the men should be released later this month, but As-Safir newspaper reported on Thursday that he had requested more time to deliberate.
The generals, who all worked in Lebanon's pro-Syrian security institutions at the time of Hariri's assassination, were incarcerated in 2005 at the recommendation of former UN investigator Detlev Mehlis. The men have never been formally charged but were brought into custody on suspicion of terrorism, murder and attempted murder - accusations that their lawyers say are based on the false testimony of a witness later discredited by investigators.
According to the newspaper, Bellemare's request was made in a letter to the tribunal's pre-trial judge Daniel Fransen. Earlier this month, Lebanon's investigative judge Saqr Saqr lifted arrest warrants for the men, and the men will likely be released if not charged, though they are expected to remain in custody until Bellemare delivers his recommendation. According to Cassisse, Bellemare's decision will be made public between April 27 and May 4.

'Murky waters'
By:Jailan Halawi
Al-Ahram Weekly
Who's who in the Hizbullah cell? Jailan Halawi sifts through the contradictions
News of the arrested Hizbullah cell dominated the headlines for the second week as often conflicting information continued to be leaked.
Officials have denied Egypt received any intelligence from Israel regarding the cell. Such allegations, said Foreign minister Ahmed Abul- Gheit, were an "attempt to fish in murky waters".
The Foreign Ministry described the case as "criminal" and discarded any possibility of it being resolved through diplomacy rather than the courts.
As the interrogation of suspects continues, so too does the search for the remaining members of the cell who are thought to be hiding out in the rugged mountains of central and north Sinai. Security forces have already arrested more than a dozen people from the area and seized a cache of explosive devices.
During interrogation it was reported that two of the Egyptian suspects told the story of their recruitment, claiming that their only intention was to help the Palestinian resistance and that they had no knowledge of plans to conduct operations on Egyptian soil.
Egyptian suspect Hani El-Sayed Motlaq is said to have been introduced to Palestinian national Nasser Abu Omra two years ago. He was encouraged by Abu Omra to join the group. Motlaq claims that his only aim was to capitalise on the sympathy of ordinary Egyptians for the plight of Palestinians in Gaza by collecting donations at universities, mosques and other public places and send them to Gaza for aide.
Two months later Motlaq, a resident of north Sinai, was introduced to the cell's alleged leader and number one suspect, Lebanese national Mohamed Youssef Mansour, aka Sami Shehab, who told him to prepare to travel to Libya to "receive training". Unable to arrange the trip, Motlaq was then advised by Abu Omra and Shehab to try Sudan. He was arrested before he was able to travel.
Other reports have emerged claiming Shehab ordered recruits to collect information about specific tourist sites and report back on security levels ahead of an assessment on the possibility of launching armed attacks.
Lawyer Montasser El-Zayat, who is representing the detainees, says any confessions should be discounted since they were extracted under duress. His appeal to the attorney- general, Hisham Badawi, that suspects be referred for forensic examination to ascertain whether or not they had been tortured, has been granted.
The announcement on 8 April that security forces had uncovered a Hizbullah cell working on Egyptian soil sent shockwaves through the national security establishment. Members of the group are accused of belonging to an organisation that was seeking to undermine the state, compromise Egypt's national security, smuggle weapons and ammunition and plot attacks and of spying for a foreign party with the aim of facilitating operations that would destabilise Egypt. According to the suspects' lawyers, they deny all charges and insist their only goal was to help the Palestinians.
Hizbullah claims the accusations are "politically motivated" and that Cairo is taking revenge on the Shia party for saying Egypt had cooperated with Israel during its three-week assault on Gaza which left over 1,400 Palestinians, the majority women and children, dead.
"The details tailored by Egyptian intelligence lack even minimal evidence. This is a political campaign to smear Hizbullah," Sheikh Naeim Qassem, deputy to Hizbullah Secretary- General Hassan Nasrallah, was quoted as saying.
Atef Odwani, Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, believes it is not just Hizbullah that Cairo has in its sights. Egypt, he says, is "fabricating the Hizbullah crisis to finish off Hamas... and find a good pretext to abandon the resistance movement".
As investigations continue the security forces seem to be casting an ever wider net. According to sources, state security prosecutors are currently interrogating two Palestinian nationals, Mohamed Ramadan Baraka and Nidal Fathi Hassan, affiliated to Fatah.
According to El-Zayat, Baraka and Hassan both lived in Al-Goura in Arish. Sources say both men were considering travelling to Sudan, and on to Syria then Lebanon, in order to receive training before carrying out a suicide bombing in the Israeli capital of Tel Aviv. Nabil Shaath, a member of Fatah's central committee , distancing his movement from the Hizbullah cell, says that while Baraka and Hassan may have been members of Fatah, investigations will probably show that they left the movement some time ago. Barakat El-Ezz, Fatah's Cairo- based coordinator, points out that seeking recruits from other groups is not a new strategy for Hizbullah. Over the years, he says, it has managed to infiltrate Fatah and other Palestinian groups and attract recruits largely on the basis of "generous" financial offers.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Nasrallah's gamble
Al-Ahram Weekly
By: Gamal Essam El-Din
Gamal Essam El-Dinspeaks with Minister of State for Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Moufid Shehab about the recent escalation in tensions between Egypt and the Lebanese-based Shia party, frosty relations with Syria and Qatar and persistent rumours that the People's Assembly is about to be dissolved
Moufid Shehab was appointed minister of state for legal and parliamentary affairs at the beginning of 2006. In the same year he was also made the ruling National Democratic Party's assistant secretary-general for syndicate affairs.
Shehab has enjoyed a long and varied academic, political and diplomatic career. He headed Egypt's negotiating team during the international arbitration that in 1984 secured the return of Taba from Israel. President Hosni Mubarak selected him to lead the Egyptian delegation to the 2008 Arab Summit in Damascus and last month's Arab Summit in Doha. More recently Shehab addressed the People's Assembly and Shura Council on the political and legal ramifications of the uncovering two weeks ago of a Hizbullah cell operating on Egyptian territory.
What are the latest developments in the case of the Hizbullah plot?
I think interrogators are currently wrapping up their investigations. In a few days we expect Prosecutor-General Abdel-Meguid Mahmoud to receive a report containing the final results of the investigation. The next step will be to refer the suspects to the courts.
What kind of court?
This is up to Prosecutor-General Abdel-Meguid Mahmoud to decide. I suspect the case will be referred to the Supreme State Security Court created under the emergency laws in October 1981. Preliminary investigations confirm that the Hizbullah terror cell intended to launch subversive acts in Egypt. To this end, the cell rented a number of apartments in buildings overlooking the Suez Canal to monitor shipping and on the Egyptian-Palestinian border to smuggle weapons into Gaza. A number of operatives have admitted that Hizbullah was planning to carry out acts of sabotage in Egypt.
Article one of the Egyptian penal code states that it applies to all crimes on Egyptian territory regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators. To activate a cell here was a big gamble on the part of Nasrallah and his party.
Some MPs have demanded an arrest warrant be issued in the name of the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah. Others have called for Nasrallah to be tried in absentia before the International Criminal Court and, if found guilty, for Interpol to secure his arrest. How do you view such demands?
They would apply if states, rather than individuals, were found to have carried out subversive acts on Egyptian soil. Hizbullah is an organised party and its operatives in Egypt aimed to undermine Egypt's national security. In a televised speech on 10 April Nasrallah admitted that Sami Shehab was a member of Hizbullah and that he had been operating a ring of 10 operatives on Egyptian soil. This means that the cell's operatives are subject to prosecution under Article 86 of Egypt's penal code.
Does Nasrallah's televised admission leave him open to possible prosecution?
Article 86 of the penal code covers both the perpetrator of any crime and his or her accomplices. Accomplices can either have incited the crime or offered practical help. Perpetrators and accomplices bear equal responsibility under Article 86 and both can face capital punishment.
Could you tell us more about the charges which the Hizbullah network in Egypt will face?
Members of this network could face a list of charges. They include operating a spy ring in Egypt in the interests of a foreign organisation, i.e. the Lebanese-based party of Hizbullah; providing this organisation with classified information and receiving military and financial assistance from a foreign organisation. They might also face charges of entering Egypt using forged documents.
What kind of sentences can be expected?
Under Article 86 anyone convicted of such charges, which include plotting terrorist acts, could face life imprisonment or the death sentence. Hizbullah alleges that as an organisation its exclusive aim is to fight the Israeli occupation in South Lebanon and that it has the right to acquire arms, weapons, artillery and explosives to achieve its goals. Hizbullah also alleges that its operations are limited to south Lebanon and fighting Israel. Nasrallah's televised admission, however, clearly shows that the group took a decision that violated Egyptian sovereignty and that it was seeking to use Egyptian land to further its conspiracies and plots. This leaves members of the Hizbullah network in Egypt open to possible capital sentences.
Will the uncovering of the Hizbullah network affect government plans to implement President Hosni Mubarak's 2005 presidential campaign promise to replace the 28-year-old law of emergency with anti-terror legislation?
The Hizbullah cell will face prosecution under the Egyptian penal code. The expected anti-terror law is still in the preparation stage. We are not in a hurry to rush it through. President Mubarak himself said in 2005 that the anti-terror law should be the result of careful study and discussion.
Since it aims to replace the emergency law its final form should be without legislative loopholes. Since 1981 the emergency law has proved very successful in uprooting terrorist crimes in Egypt. The government has always been keen that it is applied only to fighting terror and drug-trafficking crimes without violating human rights.
Do you think uncovering the Hizbullah cell will negatively affect relations between Egypt and Lebanon?
I hope not. Most Lebanese politicians expressed their regret, arguing that Hizbullah should not use its resistance role as an excuse to breach the sovereignty of another state. Some Lebanese politicians also called on Egypt to mend fences with Hizbullah in a friendly manner...
And in response President Mubarak said the law will have the final say in resolving the case.
We are in contact with Lebanese politicians through all the usual diplomatic and political channels. The prime minister of Lebanon, Fouad Al-Siniora, recently phoned President Mubarak asking that a copy of the results of the investigation be made available to the Lebanese authorities. Al-Siniora strongly condemned Lebanese nationals seeking to perpetrate crimes in Egypt.
Nasrallah claimed the cell planned operations in Egypt that would be of help to the Palestinian resistance during the war on Gaza. He also accused Egypt of helping impose a siege on the Palestinians. How do you respond?
Whatever the supposed ends they cannot justify compromising Egypt's sovereignty. The Hizbullah cell is part of a larger scenario in which many other organisations and countries are seeking to tarnish Egypt's international reputation and force it to breach its peace treaty with Israel. In a speech during the war Nasrallah urged the Egyptian army and people to overthrow the regime and open the Rafah crossing.
How do you see Egypt's relations with Syria and the Gulf state of Qatar following the Doha summit in March?
It is unfortunate that Qatar has adopted such an aggressive stance towards Egypt. In the speech I delivered on behalf of President Mubarak during the opening of the summit I announced that Egypt would never ignore attempts to defame its image, work against its interests or undermine its regional role. As far as Syria is concerned, relations are good on the economic level but remain cool on the diplomatic and political front.
There have been repeated rumours that Iran has been encouraging Hizbullah to undermine Egypt's national security...
Iran makes no secret of the fact it is Hizbullah's main sponsor. Any Iranian role, however, is not within the mandate of the investigation into Hizbullah's Egyptian cell.
Do recent rumours that the People's Assembly will be dissolved at the end of its current session next June have any basis in fact?
I have no information about the matter. The decision is solely the president's. Article 136 of the amended constitution states clearly that 'the President shall not dissolve the People's Assembly unless it is necessary and until after a referendum is put to the public'. I do not see any necessity at the present time. Elections for both the People's Assembly and Shura Council are due in 2010. Let me emphasise again, it is the president who makes the decision in this matter.
What legislation is due to be discussed by the assembly? We have just two months before the session closes in the second week of June. During the remaining weeks laws regulating the generation of nuclear power, telecommunication crimes and the theft of antiquities are expected to be discussed. There will in addition be items covering the stock exchange and personal status issues. © Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Eyeing the day after
By: Omayma Abdel-Latif
Al-Ahram Weekly
The crisis between Egypt and Hizbullah is not so much about the results as the post-poll outcomes of Lebanon's upcoming elections, writes Omayma Abdel-Latif from Beirut
The political crisis between Egypt and the Lebanese resistance movement Hizbullah will not impact the result of Lebanon's upcoming elections, but it will shape post-election arrangements. The timing of the crisis, coming only two months ahead of parliamentary elections due 7 June, suggests that there might have been a link -- at least according to Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Muttaqi. Ground realities differ. The crisis will not have an adverse impact on Hizbullah's prospects.
Hizbullah is fielding 11 candidates; one in Beirut, two in Tyr, four in Baalbaak-Hermel, one in Baabda, one in Bint Jbeil, one in Hasbyia-Marjeyoun and one in Nabatiya. The election results in all of the constituencies where Hizbullah is contesting are a forgone conclusion. There is hardly any serious competition against Hizbullah candidates. For example, in Hasbyia-Marjeyoun in South Lebanon there are 12 Shia candidates (including Hizbullah's Ali Fayyad) contesting two seats. Although the list of candidates includes some known figures such as the deputy head of the Lebanese Communist Party, Saadallah Mazraani, and Ahmed Al-Assad, the scion of a feudalist family who is backed by 14 March, their chances of winning against Hizbullah are near non-existent.
Although confident of victory, Hizbullah's candidates, nonetheless, urge voters in electoral rallies to show up in big numbers on election day. For Hizbullah, what really matters in this election is voter turnout. Party officials fear voter apathy based on the assumption that the resistance is winning anyway. And if anything, worsening relations with Egypt and the ensuing smear campaign against Hizbullah, along with attempts by 14 March to make use of the crisis, have consolidated party popularity rather than undermined it.
Meanwhile, opposition figures from across the spectrum insist that if the opposition wins the parliamentarian majority, it will call for a national unity government and give the blocking third to 14 March forces. On the other hand, 14 March figures, including majority leader Saad Al-Hariri, say they will not be party to any national unity government. 14 March candidates warn that an opposition-led government will face a similar fate as that of the Hamas- led government in Gaza: international isolation and sanctions imposed on Lebanon. A statement by an Egyptian official that Hizbullah ministers will be banned from Egypt only confirms this view.
What adds to the complexity are statements by 14 March figures (notably Al-Hariri and Samir Geagea of the Lebanese Forces) that the Doha agreement signed last May and that ended an 18-month period of political turmoil will expire on 8 June and that new arrangements should be sought to form the next government. The agreement has given the opposition, led by Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic Movement, a blocking third in government (11 ministries out of 30). This will no longer hold after the election, according to 14 March leaders.
The Egypt-Hizbullah crisis is being viewed in this light. The subtext of the crisis is that any opposition- led government in Lebanon will only worsen Lebanon's relations with countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. But a close look at the list of tasks that the new government will be asked to address (the social and economic crisis, national dialogue, and a new defence strategy for Lebanon), all prove that only a national unity government can and should prevail. Any attempt by regional powers to undermine such an arrangement will put Lebanon on the brink of the abyss, yet again. Further, 14 March is no longer the united and monolithic bloc it once was. Electoral rivalries, the change of heart made by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, have created deep rifts that will prove hard to heal after the elections.
Lebanese Interior Minister Zaid Baroud recently said that the forthcoming elections would not produce any substantive change since many political bargains were concluded in Doha. The upcoming Lebanese legislative elections will be a test not just for state institutions, in their capacity to run free and fair elections, but it will also test the ability of international and regional powers to accept their outcome. © Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Caught in two minds
By: Amr Hamzawi*
Al-Ahram Weekly
The Muslim Brotherhood's reaction to the Hizbullah controversy reveals that until now the movement is split in its strategic outlook between two opposing political directions, writes Amr Hamzawi*
The Muslim Brotherhood MPs did well in the People's Assembly discussion of the unearthing of a Hizbullah cell in Egypt. They came out clearly and unequivocally in the defence of Egypt's national security and condemned all attempts to violate it on whatever grounds, whether in the name of the resistance or with the purpose of offering logistical and military aid to resistant Palestinian factions in Gaza. On the other hand, the statements issued by Supreme Guide Mohamed Mahdi Akef could not have been more harmful to the Muslim Brotherhood's situation and its standing among the Egyptian public. Akef dismissed the Hizbullah cell case as "media hype" and shrugged off the importance of national security as he rushed to the defence of Hassan Nasrallah, saying, "There are two agendas in the region one working to protect the resistance and advance its victory over the Zionist enemy, the other concerned only with placating the Americans and Zionists." Other members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leadership echoed the supreme guide's vindication of Hizbullah, stressing that the cell's aim was to support the resistance in Palestine, not to harm Egypt. The claim tests even the most credulous and the stance flies in the face of the patriotic convictions of the majority of the Egyptian people.
What concerns us, here, however, is that the disparity of opinion between the Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary bloc and the Office of the Supreme Guide is indicative of divergent outlooks within the Muslim Brotherhood on the concept of the state and its national security requirements. Whereas the former group's approach is consistent with its desire to assimilate as an active and responsible player in the legitimate political life of Egypt, the latter's position reflects the continued hold of the logic of perpetual confrontation and conflict between the Muslim Brothers as an officially banned organisation and the ruling elite.
In defence of Egyptian sovereignty and national security in the People's Assembly, Muslim Brotherhood MP Essam Mukhtar declared, "The national security of Egypt is a red line that no one should be allowed to cross." With even greater fervour, MP Hassanein El-Shura stressed that the Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary members "condemn any assault against Egyptian national security. Egypt first! Egypt first!" Such statements reflect a mindset that fully embraces the concept of the nation state and gives it prevalence over the antithetical concept of a resistance movement that transcends borders as theologically justified in the discourse and literature of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood MPs' views on the question of a Hizbullah cell in Egypt may not be identical with those of the ruling elite, but they are very close when it comes to potential threats to Egypt's national security and sovereignty, which are essential corollaries to the nation state. Thus, to the Brotherhood parliamentary bloc, this must take priority over the aims of supporting the resistance, contrary to the official rhetoric of the Brotherhood, which accords the "resistance against Zionists and Americans" a supreme and holy status that overrides all other considerations. This latter is the logic that has been used, occasionally, to justify rebellion against ruling authorities, to rally support for the jihad in Lebanon in 2006 and in Palestine in 2008, and to vindicate the violation of Egyptian sovereignty and national security.
The Muslim Brotherhood MPs' position reflected a prime trait of responsible political behaviour, which is awareness of where political opposition stops and the need to stand united on major national issues starts. These parliamentarians, thus, took excellent advantage of the space available to them in the People's Assembly where we saw the largest opposition faction demonstrate its solidarity with the ruling party in the defence of Egypt's national security and in contributing to shaping a public outlook unconditionally opposed to Hizbullah's attempt to intervene in the country's domestic affairs. The press statements of the supreme guide and some of his bureau members in defence of Hizbullah, the sanctity of the resistance and its use of Egyptian territory to support the Palestinians in Gaza, on the other hand, reflect the continued existence of a dangerous trend in the Muslim Brotherhood leadership.
With its persistent refusal to acknowledge an overriding commitment to the sovereignty of the nation state, the Brotherhood will remain incapable of leveraging itself from its current position as a banned organisation to an officially recognised movement with a legally recognised status as a political party or otherwise. In contrast to the "Egypt first" attitude voiced by the Brotherhood's bloc in parliament, the Brotherhood leadership acted in accordance with what we might term the "resistance first" principle, in which context the concerns of national sovereignty and security come a distant second. Accordingly, its spokespersons were disdainfully indifferent to the significance of the existence of a Hizbullah paramilitary cell in Egypt as part of an arms smuggling network passing through Egyptian territory, in spite of the fact that such phenomena constitute a security breach that no sovereign nation can afford to ignore or countenance. Such contempt for national sovereignty was not only a tactical error, it was also deeply offensive to the patriotic sentiments of a large segment of the public who now have as much cause as the government to suspect the aims and priorities of Egypt's largest grassroots movement.
I am convinced that the divergence in the stances between Muslim Brotherhood MPs and the Office of the Supreme Guide is not part of a cynical assignation of roles, with one group hastening to placate a public shocked by the revelations concerning Hizbullah's activities in Egypt while the second group continues to display its long-held solidarity with the most influential resistance movement in the Arab world. Rather, the parliamentarians' view is connected, above all, with an awareness of the duties and obligations that come with taking part in a nation's official political life. The Brotherhood almost instinctively knew that their future in the People's Assembly was contingent upon their embracing an unequivocally patriotic stance against Hizbullah's violation of Egyptian sovereignty. They knew that adopting the militant Islamist resistance rhetoric would not only place them in a precarious position with the authorities, but also cast them outside of the realm of responsible and popularly acceptable parliamentary behaviour. Moreover, Hassan Nasrallah's admission of responsibility for creating and running the cell deprived the MPs of any opportunity to seek refuge in a grey area. They could no longer, for example, question the veracity of the information revealed by the security agencies or voice doubts about Hizbullah's actual involvement.
The Office of the Supreme Guide, on the other hand, focussed its attention, first and foremost, on keeping its reaction to the Hizbullah cell consistent with its Islamist, pro-resistance discourse, in accordance with which this ideological imperative transcends principles and prerequisites of the nation state. The Office of the Supreme Guide set the demands of the resistance above the national concerns of Egypt during the war in Gaza in 2008-2009, and it clung to this prioritisation in its reaction to the Hizbullah cell case.
The coexistence between the nation state outlook and the "above-the-state" outlook cannot last for long in the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood. The organisation will have to make up its mind. If it hopes to assimilate fully into Egyptian political life, it will have to place Egypt first and adopt the Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary bloc's attitude toward the Hizbullah cell as a binding strategic approach for the entire organisation. If, on the other hand, it plans on continuing as a theocratic movement whose rhetoric and vision transcends and even defies the needs of the nation state, then it stands little hope of emerging from its current status as a banned organisation.
* The writer is senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Reality below the surface
By: Abdel-Moneim Said*
Al-Ahram Weekly
The revelation of a Hizbullah cell in Egypt is just the tip of the iceberg of far deeper regional problems, writes Abdel-Moneim Said*
It is mistaken to think that the discovery of an underground Hizbullah network in Egypt only has bearings on tense relations between Cairo and that Islamist organisation. In fact, it has more to do with developments in the Arab region as a whole. First, the Hizbullah ring is not about smuggling arms, ammunition and aid to Gaza at a time when Palestinians are undergoing a crucial and painful ordeal. Investigations have established that the first cell in this network was planted as early as 2005 and that the prime suspect, Mohamed Sami Mansour, was arrested on 19 November 2008, several weeks before the Israeli war on Gaza. Second, we are talking about a complete infrastructure for carrying out diverse paramilitary operations aimed at striking whatever targets and achieving whatever aims in the mind of those who control it. Gaza may have been one objective, but probably not the most important. Third, the network extends beyond the connection between Beirut, where the orders are given, Cairo, where the network leaders lurk, and the Sinai and Suez Canal where the unearthed operations were taking place. Rather, it is part of a larger international network in which are interwoven other arms smuggling networks, most notably from Iran through the Gulf, the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea, to Sudanese ports and from there through Egyptian territories or other areas. Fourth, a network of this size and with this many components has the flexibility and scope to carry out strikes against any number of Arab countries. One can only guess at its links with similar networks in other countries, such as Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, and beyond. Finally, a network of this size, diversity and capabilities could not operate on such a scope and scale without being in full coordination with the intelligence, military and other government agencies of a state. The state, in this case, is Iran.
The foregoing points indicate clearly that the lines of confrontation are not between Egypt and Hizbullah, or even Cairo and Hassan Nasrallah, but rather between radical militant forces in the region and moderate forces. The pattern of outcries and condemnations that we have heard over the past few days suggests that this conflict has entered a new phase, even though it has come to light that the planning and preparations for the networks began not only before the war on Gaza but also before the war in Lebanon, in the summer of 2006. From this perspective, the timing of those wars was not coincidental. Rather, they were engagements preparatory to the build-up of a violent revolutionary movement of an increasingly expanding scope and escalating intensity targeting many Arab countries.
Sadly we have seen it all before. This is far from the first time in the contemporary history of the Middle East that radical forces commandeered the Palestinian cause to spread dissension and turned "resistance", "steadfastness" and "solidarity" from essential assets in the process of liberating occupied territory and obtaining legitimate rights into instruments for securing or maintaining control over society in one Arab country or another, and, secondly, for aiding and abetting radical groups in other countries and otherwise working to destabilise governments that refuse to be intimidated. Among the innumerable examples, Saddam wielded the Palestinian cause as a weapon in order to seize control in Iraq and, later, in order to invade Kuwait. The Syrian Baath regime similarly used the Palestinians as its pretext for invading in Lebanon and meddling in Lebanese affairs. Today, Tehran and its ally Hizbullah are capitalising on the Palestinian cause to secure control in Lebanon and, from there, to infiltrate other Arab countries. Hassan Nasrallah was not the least bit embarrassed when admitting to the existence of his underground network in Egypt. To him this was perfectly natural, regardless of whether or not the Egyptians minded or whether their government regarded his ring as a threat. After all, Egyptian of any form is not what counts but rather obeying the commands of the wise men that know how to steer the battle.
The alignments in the Middle East have become something of a tangle. The lines are drawn not just between Arab countries and non-Arab ones, or even between some Arab countries and others, but also within individual Arab countries. Sometimes it is even hard to discern the black threads from the white in the darkness that never sees dawn. Perhaps Sudan offers a salient example. This far-flung country has enormous wealth and potential. However, radical Islamism injected its virus and plunged it into endless religious wars, provincial uprisings and terrorist activities. The consequence of this virulence is that the south is on the verge of secession, a deep fissure separates Darfur in the west from the centre, and the country is riddled with other signs of fragmentation and collapse. On top of this crumbling nation sits a man wanted by the International Criminal Court. Yet in spite of these tragic circumstances the president of a country about to join the ranks of failed states rushes off to Doha at the time of the Gaza war in order to embrace the president of Iran. Then a little while later we discover that his country is a corridor in an arms smuggling operation via Egypt and a major link in the Hizbullah underground network that leads out of Iran. Moreover, even as it is being dismantled, Sudan is taking part in a similar process of dismantling Yemen by means of vicious mountain battles against the central authorities, in spite of the fact that Sanaa is one of the most staunch followers of the Palestinian cause. The purpose of all of this is to link the bases and strengthen the relations between various failed states, in which chaos, revolutionary movements and religious zealotry rule beneath the holy banner of the Palestinian cause and defying the rape of Palestine.
There is much to learn from the case of the Hizbullah ring in Egypt. Fortunately, the Egyptian government had the skill and leverage to deal with this multi-tiered conspiracy. In tandem with the military aspect, there was the political dimension, capitalising on some Egyptian opposition groups that were naïve enough to have fallen into the trap of exposing Egyptian security to danger for the sake of the Palestinian cause that Hizbullah wields so deftly for its own ends. At the same time, there was the media dimension, that took advantage of that long queue of the disaffected who are forever ready to cheer and march behind anyone who promises to liberate Palestine, even if the path to liberation has to pass through Kuwait, Cairo or Beirut. I refer here to certain Arab satellite networks, the bastion of all who are ready to sacrifice the facts for another radical sound bite.
None of the foregoing could have occurred were it not for the strategic vacuum in the region. In former times, they said that the bad guys went at large when the good guys faded from the scene or bowed to the glittering lights and the stories that went along with them. In all events, over the past few days, many are the commentators in Cairo and other moderate capitals that open their articles with startled apologetic remarks expressing their admiration for Nasrallah and Hizbullah, and its "venerable history" of resistance with special mention of that victory that was so perfectly attuned to Israeli standards, which placed no value on Arab lives, civilian or military, and with no mention whatsoever of the strategic consequences of that war, as it played out on the ground, which effectively had Nasrallah transporting his resistance from Lebanon and the liberation of Shabaa Farms to Cairo.
The time has come to take a look at the "unconstructive" chaos that Iran and its adjuncts are trying to sew, because of its potential future repercussions. Egypt may have succeeded in defusing the situation this time, but it must not drop its guard. Radical forces are quite dogged in pursuing their hopes and plans -- when it comes to other Arab countries that have come into their crosshairs -- for sewing panic, destruction and dissension. I have no doubt that there has been considerable consultation between various parties during recent days. However, the situation requires much more than just some information exchange and temporary cooperation. What is needed is a comprehensive strategy, because what is really wrong entails far more than just a terrorist ring in Egypt.
* The writer is director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political & Strategic Studies.

The Logical Fallacies of Appeasing Iran
Pundits are working overtime to convince you that the world can live with nuclear-armed mullahs. But it can't.
April 24, 2009 -
by Nicholas Guariglia
Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Roger Cohen, one of the op-ed columnists for the New York Times, has, as of late, made it his personal pastime to defend the theocratic killers ruling Iran. One of his recent columns, entitled “Israel Cries Wolf,” mocks and belittles Israeli concerns regarding Tehran’s nuclear program, citing warning statements made by Israeli leaders over the years, most of which have (yet) to come to full fruition. Today, his chief target is the newly sworn-in premier, Benjamin Netanyahu. The following excerpt captures Cohen’s inane argument ad captandum:
I don’t buy the view that, as Netanyahu [said], Iran is “a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest.” Every scrap of evidence suggests that, on the contrary, self-interest and survival drive the mullahs.
Yet Netanyahu insists … that Iran is “a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation.” Huh?
On that ocular theme again, Netanyahu says Iran’s “composite leadership” has “elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist in any other would-be nuclear power in the world.” No, they exist in an actual nuclear power, Pakistan.
Israel’s nuclear warheads, whose function is presumably deterrence of precisely powers like Iran, go unmentioned, of course.
This is an important passage, because it underscores the logical fallacies employed by proponents of appeasement with Iran. By utilizing three commonly used tricks, Cohen throws everything he has at the wall in just a few short sentences — hoping something sticks.
Cohen’s first error: equating Western-centric models of rationality to those of our theocratic enemies. “Self-interest and survival drive the mullahs,” he swears — and not “self-immolation” as he claims Netanyahu believes. This is false. While it is true that the Iranians might have a Persian “superiority complex” and would rather hire Arab terrorists to blow themselves up — Lebanese, Palestinians, Jordanians, Iraqis, etc. — whom they ethnically look down upon, it is a mistake to believe Iranian “self-interest” coincides with Israeli or American self-interest.
Think of it this way: Why do would-be suicide bombers run away from U.S. military units while engaging them on the battlefield? Why did the operational planners of 9/11 flee Tora Bora into Pakistan? Why do al-Qaedists and Taliban militiamen seek refuge from air strikes overhead? According to Cohen’s universe of zero-sum logic, these suicidal extremists should welcome their own demise, should they not? One is either a self-immolating fanatic or pursuing coherent self-interest, as personally defined by Cohen himself — right?
The truth is a little bit more complicated. The sincerest jihadist prides himself on a fanaticism that is as tactical and patient as it is theological. Just as Mohamed Atta’s crew donned cell phones and hobnobbed casinos and strip malls — growing parasitic on the society they vowed to destroy, coming to lust what they claimed to loathe — so too it is common, in fact widespread, for a Khomeinist mullah from Iran (or a Wahhabi prince from Saudi Arabia) to indulge in the financial niceties, personal pleasures, and opportunities offered by civilized normalcy. But, as with Atta and his eighteen cohorts, the transition from such immediate real-world self-interest to fantastically dogmatic supernaturalism and brutally self-and-mass-inflicting violence is an easy process, indeed.
Iran’s current president talks into water wells, hears voices, and anxiously awaits the return of the “hidden imam” — and with it, the end of the world. Iran’s former president, and perhaps future supreme leader, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, is wanted in Argentina for knocking down a large office building. And he’s supposedly the “moderate” in Iran’s leadership.
The rest of the clerical regime, from the Orwellian-sounding Assembly of Experts to the Council of Guardians, is as ideologically unhinged as any governing body in the world. Cohen scoffs at this fact at our own peril.
Cohen’s second error: applying a false comparison between Iran and Pakistan. This point has been raised for years — and as current realities stand, it has never made less sense. Pakistan is an immense challenge, but the problem it poses to the world is one of intrastate warfare: a government incapable or unwilling to impose its sovereignty over all of its territory. In other words, there are factions within Pakistan that are openly hostile to the United States. But the government itself, led by President Zardari, is at least publicly an ally in this joint effort.
In Iran, however, the government itself is openly adversarial. All apparatuses of the state fall under the dominion of Ayatollah Khamenei, a murderous old man who does not think within our geopolitical constructs. Should the Pakistani government ever fall to al-Qaeda-linked clerics, then Cohen’s parallel would make a semblance of sense.
His third error: applying moral equivalence between a liberal democracy and a ruthless theocracy, while advocating Cold War doctrine to an inherently asymmetrical conflict. Israel’s nuclear program is morally and politically superior to Iran’s program, just as France’s nuclear program is acceptable and North Korea’s program is not.
Additionally, deterring what Thomas Friedman once coined “the undeterrables” is impossible, particularly given the fact that Iran could sell or proliferate its nuclear expertise to other rogue entities, black market networks, or terrorist groups. To paraphrase Dennis Miller, one of the last great comedic wits: Iran doesn’t have to shoot the nuclear three-pointer; they could pass off the assist to their teammates, instead.
Which brings us to President Obama, who has consistently and deferentially referred to Iran as the “Islamic Republic” — perhaps subliminally signaling that we seek no regime change and recognize the political legitimacy of the ruling clerics. This is worrisome, especially given the news that Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau indicted Le Fang Wei, a Chinese financier, for duping several American banks and peddling nuclear materials to the mullahs.
Reportedly, Fang Wei set up four bogus import-export companies that worked with six Iranian shell firms, with the largest recipient believed to be a subsidiary of the Iranian defense ministry.
There were some 58 transactions in all, including shipments of banned materials from Beijing to Tehran between 2006 and 2008. Among them: 33,000 pounds of a specialized aluminum alloy (used in long-range missile production), 66,000 pounds of tungsten copper plate (used in missile guidance systems), and 53,900 pounds of maraging steel rods (an incredibly hard metal used in uranium enrichment to make the casings for nuclear bombs).
Herein lies the asymmetry to Iran’s nuclear pursuits: if their military program is shut down, they will continue to secretly weaponize their “civilian” nuclear program; if that is shut down, they will acquire atomic materials through third parties — sometimes, as in this case, from within the borders of the Great Satan itself — and across the black market; if those efforts are stifled, the mullahs will ascertain the bomb from their rogue allies in Pyongyang or elsewhere.
There are many avenues the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad-Rafsanjani regime may travel, all of which must lead to a U.S.-led roadblock at the nuclear intersection. But there is no evidence that this will be the case. More than three years ago, Joe Biden, then in the Senate, told the Israelis they would eventually have to accept a nuclear-armed Iran. Today, Vice President Biden warns Israel not to take action against Iran’s nuclear program.
This is untenable. Mr. Obama must be wary of these insufficient Cohen-like rationalizations and avoid falling prey to their deceptions. He must understand the urgency of the situation, for if he votes “present” on this issue as well, there will be repercussions to pay.
**Nicholas Guariglia is a foreign policy analyst and columnist who writes on Islam and Middle Eastern geopolitics. He is a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and blogs at WorldThreats.com. He can be reached at nickguar@gmail.com.