LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِApril 28/2010

Bible Of the Day
Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 3/16-23: "Don’t you know that you are a temple of God, and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 3:17 If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is holy, which you are. 3:18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone thinks that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He has taken the wise in their craftiness.”* 3:20 And again, “The Lord knows the reasoning of the wise, that it is worthless.”* 3:21 Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 3:22 whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come. All are yours, 3:23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s."

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
The West Should Use Resolution 1701 to Roll Back Hizbullah's Effective Take-over of the Lebanese Government/By Jonathan Spyer/April 28/10
Yawn! Iran May Be Able to Build a Missile Capable of Striking the US by 2015/By Barry Rubin/April 28/10
The volcano an Iran war would become/By Riad Kahwaji and Theodore Karasik/April 28/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for April 28/10
Hariri Meets Mubarak: We're on the Lookout for Any Jibril Military Action/Naharnet
Siddiq Claims He's in Holland, Ashouri Says Tribunal Not Interested in Him/Naharnet
U.S. Rules Out Lebanese Obstruction to Sanctions Resolution on Iran/Naharnet
EU Parliamentary Delegation in Beirut to Examine Situation/Naharnet
Israel Says Info About Strike on Syria Spread by Hizbullah which Can Attack Any Moment/Naharnet
Suleiman: Tribunal Continues Investigation Without Political Interference/Naharnet
Lebanon vows to defend itself from any Israeli attack/Ha'aretz
Lebanon: Scud claims aim to distract from stalled peace talks/Daily Star
Families of Civil War missing slam silent politicians/Daily Star
Sakr urges death penalty for collaborator with Israel/Daily Star
Sleiman vows authorities will preserve country's security/Daily Star
Obama to host Muslim entrepreneurs/AFP
Jumblat Fears Israeli Attack, Calls for Caution/Naharnet
Sfeir: We Agree with Berri in 'Total' Abolishment of Sectarianism/Naharnet
Murr for 'Friendly' Elections in the Metn Amid Rare Battles in the District/Naharnet
Marouni Denies Abandoning March 14 or Endorsing Electoral List in Zahle/Naharnet
Aoun Gives Suleiman 48 Hrs. to Solve 'Fired Employees Issue' before Starting 'Greatest Freedoms Battle in Lebanon/Naharnet
Jumblat, Franjieh Meet at Arslan's House/Naharnet
Head of Telecoms Regulatory Authority Resigns amid Rumors of Dispute with Nahhas/Naharnet
 

Israel Says Info About Strike on Syria Spread by Hizbullah which Can Attack 'Any Moment'
Naharnet/Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the Jewish state was not planning any military action against Syria, adding the rumors were likely spread by Tehran and Hizbullah to distract the international community from attempts to impose sanctions on Iran. "There is no truth to the suggestion that Israel is planning a military move against Syria," Israel's Haaretz daily quoted Netanyahu as saying at a Likud party meeting on Monday. Earlier in the month, the Syrian Foreign Ministry said Israel was preparing a military strike against Syria by accusing the Assad regime of supplying Hizbullah with Scud missiles. Meanwhile, the tense atmosphere among Israeli soldiers positioned along the northern border with Lebanon is evident, Israel's Ynetnews reported. "Despite the fact that we cannot see the enemy in front of us, we are well aware that it exists and can act at any given moment," an army official said. "We are operating under the assumption that an incident can occur without us getting any warning from army intelligence. This is why we must maintain a high level or preparedness at all times," he said. "Hizbullah has the ability to launch an attack along the border. Therefore, soldiers undergo diverse training so that they will be able to respond to any scenario," the official added.

Sfeir: We Agree with Berri in 'Total' Abolishment of Sectarianism
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir has welcomed openness to "neighbors" and said he agreed with Speaker Nabih Berri on the "total" abolishment of confessionalism from politics.
"Openness comes in the nature of people. They open up to each other and on neighboring (areas) and others," Sfeir said at Beirut airport upon his return Monday afternoon, ending his four-day visit to Rome. "Neighbors should accept each other," he said in reference to Syria and in response to a question on a document he helped prepare at the Vatican to set the stage for the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East that will be held in October. Among other things, the document calls for openness and urges people not to fear others. Sfeir was told by a reporter that Berri had welcomed his call to abolish sectarianism. "Then we are in agreement with Speaker Berri," the prelate replied. "Sectarianism should be abolished in its entirety and not only from politics. If that's what he (Berri) said, then we agree" with each other, the patriarch added. In Rome Sunday, Sfeir held international policies responsible for the emigration of youth from Lebanon

Siddiq Claims He's in Holland, Ashouri Says Tribunal Not Interested in Him
Naharnet/A Syrian agent who allegedly misled a U.N. probe into the killing of ex-PM Rafik Hariri has claimed he is living in Holland and renewed accusations of Hizbullah involvement in the 2005 murder near the Saint George Bay in downtown Beirut. Kuwait's Al-Seyassah daily said Mohammed Zuheir Siddiq claimed in a mobile phone conversation from what he said was his headquarters in Holland that earlier remarks he gave to Al-Seyassah were authentic. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon is located in The Hague, the royal city of Holland.
Siddiq hailed Al-Seyassah for putting his comments in the paper "after all media outlets in this ear of fear refused to publish his statements."
He said statements made by former Lebanese security officers Mustafa Hamdan, Jamil Sayyed and Ali Hajj "had no value at all." "They do not want to face the truth," Siddiq said of the three officers. He said he will not hand over the "documents" that he had to the U.N. investigation committee, but rather to the STL. STL Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare's spokeswoman Radhia Achouri told al-Jadid TV that the court is not interested in Siddiq in anyway "neither in a legal way nor as a witness."

Hariri Meets Mubarak: We're on the Lookout for Any Jibril Military Action
Naharnet/Prime Minister Saad Hariri discussed Tuesday global and regional developments with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Hariri, who arrived in Sharm el-Sheikh before midday Tuesday, also congratulated Mubarak on the success of the surgery he recently underwent in Germany. Pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat said Hariri and Mubarak will focus on the Lebanon situation in light of Israeli threats and accusations that Hizbullah has powerful Scud missiles, in addition to progress made in Lebanese-Syrian relations.
Hariri had warned PFLP-GC leader Ahmed Jibril against attempting a military action in Lebanon. "Jibril has to respect himself. We are on the lookout for him if he decided to move his Palestinian arms," Hariri said in an interview with the Qatari daily al-Watan set to be published on Thursday. He was responding to comments made by Jibril about Palestinian weapons outside refugee camps and allegations that the Lebanese government was meeting U.S.-Israeli demands. Excerpts from the interview were made available to the local media.

Beshir Declared Winner in Landmark Sudan Election
Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court, was on Monday declared winner in the country's first multi-party presidential election in over two decades. "The winner in the election of the president of the republic is Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Beshir from the National Congress Party," chairman of the National Election Commission Abel Alier told reporters in Khartoum.(AFP)

Aoun wants the pressure to stop
April 27, 2010
FPM leader Michel Aoun said President Michel Sleiman should stop the pressure on candidates, particularly the ones running in Jbeil, in the May municipal elections. (AFP)
Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun told OTV yesterday that President Michel Sleiman should stop political officials from pressuring candidates, particularly the ones running in Jbeil in the May municipal elections. However, he did not elaborate further. The FPM leader also said certain institutions, such as the Société Générale de Banque au Liban (SGBL), are pressuring their employees to withdraw their candidacies. However, according to An-Nahar newspaper, an agreement on the elections in Jdeideh-Sad al-Bouchrieh between MP Michel al-Murr, the FPM, the Kataeb Party, the Lebanese Forces and the Tashnaq party was reached. They decided to keep Antoine Jbara as head of the municipality, added the daily. An-Nahar said that Murr and the FPM will each get eight seats in the municipal council, the Kataeb four and the Tashnaq one. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Saad Hariri told Qatari newspaper Al-Watan in an interview to be published on Thursday that Head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) Ahmad Jibril’s accusation the Lebanese cabinet implements US-Israeli demands was unfounded. "If Jibril decides to use Palestinian arms [against the Lebanese state], we will confront him," Hariri said. The PM commented on Israel’s recent accusation that Syria transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah, saying, “I refuse to ask the party to deny such a statement.” Hariri last week dismissed such claims. - NOW Lebanon

Sleiman calls Scud shipment reports Israeli rumors
April 27, 2010 /President Michel Sleiman said Israel’s recent reports that Syria transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah are simply rumors, the National News Agency (NNA) reported on Tuesday.This comes after Syria denied the accusations, while Tel Aviv warned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad last week that it would retaliate against Damascus should Hezbollah attack the Jewish State, British daily The Sunday Times said last week. Sleiman also said that Israel is trying to direct the international community’s attention away from its reservations on resuming the Middle East peace process. The president reiterated that Lebanon is ready to confront Tel Aviv should the need arise.-NOW Lebanon

Syrian Al-Watan reports possible resumption of Israeli hostile activities
April 27, 2010 /Syrian newspaper Al-Watan quoted on Tuesday a “well-informed source” as saying that several Arab and western officials warned Lebanon that Israel could resume its hostile activities in the region. “[This is especially true] after Tel Aviv said Hezbollah crossed the line,” the source added, in a possible reference to Israel’s accusations that Syria transferred Scud missiles to the party. The source also told the daily that he expects Arab states to hold several summits during the upcoming weeks to strengthen the capabilities of Arab states to face Israeli threats and their repercussions.
-NOW Lebanon

Assaad Hardan
April 26, 2010
On April 25, the Lebanese National News Agency carried the following report: “The leader of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, Deputy Assaad Hardan, held a meeting for the heads of the party’s branches in “Sham” (Syria) in the presence of the head of the Higher Council Mahmoud Abdul Khaleq, vice chairmen Toufik Mehanna and Dr. Safwan Salman and a number of members in the Central Command... While putting forward the partisan plan for the year 2010, leader of the party Deputy Hardan addressed the overall situation in the country and the party’s position toward the developments on the national arena. He thus assured that the Nationalist Party “does not perceive the course of the events and the size of the challenges facing the nation based on a political date which is usually embodied by political stands issued here and there. The party had a strategic vision on which it bases its positions, draws up its goals and defines its choices. To us, ‘Israel’ is the enemy which violated the land of Palestine through terrorism, occupation and settlement activities. The terrorist practices of this enemy throughout the last sixty years have revealed its racist nature and its blind spite against humanity. It has also revealed the deceit lying behind the bragging of the colonial West about ‘Israel’ being an archetype of Western democracy, since it turned out that ‘Israel’ was nothing but an archetype for terrorism which is threatening all of humanity.
“Now, we must prepare for a new stage in the conflict. ‘Israel’ has removed the ‘democracy’ make-up which was provided for it by the West and has announced it was a ‘religious state’. As for America which is now representing the axis of the colonial West, it has recognized it as a religious state and the conflict is no longer founded on dupery and deceit. It has become founded on a basis drawn up by our party for this conflict, one in which the conflict is over existence and in light of which no compromises can be allowed… Let no one be fooled again by the illusion of a settlement, since how can the United States sponsor such a settlement in the region while it is recognizing the Jewish character of ‘Israel’? It is now time for those wagering on a settlement to relinquish their wager, because all that the enemy wants is to Judaize our land and eradicate our people from Palestine.” Deputy Hardan then stressed the importance of “creating a Palestinian environment that would pave the way before the return of Palestinian unity based on the choice of struggle and its tools represented by the resistance and the uprising as the only ways to liberate the land and regain the rights.”
On the other hand, he considered that the threats being made to Syria against the backdrop of claims saying it was providing the resistance with Scud missiles were a “mere attempt to shift the attention away from the practices of the occupation in Palestine, Lebanon and the Golan. However, these attempts will not change reality and will not make Syria discontinue the issuance of its positions in support of the resistance. In the past, Syria faced greater pressures and more violent campaigns. But through its national solidarity and the wisdom of its command, it was able to face all these pressures and threats and set the foundations for a new equation governing the rules of the fateful conflict… On the other hand, if these attempts aim at forcing Syria to accept a settlement in regard to the occupied Golan so that this settlement is a key to revive the so-called ‘peace process’, this will not be secured. We know that Syria under the command of President Dr. Bashar al-Assad will accept nothing less than the full liberation of the Golan without any Israeli conditions or restraints...”
In that same context, he considered that the support, embracing and backing of the resistance was not perceived by Syria as being an “accusation,” but rather a national duty, adding: “Syria supports the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine and has paid a hefty price for not having relinquished this resistance. Therefore, this last campaign that targeted it carried direct threats to which Syria will not succumb. When Syria denies the claims saying it is providing the resistance with Scud missiles, it is not eluding this support, but rather corroborating the fact that the resistance does not need such missiles and has enough supplies to face the Zionist war machine.” And while Deputy Hardan assured that the Syrian Social Nationalist Party was standing alongside “the liberation right which Syria is upholding...Today, the Zionist occupation is not the only threat. There are also the plagues of sectarianism and denominationalism which have become a domestic enemy used to tear apart the unity of our community. We are thus required to face the threat of the occupation and aggression through the resistance and the threat of sectarianism and denominationalism through the immunization of our community by eliminating all the factors of sedition and division...”
On the other hand, the head of the Nationalist Party addressed the situation in Lebanon, confirming that the “sources of sectarian strife have been defused for the most part. Lebanon is now gradually heading toward the fortification of its domestic arena after years of exposure to conspiracies which targeted it in particular and the region in general. The powers believing in Lebanon’s principles and its Arab identity did not allow the country to be used as the loose waist to target Syria and today we are seeing a Lebanese recognition of Syria’s pivotal role and the importance of the exceptional relations between it and Lebanon. This serves the unity of the position in the equation governing the conflict.” He then concluded by stressing “the necessity not to see once again any wagers on the fall of Lebanon’s element of strength or the intimidation of Syria. What is required today is to hold on to any element of strength in the face of the hostile projects.”

Families of Civil War missing slam silent politicians
By The Daily Star /Tuesday, April 27, 2010
BEIRUT: The families of individuals who went missing during Lebanon’s 1975-1990 Civil War slammed Monday politicians requesting not to discuss the case due to the “sensitivity of the file.” Gathering in their permanent sit-in in the Jibran Khalil Jibran garden near the UN headquarters in Beirut, the families accused politicians of “escaping from solving the case and of duality in speeches to the families on the one hand and to media on the other.” “They are irresponsible people, pursuing their interests, lacking conscience and humanity, they are not Lebanese,” they said. The families urged politicians to set up a national mechanism to work on the file of the disappeared “as you promised in your ministerial statement.” They stressed that the solution would be to establish a national commission tasked with handling the issue which will get precise answers about the fate of the missing in “Lebanon and Syria and everywhere.”
– The Daily Star

Lebanon: Scud claims aim to distract from stalled peace talks
‘Allegations attempt to divert attention from Israel’s refusal to resume negotiations’
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
BEIRUT: Israeli charges that Syria is smuggling Scud missiles to its Lebanese ally Hizbullah aims to divert attention from stalled Middle East peace talks, a senior Lebanese official said Monday. The allegations are “an attempt to divert attention from the main issue which is Israel’s refusal to resume peace efforts, either through its settlement projects in East Jerusalem or through the Scuds issue,” the official, who is close to Prime Minister Saad Hariri, told AFP.
His statement came amid US and Israeli fears that Damascus was secretly sending Hizbullah the missiles, which have a range of roughly 300 kilometers although some can strike beyond 500 kilometers. The US- and Saudi-backed Hariri has upped contacts with Arab and European leaders, including French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, to discuss the need to “confront Israeli threats against Lebanon and Syria as Israel refuses to move forward with negotiations with the Palestinians,” his office said Monday.
Hariri also met US Deputy Security Adviser for Homeland Security John Brennan in Beirut on Monday, the statement said without elaborating.
Earlier this month, Israeli President Shimon Peres accused Syria of supplying Hizbullah with the Scuds, a charge Damascus has denied.
Washington has stopped short of openly accusing Damascus of supplying the Shiite group with the missiles, but has said Syria has provided the group with a “wider array” of weaponry.
On Monday, an adviser to Syrian President Bashar Assad said Israeli allegations that Damascus is supplying Hizbullah with Scud missiles are aimed at undermining the country’s improving relations with the US
Buthaina Shaaban said the missiles are too big to be moved undetected in a tiny country like Lebanon where Israeli reconnaissance planes fly overhead on daily basis. In an article published in the daily Tishrin Monday, she described the charges as “ridiculous.”
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the Obama administration is still committed to improving ties with Syria despite its “deeply troubling” moves to aid Hizbullah.
The Scud allegations come as the US administration has boosted relations with Syria, and US lawmakers have seized on the issue to argue against greater rapprochement.
US-Syria ties plummeted after the 2005 killing of former Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri, father of the current premier, in a Beirut car bombing widely blamed on Syria. Damascus has denied involvement. Meanwhile, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu al-Gheit reiterated in an interview with Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper published on Monday that the US raised the issue of Scud missiles to pressure Iran rather than Syria or Lebanon.
Abu al-Gheit said Iran was benefiting from Arab divisions to exert influence in the region. He warned that the real danger in the Middle East was in the confrontation between Iran on the one hand and the US along with the international community and Israel on the other. British newspaper The Sunday Times reported last week that Tel Aviv had warned Assad that Israel would retaliate against Syria if Hizbullah attacked Israel. Abu al-Gheit said based on the information available to the Egypt’s Cabinet, Israel was not likely to wage war on Lebanon.
He touched on his visit to Beirut last Saturday, saying it was not urgent or unplanned, denying it came as a result of concerns over recent developments in the country. – AFP, with Reuters and The Daily Star

Yawn! Iran May Be Able to Build a Missile Capable of Striking the US by 2015
By Barry Rubin*
April 26, 2010
http://www.gloria-center.org/blog/2010/04/yawn-iran-missiles
We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to "American Friends of IDC," with "for GLORIA Center" in the memo line.
Iran may be able to build a missile capable of striking the United States by 2015, according to a new U.S. Department of Defense report.
I was wondering how to follow up that sentence in this article but by accident, in cutting and pasting the text of the Reuters story, the "Related News" items accidentally came with it. These are other recent Reuters stories on this issue. So what is more telling than just to list them:
U.S. open to Iran nuclear fuel deal despite doubts
Mon, Apr 19 2010
Turkish minister in Iran to discuss nuclear row
Mon, Apr 19 2010
U.S. considers options to curb Iran's nuclear program
Sun, Apr 18 2010
Pentagon's Mullen: diplomacy first in options on Iran
Sun, Apr 18 2010
In other words, the four most recent articles are all about how the Obama Administration policy is still trying to engage Iran and make a deal or how America's former ally, Turkey's government, has gone over to the other side.
How about this one:
"The United States said on Monday it was still willing to discuss a nuclear fuel swap deal with Iran, but only if Tehran takes clear steps to address international concerns about its nuclear program....[Turkey's Foreign Minister] Ahmet Davutoglu told reporters he had discerned a change in the Iranian stance over the past several months during which he said he visited Tehran about a half-dozen times."
Oh, right! Let's spend a few months going back to the nuclear fuel swap deal which Iran raised last September in order to sabotage the sanctions' train so successfully.
Or this story:
"China's foreign ministry said on Tuesday there was still room for a negotiated solution to Iran's disputed nuclear program, despite talks among major powers of fresh sanctions against Tehran."
No problem. What could possibly by a reason to hurry in putting pressure on Iran?
The Pentagon's report put its finger on the central issue, but what this means must be explained clearly. "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy," the report said.
Please note what Iran's deterrent strategy means in practice. Iran's radical Islamist regime will be able to foment terrorism and revolution against Arab governments, try to take over Lebanon, promote Hamas in fighting Israel and seeking to overturn the Palestinian Authority, and target American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other things.
But if the United States or others try to do something about it, Iran will use its possession of nuclear weapons to deter them. At the same time, it will use possession of nuclear weapons to foment appeasement among regional and Western states while simultaneously persuading millions of Muslims that revolutionary Islamism is invincible and they should join a movement headed for inevitable victory.
In addition, the report spoke of how Iran backs revolutionary Islamists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon (Hizballah, which Iran gives $200 million a year), and among the Palestinians (Hamas). What does the Pentagon report mean when it says that Iran views Hizballah "as an essential partner for advancing its regional policy objectives." Tehran is conducting a campaign to seize hegemony in the Middle East and destroy U.S. influence there. How are you going to engage and negotiate away that problem?
While Iran may never give nuclear weapons to terrorist groups, it is not an encouraging precedent to note that it gives them all manner of non-nuclear weapons. In the report's words,
"Iran, through its long-standing relationship with Lebanese [Hezballah], maintains a capability to strike Israel directly and threatens Israeli and U.S. interests worldwide," it said.
Instead of a decisive U.S. response, here's how a veteran Defense Department official described what's been happening in an interview with the Times of London, April 20:
"Fifteen months into his administration, Iran has faced no significant consequences for continuing with its uranium-enrichment programme, despite two deadlines set by Obama, which came and went without anything happening. Now it may be too late to stop Iran from becoming nuclear-capable.
"First, there was talk of crippling sanctions, then they [spoke of biting sanctions], and now we don't know how tough they're going to be. It depends on the level of support given by Russia and China-but neither is expected to back measures against Iran's energy sector."
Once again, the Washington Post comprehends the dangers:
"A year-long attempt at engagement failed; now the push for sanctions is proceeding at a snail's pace. Though administration officials say they have made progress in overcoming resistance from Russia and China, it appears a new UN sanctions resolution might require months more of dickering. Even then it might only be a shell intended to pave the way for ad hoc actions by the United States and European Union, which would require further diplomacy.
"And what would sanctions accomplish? Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told the Financial Times last week that 'Maybe...[they] would lead to the kind of good-faith negotiations that President Obama called for 15 months ago.' Yet the notion that the hard-line Iranian clique now in power would ever negotiate in good faith is far-fetched.
It's almost May 2010, the Obama administration is almost 40 percent through its term in office, and Clinton is still talking about "good-faith negotiations"!
If the United States wants to prevent a future war with Iran, the best way to do so is through tough sanctions now--not only to discourage Iran's nuclear program but to weaken its overall military might and confidence--and a comprehensive strategic campaign of its own to counter the "regional policy objectives" of Iran and Syria.

The West Should Use Resolution 1701 to Roll Back Hizbullah's Effective Take-over of the Lebanese Government
By Jonathan Spyer *
April 26, 2010
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/04/west-should-use
We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to "American Friends of IDC," with "for GLORIA Center" in the memo line.
The summoning by the United States of Syrian Deputy Chief of Mission Zouheir Jabbour for a review of Syrian arms transfers to Hizbullah is the latest evidence of the serious basis to the recent tensions in the north.
Syria has continued to deny recent reports suggesting that it permitted the transfer of Scud-D ballistic missiles to Hizbullah.
But the issue of the Scuds is only a significant detail within a larger picture, which has been emerging into clear view since August 2006. This is the reality in which UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the war between Israel and Hizbullah in 2006, has been turned into a dead letter by the "resistance bloc" of Iran, Syria and Hizbullah.
It is worth recalling that Resolution 1701 was hailed as a significant achievement for diplomacy at the time. The resolution was supposed to strengthen the basis for the renewed Lebanese sovereignty that seemed possible after Syrian withdrawal in 2005.
Its provisions are quite clear. The resolution calls for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that... there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state." It also explicitly prohibits "sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government."
Hizbullah and its backers calculated, correctly, that neither the government of Lebanon, nor the United Nations, nor the "international community" would be able or willing to enforce these clauses.
The UN has itself admitted the severe inadequacy of arrangements along the Syrian-Lebanese border. Two UN border assessments have been carried out since 2006 - in June 2007 and August 2008.
The second report found, in the dry language employed by such documents, that "even taking into account the difficult political situation in Lebanon during the past year," progress toward achieving the goals laid out in Resolution 1701 had been "insufficient."
lt political situation" of 2008 is a reference to the fact that the elected Lebanese government's single attempt at enforcing its sovereignty over the allies of Syria and Iran in the country ended in May 2008 with the violent rout of the government.
Hizbullah and its allies simply made clear that any attempt to interfere with their military arrangements would be met with blunt force, and no further attempt was made.
The result has been that over the past three-and-a-half years, under the indifferent eyes of the world, the roads between Syria and Lebanon have hummed to the sound of arms trucks and suppliers bringing Syrian and Iranian weaponry to Lebanon.
The response of Israel has been to observe the situation, and to make clear that the crossing of certain red lines in terms of the type and caliber of the weaponry being made available to Hizbullah would constitute a casus belli.
The recent heightening of tensions has come because of emerging evidence that these red lines are being flouted with impunity.
This did not begin with the reports of the Scuds. Evidence has emerged into the public sphere over the last months of weaponry suggesting a Syrian and Iranian desire to transform Hizbullah into a bona fide strategic threat to Israel.
The weaponry supplied to Hizbullah include M-600 surface-to-surface missiles, the man-portable Igla-S surface-to-air missile system, which would threaten Israeli fighter aircraft monitoring the skies of Lebanon, and now the Scud-D ballistic missile system.
If the reports regarding such weaponry are correct, they would make Hizbullah by far the best-armed non-state paramilitary group in the world.
These reports do not mean that war is necessarily imminent.
Israel appears in no hurry to punish Hizbullah and Syria for the flouting of red lines. Unlike its enemies, the Israeli government is publicly accountable, and would find it difficult to justify a preemptive strike - which might well result in renewed war - to the Israeli public.
Hizbullah and Syria also seem in no rush to initiate hostilities. They have merely internalized the fact that nothing serious appears to stand in the way of their activities across the eastern border of Lebanon, and are hence proceeding apace.
The clearest lesson of the latest events is the fictional status of international guarantees and resolutions if these are not backed by a real willingness to enforce them.
The Western failure to underwrite the elected government of Lebanon has led to the effective Hizbullah takeover of that country. The failure to insist on the implementation of Resolution 1701 has allowed the apparent strategic transformation of Hizbullah over the last three and a half years.
While the "resistance bloc" does not necessarily seek imminent conflict, there is also no sign whatsoever that its appetite has been satiated by its recent gains. Laws, elections and agreements do not stand in its way. It operates, rather, according to the dictum of a certain 20th-century German leader, who said, "You stand there with your law, and I'll stand here with my bayonets, and we'll see which one prevails."
The real question, of course, being how long the intended victim of such an approach is prepared to allow it to continue.
*Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel

The volcano an Iran war would become
By Riad Kahwaji and Theodore Karasik
Commentary by
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Iceland’s volcano Eyjafjallajokull recently created air travel chaos across Europe. Millions were affected and financial losses mounted during a time of global recession. This was a subtle reminder of the potential for bedlam in the event of a very different matter, namely conflict with Iran over its nuclear program.
Such a conflict would negatively affect commercial aviation around the Gulf littoral, leading to a loss of revenue; it would push civilians to attempt to escape a war zone in droves; and there is a remote possibility that it might bring about a nuclear escalation.
Past experiences are important to recall what might happen in the event of a new war. The 1991 Gulf war provides an example of the confusion and damage that can result from the sudden increase in smoke. Retreating Iraqi forces intentionally caused the release of crude petroleum from field production facilities and ignited more than 700 Kuwaiti oil fields to slow advancing Coalition forces. For fliers, the ensuing smoke imposed abrupt transitions from clear skies to instrument flying conditions. The weather also added to the problem, with oil-laden rain clogging engines of military equipment.
An Israeli or American or some form of combined attack against Iran would likely be concentrated on three locations: Isfahan, where Iran produces uranium hexafluoride gas; Natanz, where the gas is enriched in approximately half of the 8,000 centrifuges located there; and Arak, where a heavy-water research reactor, scheduled to come on line in 2012, would be ideal to produce weapons-grade plutonium.
It is possible that other sites, such as the Qom site, or centrifuge fabrication sites, the location or locations of which have not yet been identified, would also be targeted. The latter would be high-value targets since their destruction would hobble Iran’s ability to reconstitute its nuclear program. Plume analysis from a possible attack on these and other sites suggest that air and sea corridors around the Gulf would be severely affected. The length of time of the attack sequence and aftermath may also have lingering effects.
A military operation against Iran means that smoke and dust will have an impact on the Gulf Cooperation Council states just as much as Iran. Smoke in the field of operations, which can be used to cause confusion and impair vision, would disrupt civilian and military air operations. Water supplies in these areas of operations would be vulnerable to both intentional and accidental contamination.
The threat from chemical-laden smoke is greatest for commercial and military aircraft where prevailing winds are north-northwesterly most of the year, with the average wind speed of 5 meters per second.
The primary impact of this smoke would be on Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as the waters of the Gulf and the air above. Since most operations in a war with Iran would be through air and sea, this means that commercial air and sea traffic in the Arabian Gulf would be severely affected, and most ports and airports in the region would possibly be forced to close down.
There is always the small possibility of war escalating to such a level that involved parties could resort to non-conventional weapons. Iran is believed to possess chemical and biological weapons and many Western states accuse it of developing nuclear capabilities. The new US nuclear doctrine holds that countries not adhering to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including Iran, could be targeted with nuclear weapons in case of military conflict. Nuclear blasts would throw huge quantities of smoke and nuclear dust in the air forming nuclear clouds that would endanger lives and the environment.
The implications of a military confrontation with Iran for the GCC states means that planning now is necessary for determining how air routes and air space would be affected by warfare, including alternative air routes and the costs associated with them. This entails starting negotiations with other countries and airlines.
There is also a need to prepare a future public relations campaign that advertises that Emirates, Etihad, Qatar Air, Gulf Air, Oman Air and other airlines will run their operations “as usual” in order to avoid leaving a vacuum. Embassies must be prepared for an onslaught of nationals who may seek to leave the region and must ready plans for refugee support. Roads may become congested and traffic might bring land transportation to a standstill. Foods, water, and medicines need to be adequately stockpiled and kept refrigerated when needed.
Alternative sources for fruits, meats, and fish must be identified before an outbreak of hostilities, as a back-up plan to support the GCC’s populations (the UAE is now implementing a plan to allow a three-month food supply in times of crises, which needs to be reproduced elsewhere). Many critical drugs, including insulin and a number of vaccines, are not made locally in the region and must be flown into the Gulf in special refrigerated containers.
Finally, anti-radiation measures must be prepared in the event, again a remote one, that a nuclear exchange occurs. Civil defense officials will need to plan extensively for decontamination procedures.
Overall, the emerging lessons-learned from Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano is a wake-up call for the likely impact of a regional conflict with Iran and the level of crisis management it would entail.
**Riad Kahwaji is the CEO and Theodore Karasik is the director of research and development at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis (INEGMA) in Beirut, Lebanon and Dubai, United Arab Emirates. They wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

At best, irrational; at worst, treasonous
http://fresnozionism.org/2010/04/at-best-irrational-at-worst-treasonous/
Ami Isseroff gives us a convincing description of the most likely scenario if Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon is not stopped:
By “nuclear Iran,” I mean an Iran that at least makes a convincing case that it has or could have nuclear weapons – that it has completed the fuel cycle. They needn’t test an actual bomb. They will use their military muscle as an umbrella to further their two goals: eliminating the Great Satan, the USA, from influence in the Middle East, and eliminating the Little Satan, Israel. They will create a Hezbollah movement in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia for example, where there are aggrieved Shi’ite populations (a majority in Bahrain) and a lot of oil. They will certainly gain control of Iraq, as well as tightening their grip on Syria and Lebanon.
They will control most of the oil reserves of the Middle East and demand a price for the oil. That price will be, as their leaders have stated, a “referendum” about the future of “Palestine” (meaning Israel) in which all the “Palestinian Arabs” in the world are allowed to participate. As there are a very large number of candidates for eligibility as “Palestinian Arabs” if criteria are sufficiently lax and imaginative, there is little doubt as to what the result of the referendum would be. Mr. Obama might be able to “live” with that for a while, but of course that would not be the end of Iranian demands, since their ultimate goal as Mr. Ahmadinejad announced, is a “world without the United States and Zionism.”
There are various things that might derail this plan, but an imposed Israeli-Palestinian ‘peace’ agreement is not one of them. Indeed, such a deal with the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority and in the presence of Hamas will simply create a hostile entity — another Gaza, if you will — next door to Israel’s heartland, completing its encirclement by Iran-linked enemies, and threatening a three-front war.
While the Iranian leadership obviously has religious and ideological reasons to want to eliminate Israel, there are also geopolitical ones: 1) Israel is the only state in the Middle East that is strong enough to be a threat to Iran’s plan to dominate the region, and 2) insofar as it is an ally of the US, it serves as a way for the US to project its power in the region.
It’s been suggested that an anti-Israel policy will get the conservative Arab regimes on our side, which will strengthen our hand with Iran. But those regimes will be the first targets of Iranian expansionism and they are already ‘on our side’ with regard to Iran (interestingly — although they will never say so publicly — some in the Arab world are hoping that Israel will solve the Iranian problem for them).
Israel is the keystone of Western interests in the region. If it’s removed, the structure will fall.
Can you imagine a world in which a third of the oil reserves — more, if you include Venezuela in the anti-US bloc — is under the control of Iran, where political speeches invariably close with shouts of “death to America!”?
US policy to contract and weaken Israel actually aids Iran, a declared enemy of the US. This policy is at best irrational and at worst treasonous.
Just because someone is irrational doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have motives. Hitler lost the war in part because his irrational desire to wipe out the Jews of Europe at all costs interfered with rational decision-making.
There’s no shortage of important people who oppose Israel. There has always been a strong element, primarily in the State Department, that believes that the relationship between Israel and the US is an embarrassment, forced upon us by the Jewish Lobby. Truman recognized the state of Israel in 1948 in defiance of this group. It’s safe to say that there’s more than a bit of antisemitism among them.
There is also a Saudi-paid army of former officials and lobbyists that push this view. Chas Freeman, Jimmy Carter, James A. Baker, etc. are examples. Whatever their arguments, there’s a strong element of simple self-interest here.
More recently they’ve been joined by left-wing anti-Zionists, who consider the Palestinians third-world ‘people of color’ (never mind the actual colors of representative Israelis and Palestinians) who have been ‘colonized’ by Israel; these types suffuse the Obama Administration and apparently set the tone for White House attitudes. This is most likely Obama’s own view, although he plays his cards close to the vest. In recent years this group has also begun to be characterized by antisemitism.
Probably the only way to improve this administration’s policy will be to replace it.