LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 28/2010

Bible Of the Day
Matthew 20/20-28: "Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, kneeling and asking a certain thing of him. 20:21 He said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Command that these, my two sons, may sit, one on your right hand, and one on your left hand, in your Kingdom.” 20:22 But Jesus answered, “You don’t know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” They said to him, “We are able.” 20:23 He said to them, “You will indeed drink my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with, but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it is for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 20:24 When the ten heard it, they were indignant with the two brothers. 20:25 But Jesus summoned them, and said, “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 20:26 It shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. 20:27 Whoever desires to be first among you shall be your bondservant, 20:28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Report: Paris Refused to Provide Lebanon with Surface-to-Air Missiles/Naharnet/January 27/10
Lebanon’s next war may also be Syria’s/By:Tony Badran/January 26.10
The New Huthi Game/Asharq Alawsat/January 27/10
The Gulf States in the Shadow of Iran/Iranian Ambitions/by Patrick Knapp/Middle East Quarterly/January 27/10
Islam and Islamism: Are Hijackers Extremists, "Proper Muslims," or Contenders in a Civil War?By Barry Rubin/January 27/10
Pawns of the Resistance/By:Hazem Saghieh/January 27, 10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for January 27/10
'Sabotage' Not Ruled Out Altogether in Ethiopian Plane Crash /Naharnet
Williams Expresses Condolences to Victims' Families, Hails 'Unified Image' of Lebanese /Naharnet
Peres Lashes Iran for 'Destabil izing Lebanon/Naharnet
Khalife: 5 Lebanese Bodies to be Handed Over at 4pm /Naharnet
Body of Lebanese woman returned from Palestine/Daily Star
Majdal Anjar Imam Kidnapped /Naharnet
Terrorism cannot be ruled out in the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409/Canada Free Press
Egypt prosecutor calls for death penalty in Hezbollah trial/Ynetnews
Israelis brace for Hezbollah's revenge/UPI.com
Minister Peled plants tree in Golan as symbol of permanence/Ynetnews
Israel rattles its sabres at Lebanon/UPI.com
Rights group raps Lebanon, Jordan for mistreating Palestinians/Ha'aretz
Knesset panel: No immunity for MK who visited Syria/Ha'aretz
Nasrallah urges recovery efforts to find missing plane passengers/Daily Star
Municipal reform discussions delayed by rescue efforts/Daily Star
Pilot error may have been factor in Ethiopian airliner disaster/Daily Star
Former senior Arab League, UN official dies following illness/Daily Star
Ethiopian families in agonizing wait for news/Daily Star
Lebanon to be included in first ESG index for region/Daily Star
Letters of condolence continue to rush in from world leaders/Daily Star
Workshop says countries need to abide by International Humanitarian Law/Daily Star
CCNI: Hizbullah's 2009 manifesto is one-sided/Daily Star
AUB holds round-table talks to explore online exams/Daily Star
Truck accident in Dahr al-Wahesh causes jams/Daily Star
Environment Ministry pushes for green Lebanon/Daily Star
Five suspects questioned over rotten-meat imports/Daily Star
ESCWA holds assembly on natural-disaster action/Daily Star
Metal object raises alarm in south Lebanon village/Daily Star
Body of Lebanese woman returned from Palestine/Daily Star
Lebanon missed opportunities to promote human rights - HRW/Daily Star
Hariri may or may not be mediating in Egypt-Hezbollah spy case, says Fatfat/Now Lebanon

Canada Offers Condolences After Ethiopian Airlines Crash
(No. 43 – January 26, 2010 – 7:50 p.m. ET) The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement offering condolences after the crash Sunday of an Ethiopian Airlines aircraft off the coast of Lebanon:
“On behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to offer my most sincere condolences to the families and friends of those killed in the crash of Flight 409. During this difficult time, my thoughts are also with the family of the Canadian citizen believed to have been on this flight.
“Canada commends the efforts of the Lebanese government and the United Nations rescue workers for their immediate response.”
- 30 -
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Natalie Sarafian
Press Secretary
Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
613-995-1851
Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-995-1874

Body of Lebanese woman returned from Palestine
/Daily Star staff
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
BEIRUT: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) transported the body of a Lebanese woman on Tuesday from Palestine to her native village of Qlayaa in south Lebanon. Nahla Gerges entered Palestine in 2000 with the Israeli forces withdrawal from south Lebanon. She died this year at the age of 50 and her body was transported across the border with the help of the ICRC, and was taken to her village with the help of the Lebanese Red Cross. – The Daily Star

Peres Lashes Iran for 'Destabilizing Lebanon'
Naharnet/Israeli President Shimon Peres has accused Iran of destabilizing Lebanon and said Hizbullah's arms are a danger to Lebanon not just the Jewish state. Iran is the world's "center of terror" and is seeking to control the Middle East and "destabilize existing regimes," Peres said Tuesday during a historic visit to Berlin. "Ahmadinejad's regime is openly calling for Israel's destruction, denying the Holocaust, and preventing peace with the Palestinians. It is destabilizing Lebanon and Yemen and trying to take over Iraq," Peres said on the eve of his address to the parliament on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.The Israeli president also said that Hizbullah is threatening peace in Lebanon and stockpiling thousands of missiles with Iranian help. "These missiles are a danger to Lebanon, not just Israel," Peres added. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in her turn, ramped up the pressure on Tehran over its disputed nuclear program, saying next month would be a critical time for the world community to decide on sanctions. Speaking after talks with Peres, Merkel said that the theme of sanctions would be tackled next month when France holds the rotating chair of the U.N. Security Council. "I think February will be the crucial month," Merkel said. Beirut, 27 Jan 10, 08:40

'Sabotage' Not Ruled Out Altogether in Ethiopian Plane Crash
Naharnet/Hypotheses and speculations mounted about a "sabotage" action in the Ethiopian plane crash which plunged into the Mediterranean sea in stormy weather earlier this week with 90 passengers and crew on board feared dead. the Ethiopian plane crash which plunged into the Mediterranean sea in stormy weather earlier this week with 90 passengers and crew on board is likely a "deliberate" attack, some media reports said Wednesday. While the daily al-Liwaa said the crash is likely a "deliberate" attack, pan-Arab Asharq al-Awsat did not rule out "sabotage" after the disaster presumably killed all 90 passengers and crew. OTV, meanwhile, which is close to Hizbullah and is reputed to have strong ties with Hizbullah circles, cited official circles as saying that the Ethiopian plane was likely hit by a rocket. Al-Liwaa based its hypothesis on Hizbullah's heightened concern about the catastrophe and the fact that a Hizbullah delegation, including Hashem Safieddine and MP Nawar al-Sahili, was supposed to be on the plane. It said the trip was cancelled at the last minute upon instructions by Speaker Nabih Berri to allow Sahili to attend a parliamentary session scheduled for Monday. Berri, however, called off the meeting after the plane crash disaster. Al-Liwaa also pointed to Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's keenness to "personally" attend the funeral of one of the plane victims identified as Hasan Tajeddine in the southern town of Hanaway. It said Tajeddine has close ties with Hizbullah. Navigation sources, meanwhile, told Asharq al-Awsat that "all possibilities are open." They said an "explosion" likely took place on the plane, pointing out that lightning by itself cannot bring down an aircraft. The sources also raised the possibility that the lightning hit the plane in a "sensitive area" that, together with human and technical errors, led to the crash. Witnesses said the aircraft was in flames as it dropped into the sea. Lebanese leaders, including President Michel Suleiman, Defense Minister Elias Murr and Transportation Minister Ghazi Aridi, have ruled out sabotage in the plane crash. (AP photo inside shows Sheik Nabil Kaouk, right, Hizbullah's commander in south Lebanon, and Hizbullah MP Hasan Fadlallah, left, attending Tajeddine's funeral on Tuesday.) Beirut, 27 Jan 10, 08:34

Khalife: 5 Lebanese Bodies to be Handed Over at 4pm
Naharnet/Health Minister Mohammed Jawad Khalife said five Lebanese plane crash victims, including the bodies of two toddlers, have been identified and will be handed over to their families at 4 pm Wednesday. He said the identified bodies were Julia Mohammed al-Haj, 3, Mohammed Hasan Kreik, 4, Mustafa Anees Safa, Tony Elias al-Zakhem and Haidar Hasan Marji. Khalife said health authorities have received about 20 human body parts that will be sent for DNA tests. He told reporters outside Rafik Hariri state hospital that among the 14 bodies that had so far been retrieved were five Ethiopians. Regarding Ethiopian victims, Khalife said both Ethiopian Airlines and the Ethiopian Consulate will bring in DNA samples from the victims' families to determine parentage. Beirut, 27 Jan 10, 13:16

Williams Expresses Condolences to Victims' Families, Hails 'Unified Image' of Lebanese
Naharnet/U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams on Wednesday expressed his "deepest condolences" to the Lebanese government and the families of the Ethiopian plane crash victims. "This was a terrible tragedy. The shock and the grief that all of us feel is enormous, but I take some comfort from the unified image of all the Lebanese people working together to overcome this tragedy," Williams said after visiting Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun in Rabiyeh. "In my discussions today with Gen. Aoun, I expressed the hope that this image of unity will always characterize the efforts of the Lebanese people to support and reinforce the state and to address to the needs of the population," he said.
Williams told reporters that discussions focused on the agenda of the Lebanese government and that he expressed the readiness of the U.N. to assist whenever requested, particularly in the areas of development and social and economic reforms. "I also discussed with Gen. Aoun the implementation of Resolution 1701 ahead of the next report of the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the Security Council at the end of February. "I was in Israel earlier this week in the framework of consultations on the implementation of this resolution. I am pleased that, overall, Israeli officials communicated to me their continued commitment to the cessation of hostilities between Lebanon and Israel," Williams added. Beirut, 27 Jan 10, 13:21

Egyptian Court: Not Enough Evidence to Stop al-Manar Broadcasts
Naharnet/An Egyptian court has rejected a lawsuit requesting a ban on Hizbullah's al-Manar TV for allegedly airing programs defaming Egypt and its government.
Lawyer Samir Sabri, who filed the lawsuit, had earlier urged the Egyptian prime minister and ministers of investment and information to ban the channel which is transmitted on Egypt's Nilesat satellite network. The Administrative Judicial Court, however, rejected the lawsuit saying Sabri hadn't provided enough evidence to back his claim.
On Sunday, Arab information ministers slammed a U.S. Congress bill passed in December that imposes sanctions on satellite channels deemed hostile to the United States.
After a six-hour meeting in Cairo, the ministers issued a communique that said the bill was "considered interference in the internal affairs of Arab states which regulate their media affairs according to national legislation." The bill, adopted by a massive 395-3 majority, calls for punitive measures against al-Aqsa, the station of the Islamist Palestinian movement Hamas, which broadcasts from the Gaza Strip, and al-Manar. Beirut, 27 Jan 10, 09:11

Terrorism cannot be ruled out in the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409
By Sean Osborne
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19391
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Lebanese French-language newspaper L’Orient Le Jour reports today that there were eyewitnesses to the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409. These eyewitnesses describe an explosion onboard the aircraft. Following the explosion the witnesses describe the aircraft breaking apart into four pieces which then transformed into a fireball that plunged into the Mediterranean Sea. The same report also speaks to strong indications that one passenger associated with the terrorist group Hezbollah was on board the aircraft. This passenger was identified as a member of “the Tajeddine family.” There has been no official confirmation or denial of this passenger being on board the aircraft.
25 January 2010: Coming out of Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport this morning and destined for Addis Ababa, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409 is reported to have “caught fire” and crashed into the Mediterranean Sea with approximately 90 people on board. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409 was a Boeing 737-800 aircraft, registered as ET-ANB, S/N 29935. It was also a leased aircraft from the American firm CIT Aerospace. In addition to this aircraft’s links to the United States and an American aviation firm, the Ethiopian government has been waging a successful air and ground combat war against Al-Qaeda (al-Shabaab) in the Horn of Africa nation of Somalia. Lebanese President Michel Suleiman’s comment denying that Islamic terrorism is involved in the crash of Flight 409 is premature and consistent with similar statements made by various governments concerning crashed commercial airliners prior to the initiation of an investigation to determine the actual cause of the disaster for at least the past 14 years

CCNI: Hizbullah's 2009 manifesto is one-sided
Daily Star staff/Wednesday, January 27, 2010
BEIRUT: Hizbullah’s second political manifesto continued to spark reactions almost two months after its release. The Civil Center for National Initiative (CCNI) criticized the manifesto on Tuesday, saying it represented a unilateral agreement, internal to the party. Head of Hizbullah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah announced his party’s second manifesto at the end of November 2009. Analysts said it aimed to portray the party as an integral part of Lebanon’s domestic scene rather than an Iranian proxy.
However, the CCNI said the manifesto did not “reveal Hizbullah’s political views” but rather added to their ambiguity. It described the document as a sort of pact or treaty with little credibility because it was signed by only one party: Hizbullah. “As if it were an internal treaty,” the center said. “In any case, is there a pact between Hizbullah and the Lebanese?” the center went on to ask, noting that the manifesto was made public and it gave the impression of an agreement between Hizbullah and Lebanese of all religions. The CCNI then particularly criticized Hizbullah’s stance on the role its arsenal played in forming the resistance. According to it, the manifesto based the party’s view on weak defense powers or rather on the problem of “generally under evaluating the need to defend Lebanon and the Lebanese.” “But if refusing Hizbullah’s arms was not the solution, neither was accepting it,” the center said.
“On the contrary it weakened Lebanon’s defense mechanisms even more,” it added. Hizbullah is the only faction which refused to disarm after Lebanon’s 1975-90 Civil War, arguing that its weapons were needed to protect the country from Israel. The CCNI added in its criticism that the manifesto wanted to reform the current Lebanese political system in terms of sectarianism and foreign tutelage. But it asked what the reality behind such a consensus would be and who would be behind it? In its manifesto, Hizbullah called for a united Lebanon that represented everyone. “We want a Lebanon that is united through its land, people, state and institutions,” Nasrallah said in announcing the manifesto. The CCNI said that Hizbullah referred to Wilayat al-Faqih and glorified it, consequently revealing the true problem of entity. “If an entity belonged to one sect or to a group of sects instead of belonging to one people, even if it were a people of several confessions, there would be no possibility of independence,” it explained. The CCNI added that Hizbullah was referring to Iran by mentioning Wilayat al-Faqih and that was expected of it. Nonetheless, the center warned that the concept of Wilayat al-Faqih was not futuristic but was being applied at present. The CCNI also called on those who wanted an alternative state and a state able to survive to present a project for it. The center then confirmed its quest for a civil state because it was the only state able to survive unlike nations built on sectarianism and in which religion was used for the bene
fit of politicians. – The Daily Star

Nasrallah urges recovery efforts to find missing plane passengers
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
BEIRUT: Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah urged Tuesday the continuation of rescue and recovery efforts of missing passengers of the Ethiopian Airlines plane which crashed Monday, while stressing the need to conduct speedy investigations to put an end to speculations over the cause of the disaster. The plane, which caught fire and crashed into the sea minutes after taking off from Beirut airport, was carrying 90 passengers including 54 Lebanese, many of whom are residents of south Lebanon. “It is important to pursue serious efforts in order to recover the bodies of victims because it is a humanitarian endeavor which softens the sorrow and pain of their families,” Nasrallah said. Speaking via video link, Nasrallah expressed his condolences to families of the victims while urging the Lebanese government to give priority to acquiring the necessary logistics in order to face such disasters. “It is not normal for us to wait for help from others while we possess the capabilities that qualify us to be ready on the national level to quickly take action to face catastrophes,” the Hizbullah leader said. Nasrallah voiced hope that the plane-crash incident would push officials to meet the righteous demands of Lebanese expatriates, particularly in Africa, since those face major problems during their travels. “Those expatriates have played a major role in Lebanon’s strength and reconstruction; many of those who left the country did so to enable their parents to remain in Lebanon,” Nasrallah said. He also praised the efforts of all states which took part in recovery operations, particularly units of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. – The Daily Star

Hassan Nasrallah
January 27, 2010
On January 26, the Lebanese National News Agency carried the following report:
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah addressed the catastrophe of the crash of the Ethiopian plane and extended his condolences to the families of the victims in a televised message aired this evening [yesterday evening]. He said: ‘Allah said in his Holy Book: Those who say, when afflicted with calamity: To Allah We belong, and to Him is our return, are those on whom (Descend) blessings from Allah, and Mercy, and they are the ones who receive guidance.’ I would firstly like to address the honorable families of the victims of the air catastrophe which occurred yesterday, to apologize to them because it is my duty to be among them in their homes and close to them. However, the circumstances prevent me from doing so. Therefore, although I am talking to you through a screen, I will speak as though I was in your homes.
“I would like to extend my condolences and convey the fact that along with my brothers and sisters with Hezbollah, we share your sorrow and your pain because your sorrow is our sorrow and your pain is our pain. We can feel the sentiments in your hearts, minds and souls, because throughout the past years, we also have tasted the bitter pain of losing someone dear. Yesterday, you lost loves ones, dear ones and relative who represent a lot to you on the human, emotional, moral, familial and national levels and you felt this calamity. We, as all people, are standing by your side, extending our condolences and asking God to give you patience and the ability to stand fast and overcome this tragedy... Dear families and good people, those whom we lost yesterday were dear ones who had been working for years to secure a decent living for their parents and families, but also for their country and fellow citizens. Most of them were emigrants who lived abroad for long years but never forgot their country and people, especially during the tough times. Since the latter are of this type, they are now with Allah and enjoy a special status since the Prophet of Allah, Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him, said that those who work hard for their families are like those fighting for Allah...
“Yesterday, all the people shared your sorrow and pain. They all felt with you and corroborated the fact that they stood by you. This was seen on the faces, in the eyes, tears and expressions. We saw it in the ranks of our people throughout Lebanon and we -along with you- appreciate this noble and honorable popular sympathy and believe it to be among the elements of strength in our country with which we will cross into the future. We appreciate the presence of the state with its heads, ministers, military and security commanders and different civilian institutions, and the serious follow up offered to this disaster, its reasons and consequences. We also appreciate all the help offered to Lebanon whether by the UNIFIL or the other countries. Before this calamity, we would like to call for the following:
“Firstly, the continuous deployment of efforts to search for the bodies of the victims, even if this were to take a longer time. We should not give up because the return of the bodies to the families is a human, moral, emotional and legitimate demand which would alleviate the suffering of these families.
“Secondly, the continuous investigation with the required seriousness and promptness, to put an end to the rushed explanations and contradictory analyses. It is very important to learn the truth, firstly for the families, because it would help them on the psychological level. No family will accept the ongoing state of fogginess, suspiciousness and dubiousness surrounding the incident. They want to know how they lost their loved ones. This is also necessary on the national level to define the flaws and weaknesses if there are any, and to handle them to avoid similar catastrophes in the future, God forbids.
“Thirdly, for the Lebanese government which is also convening tonight - and it is only normal for it to address this development - to immediately secure a real national Lebanese preparedness on the human, logistic and technical levels to confront such catastrophes and quickly and efficiently interfere to save the lives which might be in danger... It is not normal for us to keep waiting for assistance from others, while we have the man power and the ability qualifying us to enjoy a national preparedness capable of interfering faster and more efficiently, and save those who could be saved in the event of similar natural catastrophes.
“Fourthly, for this painful incident to be an occasion for all the officials to listen to the demands of the emigrants, especially in Africa, because their demands are rightful as they are facing many problems during their travels, their stays and their trips back and forth. We listened to some of these complaints yesterday as some thought this was an occasion to allow their voices to be heard. We cannot wait for such catastrophes to occur to start listening to our citizens living abroad, and especially in Africa, and to start handling the problems they are facing and are related to their security, safety and lives. All of the latter have contributed to Lebanon’s steadfastness, reconstruction and confrontation of the difficult economic challenges and the ones related to livelihood. Many of them left so that their families can stay in this country and are therefore among the most important national and demographic elements. However, they are paying the price for it out of their own lives and this is something worthy of great care.
“Again, I extend my condolences to the honorable families and ask Allah to support them, give them patience and strength...”

Lebanon’s next war may also be Syria’s
Tony Badran, January 26, 2010
Now Lebanon/
Media reports in recent days have painted dire scenarios for what is, supposedly, the inevitable conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Of particular note are persistent indicators that the next round, if or when it comes, will very likely involve Syria as well.
For quite a while now, the official position in Israel has been that the next war in Lebanon would be waged against the Lebanese state, not just against Hezbollah. The Israelis have also been warning Damascus that they would not tolerate Syria’s passing on to Hezbollah weaponry that might alter the military balance of power, namely air defense systems.
On that point, two recent reports are of interest. The first, in the Qatari daily Al-Watan a couple of weeks ago, quoted Syrian sources as saying that “there is a strategic decision taken by Damascus not to allow Israel to defeat the resistance movements.” One might have been tempted to dismiss this as rhetorical bluster, but another news report only a few days later called for a somewhat different assessment.
Speaking to the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai al-Aam, an unnamed American official sent a shot across Syria’s bow, telling the newspaper that should Syria deliver to Hezbollah anti-aircraft missiles, “a war would doubtlessly break out, and this time Israel would strike targets in Damascus.” The official added that the Syrians, according to intelligence reports, had allowed Hezbollah fighters to train on the SA-2 anti-aircraft (AA) system on Syrian soil. Those accusations were repeated last weekend by Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Daniel Ayalon, after his meeting with Michael Williams, the United Nation’s special coordinator for Lebanon.
The SA-2 itself may not be much of a threat to the Israeli Air Force. However, another pair of Russian-made AA systems – the mobile Pantsir and the shoulder-fired Igla-S systems – would cause concern. Both Syria and Iran have been persistently trying to obtain them from Russia, with conflicting reports about whether the systems have been delivered. Nor is it clear if Hezbollah has gotten its hands on the weapons or not. From an Israeli standpoint, however, this would qualify as a casus belli.
The result of a new war would doubtless be devastating for Lebanon – far worse than what happened in 2006 – and would likely spread to Syria. In a throwback to the policy of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, this past weekend Yossi Peled, an Israeli minister without portfolio, pointedly noted that Israel would “hold Syria and Lebanon alike responsible.”
There are other reasons why Syria could find itself engulfed in a future conflict. Although recent incidents, such as the explosion in a weapons depot in Khirbet Silm, indicate that Hezbollah has been reestablishing its positions in southern Lebanon since the 2006 war, the militia is said to have relocated its bunker infrastructure and dispersed its longer-range rockets throughout the Bekaa Valley and, reportedly, northern Lebanon.
Notwithstanding Hezbollah’s intentionally-leaked information about its intention to take the war to Israel by invading Israeli villages near Lebanese territory, this relocation of the bunker complex would mean that, aside from the expanded destruction befalling Lebanon, the war would be fought nearer the border with Syria. This border, along with Lebanon’s various ports, has served as Hezbollah’s weapons supply route.
During the 2006 war, the Assad regime took the bold step of supplying Hezbollah directly from Syrian military stocks – particularly when it came to longer-range 220mm Katyusha rockets, such as the ones that hit a train station in Haifa, and Kornet anti-tank missiles. Such a repetition, not to mention the possible detection of Syrian logistical support during combat, would raise the probability of an escalation involving Damascus. Israel’s armed forces would have to consider that possibility if it were to decide in favor of a ground incursion into the Bekaa Valley.
The security regime established under UN Security Council Resolution 1701 has failed to curb Hezbollah’s rearmament, both by land and by sea (or, for that matter, to prevent Israeli overflights). Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has been quite explicit about his intention to continue supplying Hezbollah. Meanwhile, the sea routes to Lebanon have evidently been used to great effect. The arms-carrying ship intercepted by Israel in November of last year was reportedly bound for the port of Lattakia in Syria. That was surely the tip of the iceberg, and you have to wonder how many such ships have docked in Lebanese ports as well.
There have been a number of reports in recent years indicating deepening military and intelligence coordination between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, and that includes Iranian listening posts and other technical assets present in Syria. Syria’s direct arming of Hezbollah, like the numerous reports on the Russian air defense systems, speaks much to the evolution of Syria’s view of the party. More than ever Hezbollah (not to mention Iran, its patron) is becoming integrated in Syrian military strategy.
This would explain Damascus’ “strategic decision” to extend to Hezbollah all possible support in the event of a new war with Israel. However, it could be a decision Assad, ever the gambler, might live to regret. One thing for sure is that Lebanon – all of Lebanon – will certainly regret it.
**Tony Badran is a research fellow with the Center for Terrorism Research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Pawns of the Resistance
Hazem Saghieh, January 26, 2010
Now Lebanon
I was not able to watch a recent episode of the LBC TV program Kalam an-Nass – “talk of the people” – hosted by Marcel Ghanem, which discussed the issues of food, water and pollution. However, most people I have met with since have been talking about that episode. They have been talking about it as if they have been met with both the astonishment of discovery and the shock of fear.
This interest displayed over a civil matter of such extreme sensitivity and extreme impact is completely out of place with the oppressive political atmosphere. All citizens, at least theoretically, stand united in defense of their lives and their health in response to a danger that affects everyone. Here, Christians and Muslims, Sunnis and Shia: all of them eat the same rotten food and drink the same polluted water. And, as it happens, those who have spread unsanitary elements through the country’s supplies of meat and produce are born of all of the country’s sects and bring harm to the people of all sects as well.
I do not claim that preaching some well-intentioned anti-sectarian message - not even in a case of such vital importance – could put an end to the sectarian problem and replace the country’s limited consciousness and misguided attitude toward such issues with new ones. However, I do claim 1) that the widening split over “the central cause” – essentially meaning Hezbollah’s weapons – has itself widened the sectarian gap and lessened the country’s opportunities for common national engagement in dealing with its many civil problems and 2) that it is negligence such as this over the lives and health of the citizenry - if not the continual weakness of the state and its capabilities in establishing mechanisms to provide necessary medical care - that has made the situation as grave as it has become: an unbiased danger for all. One of us was content with a sectarian state when it was capable of carrying out its function of bringing beneficial services to the people. However, sectarianism and the inability to perform such tasks have created two catastrophes out of one.
The reality is, today we are paying with our health and lives the price of our state’s limitations, and in some cases, utter impotence.
But how can a state develop properly while public concern takes no interest at all in civil affairs? Today we are facing a two-fold problem. The first aspect is that of Hezbollah’s weapons, which prevent the state from becoming fully functional. But the second, on account of the “the weapons of the Resistance,” is that we are suffering under a form of control which treats our lives as strategic bodies as our lives are dictated by the Resistance, the confrontation with Israel, the preparations for some future war on Lebanon etc… This, to be sure, can be traced back to a redirection of the public consciousness and the diffusion of energies which could all be directed toward improving the lives of the citizenry and toward the steps it would take to do so.
When we become strategic beings to resist, struggle, fight and defend, seeking martyrdom as our highest of ambitions, it is no longer very important if what we eat is clean or for that matter polluted. When it becomes impossible for the state to be a source of service and care on account of “the issue” and under the weight of the army and weapons associated with that issue, dealing with such “trivialities” becomes a necessity that should never have been. Our lives have been rendered pawns of the Resistance, both during our days here on the ground, and tomorrow in the heavens. Those of us who do not want to be so sacrificed must then turn to the state… a state prevented from functioning.
**This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on January 25, 2009

The Gulf States in the Shadow of Iran/Iranian Ambitions
by Patrick Knapp/Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2010, pp. 49-59
http://www.meforum.org/2580/gulf-states-shadow-of-iran
The Obama administration is caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, it has welcomed the Gulf Security Dialogue (GSD) as a chance to further "mutual interests" with Persian Gulf states, but, on the other, it has sought pragmatic engagement with the Islamic Republic—the greatest threat to gulf security. Michael Knights, a Persian Gulf expert at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, noted in September that the "rapid advances" of the military forces of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) were the result of the dialogue. He predicts that they "may eclipse Iranian capabilities in the gulf within ten years."[1] Yet the GSD's initiatives are inadequate and need a foreign policy that stresses relationships and ideals. If policy within the gulf is to be dominated by short-term pragmatic demands, it may turn out to have unwanted consequences for other alliances in the region. That in turn could well have a negative impact on the United States.
In 2007, Iran signaled its extraterritorial ambitions by capturing fifteen British sailors in Iraqi waters and holding them for nearly two weeks. One of the British marines is seen in footage from Iran's Al-Alam television network, April 1, 2007. Iran claimed the sailor was pointing to a map of the Persian Gulf to indicate where the captured British ship allegedly crossed into Iranian waters.
Twenty percent of the oil traded in the world flows through the Strait of Hormuz every day.[2] Although U.S. politicians may dislike allowing oil to shape foreign policy, control of the strait is no matter of indifference. Closing the strait would cut the gulf's oil traffic in half. Some argue that even discussing such a possibility gives Iran leverage. But that is hypothetical. The real leverage that the Islamic Republic would have if it controlled the strait would be disastrous for the region and the West. The United States needs to wrest back control of the region.
The Gulf Security Dialogue
As the Islamic Republic spreads its influence, its immediate hinterland across the gulf is becoming increasingly vulnerable. The gulf is vital to Western oil supplies. When a regime that is utterly dedicated to the destruction of all Western influence and the elimination of the state of Israel has nuclear warheads in its reach, the Western powers need to do something quickly. Doing something means developing policies between the United States on the one hand and the six countries that form the Gulf Cooperation Council on the other.
The principal mechanism through which all seven parties can engage in discussions about security, arms sales, and other relevant issues is the Gulf Security Dialogue, launched in 2006. The GSD was designed to provide a framework within which the United States and its allies can engage in six areas: (1) GCC defense capabilities and interoperability; (2) regional security issues; (3) counter-proliferation; (4) counterterrorism and internal security; (5) critical infrastructure protection; and (6) commitments to Iraq. The question is: Does the Gulf Security Dialogue provide sufficient strength and protection to those most immediately faced with the Iranian threat?
Iran Moves into the Gulf
Iranian assertiveness in the Persian Gulf continues to vex the United States and its regional allies. In 1988, as the U.S. Navy escorted commercial traffic through the gulf, an Iranian-laid minefield struck the USS Samuel B. Roberts and wounded ten sailors. The United States retaliated with Operation Praying Mantis, which overwhelmed Iran's naval and coastal facilities.[3] In 2004, Iran's deputy oil minister accused Qatar of producing more than "her right share" from a natural gas field shared with Iran.[4] Three years later, Hossein Shariatmadari, head of the government's flagship publication Kayhan Daily and an appointee of Iranian supreme leader 'Ali Khamenei, wrote that Bahrain was more a province of Iran than an independent country.[5] The theme has persisted in Iranian discourse. Just this past February, for example, Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri, the influential former speaker of the Iranian parliament, repeated Iran's claim to sovereignty over Bahrain.[6]
In 2007, Iran signaled its extraterritorial ambitions by capturing fifteen British sailors in Iraqi waters and holding them for nearly two weeks. Bringing back memories of the capture of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the mass hostage taking that followed, this was also intended to show Iran's heedlessness of international law and its penchant for the humiliation of its enemies.
In January and April of 2008, incidents between U.S. ships and Iranian speedboats highlighted Iran's asymmetric threat to maritime security.[7] In July of 2008, Iran opened a maritime office on the Abu Musa islands, which the United Arab Emirates (UAE) contested. In September of the same year, Iran assigned the 20,000-man Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) navy rather than the less confrontational regular navy to Persian Gulf defense and opened a new naval base on the strategic Strait of Hormuz the following month. It has since upgraded its Assalouyeh naval base, establishing "an impenetrable line of defense at the entrance to the Sea of Oman," according to an Iranian admiral.[8]
The IRGC navy alone has more than forty light patrol boats and ten guided missile patrol boats. The regular navy has five mine vessels, six submarines, and twenty-six support ships.[9] Last September it added to its mostly outdated fleet of five major surface combatants by launching the homemade Sina class warship. The mix of past aggression and current military buildup gives weight to an Iranian foreign ministry official's explanation of how Iran would respond to a U.S. attack: "Ballistic missiles would be fired in masses against targets in Arab gulf states and Israel."[10] In June 2009, Mohamed El-Baradei, former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief, summarized the unspoken message Iran would like to send the region: "Don't mess with us; we can have nuclear weapons if we want it."[11]
Defending the Persian Gulf
Concern about Persian Gulf security spans administrations. The U.S. Navy enhanced its presence in the gulf in 1970 during Britain's withdrawal from the region. Throughout the 1970s, Washington relied on the "twin pillars" of Iran and Saudi Arabia to police the Persian Gulf and check the pan-Arabism of Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. But it was only in 1987, when the U.S. Navy launched Operation Earnest Will to reflag Kuwaiti tankers traversing the Strait of Hormuz, that the United States used direct military force to protect the gulf.[12] Three years later, the United States responded to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with a massive buildup of forces.
In the wake of the 1991 Operation Desert Storm and the liberation of Kuwait, Washington ditched its old "balance of power game"[13] for dual containment, an attempt to isolate and weaken economically the aggressive regimes in Iran and Iraq. The U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf rose through the 1990s as Iraqi president Saddam Hussein defied U.N. Security Council resolutions, and the Islamic Republic used proxy groups to threaten regional security. In 1995, the U.S. Navy assigned its Fifth Fleet to the naval support activity base in Bahrain—a base which it had used in one capacity or another for a half century. By 2003, the United States share of the Persian Gulf's arms supplier market reached an unprecedented high.[14] The 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq raised the U.S. partnership with the GCC states to a new level. Qatar continues to host a regional headquarters for U.S. Central Command,[15] and Kuwait enables the Pentagon both to base and transit troops through the country.[16]
This may give the impression of secure alliances and strong collaboration, but the truth is that the GCC states are vulnerable. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, none have strategic depth. Their armies are small: Iran's army has a total manpower of more than 540,000 compared to a combined GCC total of 176,500.[17] While Iraq today is no longer a military threat, Kuwait's 1990 capitulation in the face of an Iraqi invasion in less than a day underscores the difficulty any GCC state would have against a determined onslaught. Nuclear armament could enable Tehran to "dictate oil policy" and "embolden extremist groups," according to Tariq Khaitous, a Middle East security expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.[18]
President Bill Clinton's 1999 Cooperative Defense Initiative (CDI) was an effort to minimize these weaknesses by increasing defense integration and information sharing between GCC states, Egypt, and Jordan. It proposed enhancing active and passive defenses by promoting bilateral and multilateral initiatives. The CDI identified Iraq and Iran as major threats to the region and emphasized vulnerabilities to ground invasions, missile strikes, and chemical or biological attacks.[19] With the CDI's prodding, all six GCC states signed a joint defense pact in December 2000.[20] Yet cost concerns and differences in threat perception limited the follow-through. Even after Saddam's removal, pledges to triple the joint-force's troop strength and develop shared early warning systems have remained unfulfilled.
On May 12, 2006, the State Department announced that Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs John Hillen was to visit the Persian Gulf "to discuss regional security and defense cooperation with friends in the region."[21] This marked the beginning of the U.S.-GCC Gulf Security Dialogue, which Hillen characterized as "defensive, defensive, defensive."[22] Talks between U.S. and GCC security officials continued the following October when the United States led naval exercises in the Persian Gulf with Bahrain's unprecedented participation.[23] That November, Hillen said the dialogue was "not part of any big picture reexamination of the Middle East strategy." Rather, it was a revamped commitment to "missile defense" and "boosting the capabilities of U.S. allies."[24]
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has defined the six pillars of the Gulf Security Dialogue as defense cooperation, rehabilitation of Iraq, regional stability, energy infrastructure security, counter-proliferation, and counterterrorism.[25] These pillars renew the Clinton Cooperative Defense Initiative's goals, such as improving missile defense and systems integration. But more importantly, they put the talks into a post-9/11, post-Saddam context in which Iran—with its nuclear program and support for terrorists—is seen as the main threat to gulf security. Even if Iranian missiles and terrorist attacks are not aimed directly at the gulf states, their destabilizing threat to the Middle East as a whole is unsettling enough. As Iran's regional aggression grows, so does the need to strengthen the GSD's pillars.
The Dialogue Becomes Reality
Signs of the Gulf Security Dialogue's implementation came in early 2007 when the Bush administration announced it would send a second U.S. aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf, extend the deployment of Patriot antimissile batteries in Kuwait and Qatar, and increase intelligence sharing with the Persian Gulf states.[26] Annual multilateral exercises in the spring of 2007 offered an opportunity to put the GSD's goals of interoperability and information-sharing into action. These included the world's largest mine countermeasure exercise (Arabian Gauntlet in Bahrain) and a missile defense operation with full GCC participation (Eagle Resolve in Qatar). These exercises fit Secretary Gates's vision of the GSD as "a strategic framework designed to enhance and strengthen regional security."[27]
As part of the GSD, President George W. Bush's administration announced US$20 billion in arms deals for the Persian Gulf states in July 2007,[28] a huge upgrade given that the total value of U.S.-delivered arms and services to GCC states had been $72 billion between 1981 and 2006.[29] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised the proposal, saying that "the United States is determined to assure our allies that we are going to be reliable in helping them to meet their security needs."[30] In the following months, Saudi Arabia ordered more than $1 billion in vehicles and radar equipment, and Kuwait bought over $1.3 billion worth of Patriot advanced capability (PAC-3) air defense missiles.[31] In 2008, the United Arab Emirates ordered a $7 billion missile defense system never before sold to another country.[32] Together, such sales give the GCC an edge against Iran.[33]
However, delivery of much of this equipment is still pending. The Arms Export Control Act requires the president to notify Congress thirty days before finalizing arms deals and allows Congress to block deals up until the point of delivery. In addition to its PAC-3 order, Kuwait is awaiting three L-110-30 aircraft (commercial versions of the C-130 Hercules), thousands of radio frequency missiles, and related training and services. Meanwhile, the delivery of the UAE's missile defense system may not be complete until 2015.[34] Seeking to block the proposed sale of 900 satellite-guided joint direct attack munitions kits to Saudi Arabia, Senator Charles Schumer said in May 2008, "To most Americans, a well-armed Saudi Arabia is far less important than a reasonable price for gasoline, heating oil, and all other products upon which oil is based."[35]
The collective nature of the dialogue is also important because these arms sales are wasteful if Washington does not use its political capital to demand interoperable systems and joint-training programs. Three years into the Gulf Security Dialogue, there are signs that joint defense cooperation is taking root. In June, Gates praised "the unprecedented cooperation between the nations of the gulf."[36] Indeed, GCC states are pursuing shared early warning and active defense systems, increasing membership in U.S.-backed nonproliferation efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative, signing energy memoranda of understanding, and building on joint exercises like January's joint combined security exercise in Kuwait.[37]
Another key component of the dialogue is psychological. The Bush administration used the Gulf Security Dialogue "to convey the U.S. commitment to the peace and security of our GCC allies as well as encourage regional partners to take the steps necessary to address regional challenges."[38] Reinforcing U.S. commitment to defense of the GCC would cement alliances and give the regional Arab leaders the security to side with the United States. As President Bush explained in his 2008 state of the union address, "We will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf."[39] These vital interests are collective. Just as Bush declared a free Iraq to be "a friend of America, a partner in fighting terror, and a source of stability in a dangerous part of the world,"[40] so too is a GCC united against Iranian schemes on the Persian Gulf.
Such moral clarity helps dispel the competitive monarchies' natural aversion to defense cooperation. Al-Ubeid air base in Qatar and its logistics hub in Kuwait, for example, are crucial for operations in Iraq but would not exist if their host states did not sense a U.S. commitment to solidarity against mutual threats. Bilateral arms deals, too, are precursors to multilateral cooperation: "We sell stuff to build relationships," said Vice Admiral Jeffrey Wieringa, head of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.[41] As Iran increasingly meddles in the region, trust-building between the United States and its GCC allies grows even more important.
Gulf Security under Barack Obama
President Barack Obama made the cornerstone of his Middle East policy the promise of "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect" and "a new partnership" in the Middle East.[42] But Secretary Gates's June 2009 message to GCC defense ministers suggested that the Pentagon does not plan to make any significant changes to the Gulf Security Dialogue. Instead, Gates reiterated U.S. commitments to its vital founding pillars of interoperability, regional stability, energy security, counter-proliferation, and counterterrorism.[43] The U.S. continues its annual exercises in the Persian Gulf, but compared to France—which opened a military base in the UAE on May 26, 2009,[44] and will open an officer academy in Doha in 2011[45]—its commitment to expanding such programs has its limits. Under President Obama, the Department of Defense has announced arms sales to Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia totaling more than $4 billion.[46] Yet President Obama's undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, former Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, signed a 2008 House resolution disapproving of the proposed sale of joint direct attack munitions kits to Saudi Arabia due to concerns over that state's oil policy. It is not clear whether the Obama administration can push such Gulf Security Dialogue sales through Congress even with the Democratic Party's large majority.
Nor is it clear whether Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 22, 2009 proposal to extend a U.S. "defense umbrella" over the Persian Gulf states[47] signifies a shift away from the Bush administration's desire to see the GCC states able to maintain a more autonomous collective military capability. In 2007, for example, Gates argued that "the most important military component in the war on terror" was "how well we enable and empower our partners to defend and govern their own countries."[48] Nevertheless, Secretary Clinton's proposal has taken pressure off GCC states to cooperate with a June proposal by senior U.S. military officers for a U.S.-GCC agreement on integrated air and missile defense.[49]
The 2010 quadrennial defense review (QDR) may signal further changes in the U.S. commitment to Persian Gulf security. While the 2006 QDR called for a shift "from a peacetime tempo to a wartime sense of urgency,"[50] a Department of Defense fact sheet on the 2010 review emphasizes a "balance of efforts and resources."[51] The review's point person, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy, questioned GSD arms deals in 2007, saying that "it comes at a time when Sunni and Shi'a tensions in the region are higher than they've been in years. It comes at a time when the U.S. is in the midst of a war [in Iraq] where it's having trouble getting the support it needs from its regional allies."[52] In reality, these arms deals have spurred the GCC to help in Iraq. In July of 2008, William Burns, undersecretary for political affairs, praised the "new support and cooperation from [Iraq's] Arab neighbors," attributing it to "the readiness of the Iraqi government and security forces to confront Iranian-backed groups."[53] Indeed, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE have recently opened embassies in Baghdad.[54]
Flournoy also warned in April 2009 of a need for "pragmatism" in the face of what she calls "very difficult choices" when it comes to evaluating strategic risk. "In a world in which resources are limited," she said, "particularly in economic crisis, we have to be very specific about how we do this."[55] Such concerns echo the rationale behind the Obama administration's defense budget cuts. While Bush's 2008 budget allocated $188 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations specifically for wartime costs, Obama's 2009 budget allocated only $140 billion.[56] Recession-induced belt-tightening does not explain all the cuts. While the administration believes the economy will gradually recover, the projected wartime supplemental budget gradually drops to $50 billion by 2011. Meanwhile, to pay for increased domestic spending, the Obama administration plans to reduce the military budget from its current 3.8 percent share of gross domestic product to less than 3.3 percent by 2014.[57] This has already required cuts to missile defense spending and F-22 aircraft production.[58] Whatever the justifications for Obama's recent decision not to proceed with missile defense systems in Poland, it is tempting for U.S. allies to perceive it as more evidence of Washington's fading dedication to defense. These decisions send a conflicting message not only to the Persian Gulf states, which depend on a strong U.S. military for security, but also to the Islamic Republic.
The Obama administration's decision to engage the Islamic Republic may also undercut the Gulf Security Dialogue's containment initiatives. While it has upheld some of the tough policies of previous administrations towards Iran—such as weapons proliferation executive orders and economic sanctions—the Obama administration is unique in its eagerness for bilateral and multilateral talks. While Bush insisted that negotiations could only follow Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment, Obama has offered to reward talks to Iran "without preconditions."[59] Last May, Obama approved a Bush-brokered 123 agreement to prevent the UAE from enriching its own uranium but has not taken a clear stance against Iranian enrichment. Even after Iran's bloody suppression of post-election protests in June 2009, Obama sent a delegation to meet with officials of the republic last September for multilateral talks with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (Britain, China, France, Russia, United States) and Germany.[60] While the talks secured an Iranian promise to allow inspection of the newly-discovered uranium enrichment plant in Qom and to outsource some uranium enrichment to Russia and France,[61] these capitulations do not mark a change in Iranian behavior but rather an effort to slow international momentum against Iran's nuclear program. Engagement has not quelled the Islamic Republic's revolutionary zeal.
The Obama administration used the U.N. General Assembly and the meetings of the Group of Twenty (G-20) finance ministers and central bank governors in September to reassess engagement with Iran. It may resort to economic strategies at the end of the year, such as the "crippling sanctions" that Secretary Clinton threatened in April. Yet any diplomatic engagement that does not occur alongside military strategies will be ineffective and will lead Persian Gulf allies to question the value of further cooperation with Washington. The 2007 national intelligence estimate, for example, said that Iran had temporarily given up its nuclear program in 2003. The change in Iranian behavior occurred alongside the use of U.S. force in the Persian Gulf and was not the result of diplomacy alone.
Similarly, the United States's relative success since 2007 in stabilizing Iraq comes after commanders combined a new counterinsurgency doctrine with a troop surge. The June 30 "anti-surge," which confines U.S. troops to their bases, has so far proved unsettling to Iraq's Persian Gulf neighbors. Violence has flared amid Kurdish-Arab tensions in Iraq's north. Attacks in Baghdad killed 147 people on October 25, 2009—the city's deadliest day in more than two years.[62] Meanwhile Al-Qaeda has reemerged in Kuwait where authorities on August 11, 2009, foiled a terror plot against a U.S. base and oil infrastructure.[63]
As the Obama administration pursues engagement and lightens the U.S. footprint in the region, the Islamic Republic has maintained an anti-U.S. foreign policy and continues on a steady path of militarization; during his first term, President Ahmadinejad filled two-thirds of his cabinet ministry posts with former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel or members of the Basij auxiliary paramilitary force.[64] In an indirect endorsement of Ahmadinejad's reelection in 2009, Supreme Leader Khamenei urged Iranians "not to vote for those who by bowing their heads to foreigners do away with our honor."[65] The IRGC stretched the limits of its apolitical mandate by mobilizing pro-Ahmadinejad voters before the election and beating down protesters afterward. Ahmadinejad has interpreted his reelection as a green light to his aggressive foreign policy. His defense ministry appointee is Ahmad Vahidi, the former Qods Force chief of the Revolutionary Guards wanted by Interpol for the murder of eight-five people in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. Ahmadinejad also appointed former IRGC leader Hojjat al-Eslam Heydar Moslehi to the intelligence ministry, and Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar to the interior ministry. Meanwhile in Iraq, the IRGC's Qods Force continues to supply improvised explosive devices and explosively formed penetrators—the more expensive explosives that fling special football-size copper slugs through armored vehicles at 2,000 meters per second—to Shi'i militias targeting Americans.[66] Finally, Iran's ever-progressing nuclear program appears little deterred by Undersecretary Tauscher's June 30 threat regarding arms control "to hold accountable those that violate their obligations and commitments."[67] Ahmadinejad's reelection only reinforced these trends. In his September U.N. address (made while reports were still trickling out of Iran of election protesters being tortured and raped), Ahmadinejad blamed the United States and its allies "for spreading war, bloodshed, aggression, terror, and intimidation in the whole region."[68]
U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf should recognize that outreach to Iran since the "unclench your fist" inaugural address has failed. Iran has ignored Obama's diplomatic plea for the Islamic Republic to join "the community of nations."[69] Meanwhile, Tehran has capitalized on the June 30, 2009 U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq: On July 16, an Iranian-backed militia killed three U.S. soldiers in Basra with an Iranian-made rocket.[70] Even though the Obama administration chose not to intervene on behalf of human rights protesters after the June presidential elections, on August 23, 2009, Iran's parliament voted to approve $20 million for exposing human rights abuses in the United States.[71] Iran has interpreted U.S. engagement attempts as desperation: Ahmadinejad's short-lived first vice president and current chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Masha'i, said in August that due to Ahmadinejad's "historic" world popularity, "the international community has no choice but to cooperate" with the regime.[72] Finally, as Washington cashes in a peace dividend, Iranian-made missiles and machine guns are landing in the hands of Yemen's Shi'i rebels. In a reference to Tehran, Yemeni information minister Hasan Ahmad al-Lawzi recently said, "There are religious authorities that are trying to interfere in the affairs of our country."[73]
Conclusions
U.S. commitment to Persian Gulf security is important because it gives the gulf states the confidence and ability to resist Iranian intimidation. Without this commitment, the Persian Gulf states would accommodate the Islamic Republic. Iran's nuclear program and military ambitions would benefit from such a capitulation as it would give Tehran more access to the region's energy resources and would take pressure off the regime's weapons-trafficking efforts. U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf should continue the Bush administration's successful efforts to strengthen the region's security. Winning the trust of these vulnerable Persian Gulf states requires not only a commitment to arms sales and joint military exercises but also a broader foreign policy that values long-term relationships over shortsighted attempts at "mutual respect" with declared enemies such as Iran.
Washington should use the Gulf Security Dialogue to counter Iran's regional ambitions. To this end, the dialogue has indeed made important inroads, especially in coordinating interoperable defense and augmenting the Persian Gulf's arms edge. In April 2008, Bahrain and Kuwait signed their first bilateral security accord. In July 2008, the Department of Defense notified Congress of the possibility of the first GSD-related defense sale to Qatar. But the future success of the dialogue depends on the Persian Gulf's perception of U.S. strategy in the rest of the region. If the Persian Gulf states suspect White House realism will sacrifice their defense on the altar of a deal with Tehran, they may decide they have no choice but to make accommodation with the Islamic Republic, a tendency that ultimately may undercut the U.S. ability to maintain a presence in the region.
Indeed, such accommodation is already occurring. The UAE and Qatar were quick to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his reelection victory,[74] and Oman's sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said traveled to Iran in August.[75] Qatar's emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani discussed ways to expand economic cooperation with Iran with Tehran's ambassador to Qatar on August 27, 2009, the day after Iran's envoy to Bahrain called on the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council states to stop "employing foreign forces."[76] The New York Times reported in May that Oman and the UAE increasingly rely on "mutual interest" trade with Iran, which is "an important political and economic ally that is too powerful and too potentially dangerous to ignore, let alone antagonize."[77] Iran's talk of "indigenizing" regional security shows signs of appealing, especially in Qatar. [78] In Bahrain, too, an eagerness to bow to growing Iranian power has taken the shape of bilateral energy agreements.[79]
As the Obama administration's experiment with engagement has shown, the Gulf Security Dialogue is a necessary but insufficient measure for countering Iranian aggression. The dialogue is ineffective when conciliatory U.S. gestures towards Iran contradict it. President Obama got it right at his inauguration when he said America must fight its enemies "not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions." Among these convictions is that "our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."[80]
This is the spirit of the dialogue. The United States cannot negotiate sturdy alliances through barter and concession. It must earn them by denying "mutual respect" to the enemies of America's democratic ideals and standing by those who desire a new way forward.
Patrick Knapp is a second lieutenant in the Minnesota Army National Guard. He is currently attending the Military Intelligence Officer Basic Course at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.
[1] Michael Knights, "Changing Military Balance in the Gulf," Realclearworld.com, Sept. 15, 2009.
[2] Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman, "GCC-Iran: Operational Analysis of AIR, SAM and TBM Forces," Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., Aug. 20, 2009.
[3] "Operation Praying Mantis," Global Security.org, accessed Oct. 5, 2009.
[4] Kenneth Katzman, "Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses," Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., May 19, 2009, p. 26.
[5] Kayhan (Tehran), July 9, 2007 .
[6] BBC Persian, Feb. 16, 2009.
[7] Anthony H. Cordesman, "Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Broader Strategic Context," Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., Dec. 5, 2008, p. 38.
[8] Tehran Times, Oct. 30, 2008.
[9] Cordesman, "Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction," p. 15.
[10] Marine Corps Times, June 25, 2007.
[11] The CNN Wire, June 19, 2009.
[12] "Operation Earnest Will," GlobalSecurity.org, accessed Oct. 12, 2009.
[13] Martin Indyk, quoted in Kenneth M. Pollack, The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict between Iran and America (New York: Random House, 2004), p. 261.
[14] Anthony H. Cordesman. "Conventional Armed Forces in the Gulf," Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., June 23, 2008, p. 37.
[15] "Strengthen Relationships," U.S. Central Command, excerpts from testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington, D.C., May 3, 2007.
[16] BBC News, Feb. 19, 2009.
[17] Cordesman, "Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction," p. 15.
[18] Tariq Khaitous, "Arab Reactions to a Nuclear Armed Iran," Policy Focus #94, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, June 2009, p. 23.
[19] Jim Garamone, "Cooperative Defense Initiative Seeks to Save Lives," American Forces Press Service, Apr. 10, 2000.
[20] "Regional Overview and Contributions of Key Allies," A Report to the United States Congress by the Secretary of Defense (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense, Mar. 2001), accessed Oct. 14, 2009.
[21] "Assistant Secretary Hillen to Travel to Persian Gulf Region," U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2006.
[22] Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2006.
[23] Simon Henderson, "Naval Exercises off Bahrain: Preventing Proliferation between North Korea and Iran," PolicyWatch, no. 1157, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2006.
[24] John Hillen, quoted in Kenneth Katzman, "Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses," Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., July 17, 2007, p. 33.
[25] "U.S.-Kuwait Gulf Security Dialogue Joint Statement," U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C., May 22, 2007.
[26] Katzman, "Iran: US Concerns and Policy Responses," May 19, 2009, p. 41.
[27] Robert Gates, Manama dialogue speech, Manama, Bahrain, Dec. 8, 2007.
[28] Rachel Stohl, "United States Re-emerges as Leading Arms Supplier to the Developing World," Center for Defense Information, Washington, D.C., Dec. 30, 2008.
[29] Christopher M. Blanchard and Richard F. Grimmett, "The Gulf Security Dialogue and Related Arms Sale Proposals," Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., Oct. 8, 2008, p. 1.
[30] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, July 31, 2007.
[31] Kenneth Katzman, "Kuwait: Security, Reform, and U.S. Policy," Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., May 20, 2009, p. 6.
[32] Katzman, "Iran: US Concerns and Policy Responses," May 19, 2009, p. 42.
[33] Ibid.
[34] SIPRI Arms Transfers Database, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Aug. 17, 2009.
[35] Charles Schumer, "Statements on introduced bills and joint resolutions," introducing S. J. Res. 32, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., May 13, 2008.
[36] Robert Gates, speech to U.S. Central Command Gulf States chiefs of defense, Washington, D.C., June 24, 2009.
[37] Agence France-Presse, Apr. 27, 2009.
[38] "U.S.-U.A.E. Gulf Security Dialogue," U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C., Mar. 11, 2008.
[39] George W. Bush, "State of the Union Address," Jan. 28, 2008.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Reuters, June 17, 2009.
[42] Barack Obama, "Inaugural Address," Jan. 20, 2009; idem, interview, Al-Arabiya (Dubai), Jan. 27, 2009.
[43] Gates, speech to U.S. Central Command, June 24, 2009.
[44] BBC News, May 26, 2009.
[45] Gulf Times (Dubai), Sept. 10, 2007.
[46] "Kuwait—Technical/Logistics Support for F/A-18 Aircraft," Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Washington, D.C., July 7, 2009; "Kuwait—Upgrade Desert Warrior Fire Control System with GITS II," Defense Security Cooperation Agency, July 10, 2009.
[47] The New York Times, July 22, 2009.
[48] Robert Gates, speech to the Association of the United States Army, www.Army.mil, Oct. 10, 2007.
[49] The National (Abu Dhabi), June 30, 2009.
[50] "Quadrennial Defense Review Report," U.S. Department of Defense, Feb. 6, 2006, p. xi.
[51] "2010 QDR Terms of Reference Fact Sheet," U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., Apr. 27, 2009.
[52] National Public Radio, July 31, 2007.
[53] William J. Burns, testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C., July 9, 2008.
[54] Asharq al-Awsat (London), June 11, 2008.
[55] U.S. News and World Report, May 4, 2009.
[56] Thomas Donnelly, "Indefensible," The Weekly Standard, Mar. 9, 2009.
[57] Edwin J. Feulner, "Spending Spree and Cutting Defense Don't Add Up," America at Risk Memo, Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C., July 20, 2009.
[58] FOX News, Apr. 6, 2009.
[59] Barack Obama, speech, Cairo University, White House press office, June 4, 2009.
[60] Barack Obama and Angela Merkel, Washington, D.C., White House press office, June 26, 2009.
[61] BBC News, Oct. 2, 2009.
[62] CBS News, Oct. 25, 2009; Army Times, Oct. 25, 2009.
[63] American Forces Press Service (Washington, D.C.), Aug. 11, 2009.
[64] Danielle Pletka and Ali Alfoneh, "Iran's Hidden Revolution," The New York Times," June 16, 2009.
[65] Fars News Agency (Tehran), May 18, 2009.
[66] Marisa Cochrane, "Iran's Hard Power Influence in Iraq," IranTracker, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., Apr. 10, 2009.
[67] Ellen Tauscher, remarks to U.S. Strategic Command Deterrence symposium, U.S. Department of State, Omaha, Neb., July 30, 2009.
[68] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, full text of speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Salem (Ore.) News, Sept. 23, 2009; Bloomberg.com, Sept. 24, 2009.
[69] BBC World News America, Mar. 20, 2009.
[70] CBS News, July 17, 2009.
[71] The Washington Post, Aug. 24, 2009.
[72] PressTV (Tehran), Aug. 25, 2009.
[73] Chris Harnisch, "A Critical War in a Fragile Country: Yemen's Battle with the Shiite al-Houthi Rebels," IranTracker, Aug. 31, 2009.
[74] Emirates News Agency, June 14, 2009; State of Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs, June 13, 2009; Tehran Times, June 15, 2009.
[75] Oman Daily Observer, Aug. 12, 2009.
[76] Fars News Agency, Aug. 26, 2009.
[77] The New York Times, May 16, 2009.
[78] Tariq Khaitous, "Arab Reactions to a Nuclear Armed Iran," Policy Focus #94, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Washington, D.C., June 2009, p. 23.
[79] Kenneth Katzman, "Bahrain: Reform, Security, and U.S. Policy," Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., June 1, 2009.
[80] Obama, "Inaugural Address," Jan. 20, 2009.