LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJune 10/2010

Bible Of the Day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 17,26-37. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man; they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage up to the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Similarly, as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; on the day when Lot left Sodom, fire and brimstone rained from the sky to destroy them all. So it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, a person who is on the housetop and whose belongings are in the house must not go down to get them, and likewise a person in the field must not return to what was left behind. Remember the wife of Lot. Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it. I tell you, on that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken, the other left. And there will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken, the other left." They said to him in reply, "Where, Lord?" He said to them, "Where the body is, there also the vultures will gather."

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Assessing the Strength of Hezbollah/By Danielle Pletka/June 09/10
Zero problems or zero-sum? Turkey’s foreign policy/By: Farrah Zughni/June 09/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June 09/10
U.N. Slaps New Sanctions on Iran: Lebanon Abstains from Voting amid Approval of 12 Nations, Opposition of Two/Naharnet
Sfeir in Paris on Monday, Agenda Includes Talks with Sarkozy/Naharnet
U.S.: 'Hizbullah is Most Technically-capable Terrorist Group in the World'/Naharnet
Lebanon to Vote Against or Abstain? Iran Faces New U.N. Sanctions/Naharnet
Berri’s take on sanctions vote: Side with Turkey or support Israel/Now Lebanon
Hariri Discusses Bilateral Ties with Mubarak/Naharnet
Berri: Voting in U.N. Security Council over New Sanctions on Iran is Tantamount to Supporting Israe/Naharnet
Beirut staying out of Iranian fray/UPI.com
Our survival is at stake/Ynetnews
Lebanon activists call for Placebo gig boycott over Israel/AFP
Report: Israeli gas field borders Lebanon/UPI.com
Former US envoy favors talking to Hezbollah/Reuters
Mideast expert calls for US talks with Hezbollah/The Associated Press
Franjieh: National Dialogue better off without Geagea/Daily Star
Maqdah denies plans to cross Israel border/AFP
Sidon judges pay tribute to colleagues assassinated in 1999/Daily Star
US Embassy: No travel to Syria without visa/Daily Star
LaHood denies deal with Hariri on new projects/Daily Star
Young Israelis are taught to hate: Syria/National Post
US takes Hezbollah's threat with "utmost seriousness"/Xinhua
Hariri Surprises Berri by Showing Up at Parliament Right after Arrival from Egypt/Naharnet
Woman's Swallowed Cocaine Detected at Beirut Airport/Naharnet
Gates accuses EU of pushing Turkey away from West/Now Lebanon

U.N. Slaps New Sanctions on Iran: Lebanon Abstains from Voting amid Approval of 12 Nations, Opposition of Two
Naharnet/The U.N. Security Council on Wednesday slapped broader military and financial sanctions on Iran over its suspect nuclear program, despite opposition from Brazil and Turkey. The vote in the 15-member council was 12 in favor, with Lebanon abstaining and Brazil and Turkey voting against. Around one hour before the Security Council session, Lebanese government informed Nawaf Salam, Lebanon's permanent envoy at the Security Council, that Lebanon will abstain from voting on new sanctions against Iran. Lebanese cabinet was convened Wednesday evening to take a decision on the direction of Lebanon's voting. According to MTV, the cabinet failed to reach a unanimous decision and thus resorted to internal voting. Fourteen cabinet ministers voted in favor of Lebanon opposing new sanctions on Iran, while 14 voted in favor of abstention, while two ministers were absent from the cabinet session. An Nahar daily said that Premier Saad Hariri explained to Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during their meeting on Monday night the circumstances that push Lebanon towards a decision to abstain from voting, a solution backed by Lebanon's ambassador at the U.N. Salam.
On the other hand, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice immediately hailed the vote, saying: "The council has risen to its responsibilities. Now Iran should choose a wiser course." But Wednesday's vote was delayed for more than an hour after the ambassadors of Brazil, Turkey and Lebanon, three non-permanent council members, said they had to await instructions from their governments. The three countries finally decided to attend the meeting, but insisted on speaking before the vote to register their opposition.
"We do not see sanctions as an effective instrument in this case," Brazil's U.N. Ambassador Maria Luiza Viotti said. The U.S.-drafted resolution marked the fourth set of U.N. sanctions imposed on Iran since December 2006, as the international community has struggled in vain to curb the Islamic republic's nuclear ambitions. Tehran maintains that its uranium enrichment program is for peaceful civilian purposes, while the Western nations have led accusations that it is seeking to develop an atomic weapon. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday called the sanctions "the most significant Iran has ever faced." But the Brazilian U.N. envoy said the sanctions would increase the suffering of the Iranian people, and highlighted that Brazil and Turkey had brokered a nuclear fuel swap deal with Tehran which offered a pathway to a negotiated settlement. Under the deal worked last month, Tehran agreed to ship 1,200 kilograms of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for high-enriched uranium fuel for a Tehran research reactor that would be supplied later by Russia and France.
But the six powers trying to clip Iran's nuclear ambitions -- Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany -- gave the deal a cool reception.(Naharnet-AFP)

USA: 'Hizbullah is Most Technically-capable Terrorist Group in the World'
/Naharnet/Top U.S. officials have said Hizbullah threatens U.S. interests, Lebanon and Israel in the region, and described the Shiite group as "the most technically-capable terrorist group in the world.""Hizbullah's persistence as a well-armed terrorist group within Lebanon, as well as its robust relationships with Iran and Syria, and the transfer of increasingly sophisticated missiles and rockets to Hizbullah, threaten the interests of the United States, Lebanon, and our partners in the region, especially Israel," Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman and the State Department's Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Daniel Benjamin, said Tuesday.
They said Washington has warned Damascus directly about the potential consequences of these alleged destabilizing actions.
"While we recognize that Hizbullah is not directly targeting the United States and U.S. interests today, we are aware that could change if tensions increase with Iran over that country's nuclear program," the two officials said during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
They said that while Tehran continues to provide a significant portion of the party's funding, Hizbullah has broadened its sources of financial support in recent years by being "heavily involved in a wide range of criminal activity, including the drug trade and smuggling."
While saying that Washington cooperates directly with international partners to impede the group's ability to receive and transfer funds, they stressed that "Hizbullah's network of financial support knows no borders, with active operations in many places around the globe, including Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Latin America."
Turning to the alleged Syrian transfer of Scud missiles to Hizbullah, they said such a move is "deeply troubling.""These destabilizing developments increase the risks of miscalculation and the possibility of hostilities," Feltman and Benjamin told the hearing. About the Middle East peace process, the top officials said that "Hizbullah's weapons and Syria's support for its role as an independent armed force in Lebanon are a threat, both to Lebanon and Israel, as well as a major obstacle to achieving peace in the region."Beirut, 09 Jun 10, 09:54

U.S. takes Hezbollah's threat with "utmost seriousness"
2010-06-09 /WASHINGTON, June 8 (Xinhua) -- As a vital push for stability in Lebanon, security in the Middle East, the Obama administration has been taking threat posed by Hezbollah "with the utmost seriousness," senior administration officials said on Tuesday.
Assistant Secretary of State Jeffery Feltman and his State colleague Daniel Benjamin told a Senate hearing that the administration views Hezbollah as a major threat to the interests of Lebanon, the United States, Israel, as well as the broader Middle East. "Hezbollah's persistence as a well-armed terrorist group within Lebanon, as well as its robust relationships with Iran and Syria, and the transfer of increasingly sophisticated missiles and rockets to Hezbollah, threaten the interests of the United States, Lebanon, and our partners in the region, especially Israel," said the two officials.They told U.S. lawmakers that the administration has been trying to decrease the threat posed by Hezbollah through supporting the Lebanese government, cutting off terrorism financing, interdicting illicit arms shipments, and bilateral and multilateral diplomatic efforts aimed at ending those arms transfers.
Hezbollah, a Shia Islamic political and military organization based in Lebanon, is listed by the U.S. State Department as one of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The group is widely believed to get military and financial support from Tehran and Damascus. The Obama administration, since it took office in January, 2009, has been encouraging Syria to play a positive role in the Middle East affairs ranging from Lebanon's stability to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. Stressing Hezbollah's threat, the Obama administration has warned the Syrian government in recent weeks of providing Scud missiles to Hezbollah and has threatened "all options are going to be on the table" to address Damascus's actions. "We has made clear that our diplomatic relations with Syria will never come at the expense of Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, or any of our other partners in the region, and our communications will continue to emphasize the need for Syria to end its support for Hezbollah," said the officials. "We are mounting considerable diplomatic, as well as counterterrorism, and assistance efforts aimed at minimizing the threat and influence of Hezbollah in the region, and promoting peace, stability, and prosperity across the Middle East," they added.

IAEA: U.S., France, Russia Respond to Iran Fuel Swap Deal
Naharnet/The U.S., France and Russia have formally replied to Iran's proposals for a nuclear fuel swap, just hours before world powers were set to slap new sanctions on Tehran over its atomic program, the U.N. atomic watchdog said Wednesday. "IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano today informed the board of governors that he had received letters from the governments of France, the Russian Federation and the United States concerning the provision of nuclear fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor," the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a statement. The letters were in response to Iran's proposal on May 24 for an arrangement with Brazil and Turkey regarding the supply of fuel for a research reactor that makes radioisotopes for medical purposes. "Attached to each of the letters was an identical paper entitled 'Concerns about the Joint Declaration Conveyed by Iran to the IAEA'," the U.N. watchdog said. "The letters and the paper have been conveyed to the government of Iran through Iran's resident representative to the IAEA."
Amano said: "I will continue to use my good offices to follow up on this new development with the concerned governments."
A diplomat close to the IAEA, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Amano met with the envoys of the three countries on the sidelines of the agency's week-long board meeting, where Washington, Paris and Moscow formally handed over their responses. The move comes just hours ahead of a key vote by the U.N. Security Council in New York which was expected to slap a fourth set of sanctions on the Islamic republic over its contested nuclear program.(AFP) Beirut, 09 Jun 10, 13:15

UN readies Iran sanctions vote
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3902390,00.html
Western diplomats expect 12 UN Security Council members, including all the five that hold vetoes, to vote for resolution. Clinton: New sanctions would be toughest yet
Reuters Published: 06.09.10, 00:36 / Israel News
After months of tough negotiations, Security Council powers said on Tuesday they were set to vote on a resolution that would impose a fourth round of United Nations sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the fourth round of sanctions due for a vote on Wednesday would be the toughest Tehran has faced.
'Iran circumventing sanctions at sea' / Yitzhak Benhorin World-class newspaper reveals that most freight ships from Iran's state-owned shipping company switch flags, names, and ownership on regular basis in order to transport contraband goods from around world. Treasury under-secretary: They are as smart as us
Mexico's UN Ambassador Claude Heller, current president of the 15-nation Security Council, told reporters it was due to meet for the vote at 10 am EDT (1400 GMT) Wednesday, after broad agreement was reached on who would be targeted in Iran. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the expected passage of the resolution would provide a springboard for individual countries to take their own tougher measures against Tehran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment.
Iran, however, warned its close trading partner Russia against joining Western nations in backing new punitive measures against the Islamic Republic.
Western diplomats expect 12 council members, including all the five that hold vetoes, to vote for the resolution. Turkey, Brazil and Lebanon are not expected to support it.
Asked if the possibility of two or three 'no' votes would amount to a failure for the United States, Clinton told reporters: "I'm not going to comment on something that hasn't occurred yet. The vote is scheduled for tomorrow.
"These are the most significant sanctions that Iran has ever faced," she added. "The amount of unity that has been engendered by the international community is very significant."
State officials in Jerusalem noted that Israel was being briefed on the matter by the US and its allies in the Security Council.
"According to estimates, Ankara's vote will not necessarily be affected by the diplomatic developments following the Gaza flotilla, but by the overall strategy," one of the officials said, but stressed that "all eyes are on New York in order to determine whether the Gaza flotilla was indeed a Turkish provocation aimed at diverting the global attention from Iran's nuclear program."
Iranian diplomacy fails. UN Security Council (Photo: Reuters) The UN resolution would target 40 new Iranian entities, including 15 linked to Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard.
An annex to the draft resolution would also add one individual to the previous list of 40 Iranians subject to an asset freeze – Javad Rahiqi who heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran's Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center.
The annex, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, also includes 22 entities involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities and three entities linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.
Western diplomats told Reuters on condition of anonymity there were currently one individual and 41 entities, including a bank, blacklisted in the draft resolution. They identified the individual as Javad Rahiqi, head of a nuclear center in Isfahan where Iran runs a uranium processing facility.
Although key council members have agreed on the list, the United States and China still were discussing at least one entry, which means the blacklist could expand or shrink slightly before the vote, the diplomats said.
Those added to an existing UN blacklist for suspected ties to Iran's nuclear or missile programs will face international travel bans and asset freezes.
"It's a much tougher resolution than any of us had predicted we'd get," a Western council diplomat said.
The draft resolution was the product of months of talks between the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia. The four Western powers had wanted tougher measures – some targeting Iran's energy sector – but Beijing and Moscow worked hard to dilute the proposed steps.
'Appropriate reaction from Iran'
The resolution calls for measures against new Iranian banks abroad if a connection to the nuclear or missile programs is suspected, as well as vigilance over transactions with any Iranian bank, including the central bank.
It also would expand the UN arms embargo against Tehran and blacklist some entities controlled by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
A senior Iranian official warned of an "appropriate reaction" against world powers if they imposed new sanctions. An Iranian lawmaker said Tehran would reconsider its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog if the sanctions went ahead – a threat Tehran has made before.
Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and not aimed at making atomic weapons, as the West suspects. It has defied five Security Council resolutions demanding it stop enriching uranium, which can produce fuel for bombs or reactors.
Gates said in London that individual nations likely would move quickly to pass measures that go beyond the UN sanctions.
"One of the many benefits of the resolution is that it will provide a legal platform for individual nations to then take additional actions that go well beyond the resolution itself," he said. "I believe that a number of nations are prepared to act pretty promptly.
"I do not think we have lost the opportunity to stop the Iranians from having nuclear weapons."
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad admonished Russia at a news conference in Istanbul, where he was attending a summit along with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, to take care "not to be on the side of the enemies of the Iranian people."
Putin, who said he expected to meet Ahmadinejad on Tuesday in Istanbul, said the sanctions should not be excessive.
"We will have an opportunity to discuss these problems if my Iranian colleague will have such a need," he said, adding there there should be no obstacles to the "development of Iran's peaceful nuclear energy." The Iranian president said a nuclear fuel swap deal agreed by Tehran with Turkey and Brazil was an opportunity that would not be repeated. The deal, which has been rejected by the West as too little too late, was intended to defuse the crisis. Turkey and Brazil last month revived parts of a UN-backed offer for Tehran to part with 1,200 kg of low enriched uranium in return for special fuel rods for a medical research reactor. They say the deal removes the need for sanctions. Ahmadinejad said the swap deal was a one-time offer.
Turkish President Abdullah Gul urged Ahmadinejad on Monday to tell the international community his government was ready to cooperate and solve the dispute over its nuclear program.
Yitzhak Behorin in Washington contributed to this report

Lebanon still not clear about UN vote on Iran sanctions
June 9, 2010 /Now Lebanon
Just hours ahead of a UN vote to impose a fresh new round of sanctions against Iran, Lebanon’s political parties are not showing signs of a unified stance on the issue.
Still, an anonymous source told An-Nahar newspaper in an interview published on Wednesday that the cabinet will likely support a decision to abstain from the UN Security Council vote.
The daily said this strategy would help avoid any possible domestic trouble. A source told the paper that Hezbollah wants to vote against sanctions, but understands the position to abstain.
President Michel Sleiman is still deciding on the issue, an anonymous source told As-Safir newspaper on Wednesday. But the president is not confused, the source said, adding he “will take up the right position at the right time.”Lebanon’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Nawwaf Salam told As-Safir that Lebanon, as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, shares the same views as Turkey and Brazil on the vote. Those two countries made efforts to promote a nuclear fuel swap deal with Tehran that was quickly shot down by the US. Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Shami said he personally supports voting against sanctions but understands the issue is in the hands of the Lebanese government.
As-Safir said the Future Movement is still mulling over a decision, but its ministers will meet before Wednesday’s cabinet meeting to make up their minds.
The daily said Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun asked his bloc ministers to vote against sanctions.
Meanwhile, Marada Movement leader MP Sleiman Franjieh warned that a decision to abstain from the vote could have a negative impact on domestic politics and the cabinet, the paper said. The UN Security Council will vote Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. local time on what could be a fourth round of sanctions on Iran.
Western powers say they are certain that they have more than the nine votes needed to adopt the draft document. -NOW Lebanon

Berri’s take on sanctions vote: Side with Turkey or support Israel
June 9, 2010 /Now Lebanon/ Speaker Nabih Berri told the press on Wednesday that Lebanon would essentially be supporting Israel if it does not, at the very least, take Turkey’s side when it comes to UN Security Council sanctions against Iran. “We should be at the highest level of coordination with Turkey. In all cases, I am against the decision [to impose sanctions on Iran],” Berri said. Brazil and Turkey both made efforts to promote a nuclear fuel swap deal they reached with Tehran last month. The Security Council will vote Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. local time on what could be a fourth round of sanctions on Iran. Western powers say they are certain that they have more than the nine votes needed to adopt the draft document.
Meanwhile, Berri also said he presented a full report on the need to dig for natural resources along Lebanon’s coastline at the last dialogue session. “A Norwegian company [recently] estimated 220 trillion cubic feet of gas in Lebanon’s waters, in addition to 308 million barrels of oil,” Berri said. -NOW Lebanon

Sfeir in Paris on Monday, Agenda Includes Talks with Sarkozy
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir travels to Paris on Monday on a four-day visit during which he is scheduled to hold talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
On July 2, Sfeir will receive President Elias Hrawi's prize during a ceremony at the patriarchate in Bkirki. The ceremony will be attended by President Michel Suleiman. In February, a delegation from the committee on the Hrawi prize visited Sfeir and informed him that he was chosen to receive it. "The committee considered that this year's prize should go to the most important personality in Lebanon, the patriarch," the former president's wife, Mona Hrawi, said. Beirut, 09 Jun 10, 08:22

Lebanon to Vote Against or Abstain? Iran Faces New U.N. Sanctions
Naharnet/For the fourth time in as many years, the U.N. Security Council is set Wednesday to hit Iran with sanctions for refusing to come clean on its suspect nuclear program, but it remains unclear whether Lebanon will vote against or abstain. Adoption of a U.S.-drafted sanctions resolution, co-sponsored by Britain and France with the backing of Russia and China, is a foregone conclusion despite efforts by Brazil and Turkey to head off the measures and promote a nuclear fuel swap they reached with Tehran last month.
Western powers say they are confident that they have more than the nine votes needed to adopt the text at a meeting scheduled to start at 10:00 am (1400 GMT) Wednesday.
Only Brazil, Turkey and Lebanon -- three non-permanent council members -- have openly voiced opposition to the text and it remains unclear whether they will vote against or abstain.
An Nahar daily said that Premier Saad Hariri explained to Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during their meeting on Monday night the circumstances that push Lebanon towards a decision to abstain from voting, a solution backed by Lebanon's ambassador at the U.N. Nawaf Salam.
It would be the fourth set of United Nations sanctions imposed on Iran since December 2006, the last of which was adopted on March 3, 2008, as the international community has struggled in vain to curb the Islamic republic's nuclear ambitions. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has angrily warned that negotiations with six major powers -- Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany -- on his country's nuclear program would be terminated if the new sanctions are imposed.
A Turkish diplomat told Agence France Presse on condition of anonymity that Ankara was trying to persuade Iran not to abandon talks if sanctions were imposed.
The new resolution would:
-- Expand an arms embargo, target Iran's banking sector and ban it from sensitive overseas activities like uranium mining;
-- Authorize states to conduct high-sea inspections of vessels believed to be ferrying banned items from or to Iran; and
-- Add 40 entities to a list of people and groups subject to travel restrictions and financial sanctions, as well as Javad Rahiqi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran's Isfahan nuclear technology center.
According to the draft text, 22 of the entities are linked to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, 15 are "owned, controlled, or acting on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps" and three are controlled by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.
Speaking from Ecuador on Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the proposed sanctions are the toughest ever.
"I think it is fair (to say) that these are the most significant sanctions that Iran has ever faced," Clinton said at a news conference with Ecuador's president. "The amount of unity that has been engendered by the international community is very significant."
But Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, whose country has decided to back the U.N. moves despite its economic ties with Tehran, said the sanctions should not be extreme.
"Our point of view is that these decisions should not be excessive and should not put the Iranian people in a complicated position," Putin was quoted by Russia's ITAR-TASS as saying.
And U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said Tuesday that Washington still hoped "to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program and negotiate constructively and in earnest with the international community."
However, she predicted the resolution would be adopted by "a strong majority."(AFP-AP-Naharnet) Beirut, 09 Jun 10, 07:41


Hariri Surprises Berri by Showing Up at Parliament Right after Arrival from Egypt
Naharnet/Prime Minister Saad Hariri surprised Speaker Nabih Berri by showing up at Parliament right after his arrival from Sharm al-Sheikh where he held talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. No statements were made following the 40-minute meeting between the Berri and Hariri. Berri, however, told reporters based in Parliament prior to his meeting with Hariri that voting in the U.N. Security Council over new sanctions on Iran is "tantamount to supporting Israel." Beirut, 09 Jun 10, 13:16

Woman's Swallowed Cocaine Detected at Beirut Airport
Naharnet/Customs Authorities at Rafik Hariri International Airport said Wednesday that they arrested a woman for trying to smuggle 800 grams of cocaine pellets to Lebanon.
A Customs statement said that the woman, who arrived from Peru via Argentina, Brazil and Dubai at 3:30 am Wednesday, had swallowed 90 capsules.
Thirteen other capsules were hidden in a bag of potato chips, the statement said, adding it took five hours to retrieve the capsules from the woman's body.
The unidentified woman admitted that she was promised $4,000 in return for smuggling the drugs. She had visited Lebanon last February. Beirut, 09 Jun 10, 12:57

Aoun: We Oppose Expenditures Outside State Budget that Go to Private Funds, No Imminent Changes to Cabinet
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun voiced his opposition on Tuesday to expenditures outside the state budget that go to private funds – the Council for Reconstruction and Development, the Council for South Lebanon, and the Central Fund for the Displaced – saying that he supports their dissolution.
He said after the FPM's weekly meeting: "If parliament decided to back down from what was agreed to by the government over the state budget, then we have the right to accuse it of violating financial laws."Addressing rumors of changes to cabinet, he said that no one is immune to the changes, but stressed: "Until now, there are no changes as today we are concerned with discussing the budget." He stressed that the "possibility of the other team of withdrawing from government agreements over the budget will be a very dangerous development."
The MP added: "Talk of changes in government is just gossip, but it is possible, except it would happen suddenly, although no one is discussing it now."
Addressing the ongoing dispute between secondary education teachers and the Ministry of Education, Aoun demanded that the government pay the teachers their full dues and rights, while asking the teachers to not obstruct the process of the correction of official exams. The FPM's meeting also addressed Antoine Sehnaoui's lawsuit against OTV, with Aoun accusing the justice system of being subject to pressure by political powers. Beirut, 08 Jun 10, 18:28

oung Israelis are taught to hate: Syria
National Post
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Young+Israelis+taught+hate+Syria/3129578/story.html
Syria accused Israel yesterday of indoctrinating Israeli children with hatred toward Arabs, telling the UN Human Rights Council the youngsters sing about sucking Arab blood and learn how to sign missiles destined to hit Arabs.
The tirade, delivered by Rania Al Rifaiy, a Syrian diplomat, was part of the country's appeal at the world body for nations to unite behind a campaign to "put an end to Israeli brutality."
It came as Turkey sought a fresh condemnation of Israel over its deadly raid on aid ships last week when Syria and other regional leaders gathered in Istanbul to discuss security in Asia.
Presidents Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan as well as Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, attended the gathering, which ended with a call on Israel to end its "inhuman" blockade of the Hamas-controlled Palestinian territory.
Ms. Rifaiy accused Israel of systematically using torture against Palestinians and other Arabs, saying the Israeli Knesset has "legitimized" such practices.
"They claim they are allowed to use what is called mild forms of physical pressure; [these] include tying up prisoners in twisted positions for up to five days continuously, sleep deprivation, [and] covering their heads with sacks dipped in -- excuse the term--urine," she said.
Israelis also suffer from a "paranoid feeling of superiority," and the country was built on "hatred, discrimination [and] oppression."
"Hatred is widespread, taught to even small children, who are taught to use weapons, and who are taught to sign missiles that will be fired at Arabs," Ms. Rifaiy said
"Let me quote a song that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school: 'With my teeth, I will rip your flesh with my mouth I will suck your blood.' "
In February, Barack Obama, the U.S. President, moved to strengthen U.S. ties with Syria as part of an effort to drive a wedge between the Arab country and Iran, which Western nations say is trying to build a nuclear bomb.
Mr. Assad said on Monday in Turkey his country will support "every decision and every action" by the Turkish government to make Israel lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip.
The new ties among the regional powers in opposition to Israel promised to pose new problems for the Obama administration, even as Washington and other UN Security Council members said yesterday they were set to vote on a resolution that would impose more UN sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear program.
Robert Gates, the U.S. Defence Secretary, said the expected passage today of the resolution would provide a springboard for individual countries to take their own tougher measures against Tehran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment.
The UN launched the Human Rights Council in 2006 to replace another UN rights body in Geneva that countries with poor human rights records had come to dominate.
While Syria's statement went unchallenged yesterday, the council president interjected when Canada used the word "regime" in a statement condemning human rights abuses in Iran, Burma and North Korea.
He told council members "not to use such language" when referring to UN member states, reported a note-taker with the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch.
"Canada condemns the Burmese regime's lack of respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its people, and we urge the regime to improve its cooperation with UN agencies and representatives to help address the well being of its citizens," Jeffrey Heaton, speaking for Canada, had said.

Lebanon and the balance between sovereignty and stability
By Robert Chahine*
June 8, 2010/Lebanonwire
During the past two years, since the election of General Michel Sleiman to the Presidency in May of 2008, the Lebanese pendulum has been constantly swinging between hope, harmony and stability on one hand and disappointment, anxiety and despair on the other. Lebanese and friends of Lebanon who follow the news and read opinions of analysts and commentators had their attention caught by a number of headlines such as: “The Lebanese are the winners," “Beirut is back...and it's beautiful" "Lebanon: Mid East's most improved democracy" and "Lebanese pursue tolerance and unity"... In the same period disappointing titles also appeared: "Lebanon: A house divided", "Lebanon: The land of lost hope", "Lebanon: Back to square one", "Lebanon held in boxing ring", "Lack of progress on Mid East peace affects Lebanon's stability." These optimistic and pessimistic views were interspersed and alternating and were not part of an improving or deteriorating pattern. While the election of a consensus president and the formation of a “so called national unity government” were important positive steps that triggered genuine relief, most of the country's potential problems have stagnated and remained largely unsolved. Two important questions: one raised in a May 2008 headline: "Lebanon: Reconciliation or Truce?" and the other in August 2008 "Do the Lebanese deserve Lebanon?" remain largely unanswered to date, and remain as legitimate questions today as at the time they were published.
While the Lebanese freedom, liberalism and diversity characteristics that had Pope John Paul II refer to Lebanon as a "message" and not just a country, the constant tensions and instability in the Middle East have hindered progress in crucial areas of the national identity. Since the formation of the Arab League, Lebanon's mission was supposed to be a "commitment to Arab causes and interests on the world scene and neutrality with regard to inter-Arab confrontations and feuds. Unfortunately, multiple factors, internal and external dragged Lebanon into taking sides when Arab divisions occurred. Instead of being mediator or conciliator, Lebanon became battle ground for all kinds of competing or exploding interests or clashes between local Middle Eastern neighbors and/or distant worldwide powers.
The Lebanese have demonstrated impressive successes as individuals, in all fields of life whether in or outside their country. However they have unfortunately had incredible failures in moving Lebanon towards stability and real national identity. There are many reasons, difficulties and circumstances that contributed to such failures. Nevertheless many outside observers have placed most of the blame on the hypocrisy and double talk of many Lebanese politicians, who felt comfortable criticizing various other Arab leaders for such practices, while they were themselves guilty of worse behavior. That resulted in very costly damages to both Lebanon’s sovereignty and stability.
After the assassination of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, the cedar revolution and the Lebanese dream of a new independence, politicians for a multiplicity of reasons failed to reach new sincere understandings that could have genuinely consolidated national unity. For a long time thereafter we kept hearing of anti-Syrian March 14 and pro-Syrian March 8 groups, with leaders and politicians jumping from one camp to another for reasons frequently related to narrow personalized interests and concerns and not necessarily related to pro or anti Western philosophy or alliance or to friendship or animosity with the Syrian-Iranian axis. While there is still talk of March 14 and March 8 political groups, there is hardly anybody who wants to be anti-Syrian, particularly that Syria's rapport with the US has somewhat improved after the Obama administration made some revisions to the American foreign policy in the Middle East. On the other hand, all the Lebanese regardless whether independent or belonging within the March 14 or 8 groups look at Israel as the official enemy. President Obama, somewhat inspired by his family background, has tried to improve fairness towards the Palestinians. However in the process he snubbed Prime Minister Netanyahu and may have lost the trust of the Israelis and the Jewish lobby in the United States. Thus the prospects for peace appear diminished at this time, but developments on the US political scene, between now and the end of 2010 may open a new unique window for peace in the Middle East. Such possibility may be significantly enhanced by some results in the November elections that appear now to be very likely.
Those of us in the expatriate community who are planning to visit or spend summer in Lebanon know how difficult it is to make reservations for travel and/or hotel reservations. The tourist industry is expecting a fabulous summer season which should really help boost the Lebanese economy and prospective 2010 GDP. Nevertheless there are three subjects of anxiety that are constantly lurking at the horizon.
The first may come due in one to two months and relates to the UN Security Council plans to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. There are still important political differences on this issue inside and outside Lebanon. However, Lebanon's temporary membership in the UNSC puts the country on the spot and a decision has to be made and implemented when the time comes to vote on this matter. It is generally hoped that Lebanon's likely abstention will be understood and accepted by all sides. However what if either side insists in demanding full support from Lebanon to their position? This could be very destabilizing and if it occurs under severe external pressure, where would sovereignty be. There is no easy answer, but let us be optimistic that reason and understanding will prevail and abstention works out and this deadline will pass uneventfully.
The second subject of anxiety is the final list of indictments by the Special International Tribunal investigating the Hariri assassination. This is now projected to be announced towards the end of 2010. A prominent Lebanese politician who was one of the loudest advocates for the Tribunal was recently quoted as saying "We absolutely still want the truth but should not necessarily expect justice." This prompted many to wonder what he may know that the rest of us are unaware of. Everybody knows that originally too many fingers were pointing at Syria without tangible evidence. Now media reports are trying to implicate Hezbollah without presenting the evidence on which the accusations are based. What if the Tribunal comes up with indictments not supported by “convincing evidence”? Could this trigger Sunni-Shia confrontation or a full fledged civil war? We can only hope that whatever indictments the Tribunal produces will be based on absolutely unquestionable evidence and that the Lebanese politicians will be fully prepared to handle and limit any consequences that may result from any Tribunal announcement.
The third and most dangerous subject of anxiety is the possibility of another devastating Israeli war. All indications for now are that a new war this summer serves nobodies' interests. Hezbollah people are Lebanese and constitute an important component of the current government. They know that Lebanon needs a successful tourist season this summer and nobody should do anything to jeopardize the interests of all Lebanese, whether in Beirut, the North or the South. On the other hand, the Israelis know that it will be disastrous for them to attack Iran or Hezbollah without US approval or support. To the best of our knowledge, there is no such approval yet and most of us who may have friends in the US Administration will do all possible to encourage and support a diplomatic solution for the Iranian nuclear problem. An Israeli attack on Iran may trigger Armageddon and Lebanon could become the biggest victim. Intelligent and realistic people know very well that in most wars there are no real winners. There are usually losers and bigger losers. In the 2006 war Hezbollah won a huge moral victory, being the first Arab force to block the Israeli army from advancing and to inflict significant damages to its personnel and equipment. Yet the price that Lebanon had to pay is well known to everybody. Nevertheless the anxiety and concern about a possible new Israeli war is justified because under the Netanyalui leadership nobody can be sure there would not be a "Samsonian complex" that could instigate a disastrous and potentially suicidal anti-Iran, anti-Syria and anti-Hezbollah war.
Can Lebanon do anything to protect itself from the consequences of decisions and events outside its control? Lebanon’s leaders should direct their efforts towards two important goals:
First: They should work harder towards “true unity” based on sincere discussions of the divergent opinions and philosophies and work towards concessions by all, to reach a genuine consensus that minimizes the risks for all the Lebanese people.
Second: They should also work harder to reach sincere friendship and brotherhood with Syria. This should not mean to try to be subservient to Syria, a stance the Assad regime has officially rejected and criticized on various occasions. More importantly it should not mean looking for special deals with some corrupt Syrian individuals. We all know that corruption existed in Lebanon since the days of the Ottoman Empire way before the Syrian army entered in the mid seventies. We also know that corrupt people exist to various degrees in Syria, in the United States and in all countries of the world. An idealized quality relation between Syria and Lebanon as sometimes mentioned by President Bashar Assad is a win-win deal for both countries and could turn out to be the best pathway to the strategic choice Syria made in favor of a total and just peace in the Middle East. A sincere understanding with Syria should not be difficult at all after Prime Minister Saad Hariri visited Damascus and had heart to heart talks with President Assad. It can facilitate and boost Lebanon’s stability and national unity without impinging on sovereignty. It presents no risk to Lebanon, since President Assad has always declared his love and support and has offered more official recognition of Lebanon’s independence than any previous regime. He has gone all the way to the point of official diplomatic representation with exchange of Ambassadors. Further, it should be remembered that the concept of sovereignty has evolved immensely in the currently globalized world. Can Mexico exercise its sovereignty ignoring US interests? What happened to small countries such as Panama when President Noriega thought his sovereignty had no limits? How about the Prime Minister of Grenada, when he thought he could welcome elements that presented risks to US security? In a sincere understanding with Lebanon (supported willingly by all Lebanese) Syria can also benefit significantly from the support of many in the Lebanese expatriate community, who can best explain why Syria can not and should not split from its alliance with Iran. They can also remind US leaders that Syria is the most secular of all states in the Middle East with impeccable Arab credentials and that it can be a powerful ally in an effective fight against radical terrorism. Such efforts can further smooth the pathway to further normalization with the Obama administration and can improve Syria’s chances to recuperate its rights in the Golan and may be other areas
Many in the expatriate community continue to hope that the consensus President of Lebanon whose tract record demonstrated cautiousness and moderation, may still be the best suited leader to address the challenges of true Lebanese unity and sincere friendship and brotherhood with Syria. Success in meeting these challenges could help him make important progress in meeting his responsibility to secure Lebanon’s stability, while protecting the country’s sovereignty.
* Dr Robert A Chahine, President, American Lebanese Foundation, www.alfusa.org

How Islamists Turned the World Upside Down
A briefing by Melanie Phillips
May 10, 2010
http://www.meforum.org/2665/islamists-turned-world-upside-down
Formerly a writer for the U.K.'s Guardian, Melanie Phillips is a journalist for the Daily Mail, author of the best-selling Londonistan, and a recipient of the Orwell Prize (1996). On May 10, she addressed the Middle East Forum in New York on the subject of her latest book, The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power.
Ms. Phillips began her talk by emphasising the threat of Islamism, which inverts all logic by, for instance, portraying Israel's attempts to defend itself as unprovoked acts of aggression. Yet Western intelligentsia has adopted the Islamist narrative on the Middle East. Ms. Phillips attributes this to the current tendency among the intelligentsia to be swayed by ideology, rather than rationality and empiricism, on issues such as global warming, the Iraq war, Israel, and scientism. Although these ideological stances are secular in nature, they resemble religious beliefs in many ways, for instance, their intolerance to dissent which is viewed as an obstacle to the "path to perfection."
Ms. Phillips proceeded to compare this phenomenon with mainstream Muslim discourse, where concepts such as freedom and equality are defined as submission to the will of God. Similar to these various utopian ideologies, Islam makes claims to absolute truth and the "path to perfection." This has implications for the jihad against Israel: according to Ms. Phillips, Israel is not the root cause of Islamist violence, but rather abstract hatred of Jews rooted in the idea that Islam must supersede and eliminate Judaism. Likewise, the secular ideologies that Ms. Phillips outlined all have a common hostility to Jews and Jewish culture. Even "Green" ideology condemns the book of Genesis because it calls for man's dominion over the world.
Ms. Phillips concluded her talk by affirming that objective truth has been replaced by subjective opinion, and that we live in an age of "cultural totalitarianism," where the decline of reason in the West is allowing Islam to fill the vacuum left behind.
Asked about whether there were any moderate Muslim leaders, Ms. Phillips answered in the negative. Nonetheless, there are many moderate Muslims who want to live lives "like the rest of us," but who have been betrayed by their community leaders who often have an Islamist agenda as well as Western politicians who appease these radicals. She added that if moderate Muslims can assert themselves with support from the West, they stand a chance of becoming the dominant force in the Muslim world.
Summary written by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi.

Gates accuses EU of pushing Turkey away from West
June 9, 2010 /The EU's refusal to accept Turkey as a member has partly caused Ankara's foreign policy shift and the deterioration in its relations with Israel, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.Already strained relations between Turkey and Israel plunged following a deadly raid by Israeli commandos on an aid flotilla bound for Gaza, which left nine Turkish activists dead. The "deterioration" in their ties is "a matter of concern", Gates told reporters in London.
Opposition in some European capitals to Turkey's bid to join the EU had helped push it away from the West, Gates added, saying that "some in Europe" refused to give Ankara "the kind of organic link to the West that Turkey sought".-AFP/NOW Lebanon

“Zero problems” or zero-sum?
Turkey’s foreign policy
Now Lebanon
Farrah Zughni, June 9, 2010
Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey has been experiencing a comeback on the international stage as of late. (AFP photo/Christos Theodorides)
Once the seat of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey has been relegated to the political backwater for much of the past century. But today, few can dispute its comeback. Bolstered by a booming economy, a regional power vacuum and temporary membership on the United Nations Security Council, the nation of Attaturk is steadily involving itself in international affairs, including the Iranian nuclear issue and Israel’s blockade of Gaza.
Though the Turkish government maintains a “zero problems” policy – by which it seeks to avoid conflict with all members of the global community – the nation’s growing assertiveness has been met with caution and downright condemnation by longstanding allies in the United States, Israel and Europe. Critics assert that Turkey is deliberately “turning away from the West” to boost itself domestically and regionally. Several analysts who spoke with NOW Lebanon, however, remain skeptical of this conclusion.
Marina Ottaway, the Middle East program director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, disagrees with the either/or understanding of Turkey’s policies toward the East and West. “Turkey went from being a country on the margins of Europe, which was its role in NATO, to being a country which sees itself as the center of its own region,” she said. “Turkey did not start with an anti-US policy… [or] an anti-Israel policy. Turkey is trying to define its interests, and a lot of those interests are defined by economics.”
Turkey’s friendly relations with Israel, as old as the Jewish State itself, have been subject to significant trials in recent times – exemplified by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s abrupt departure during Israeli President Shimon Peres’ speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos last year, among other diplomatic slights. Last week’s death of Turkish nationals at the hands of the Israeli Navy during the recent flotilla mishap, of course, has further complicated relations.
Despite weighty exchanges since the flotilla attack, Ottaway insists that Turkey “was genuinely taken aback” by Israel’s actions.
“Erdogan himself tends to be rather emotional, and I think that certainly contributes to this impression of his being anti-Israel,” said Ottaway. “But there is a deep disagreement on a specific policy toward Gaza.”
Unfortunately for Turkey, strained relations with Israel are having profound effects on its interactions with the United States. The Obama administration has been rather tepid in responding to the flotilla crisis and has urged Turkey to reduce its inflammatory rhetoric toward the Jewish State. It also heavily chastised Ankara for the Iranian nuclear fuel swap it arranged with Brazil last month.
The American press, on the other hand, has not held back regarding either issue. One New York Post piece spoke of “Turkish treachery,” accusing the nation of staging the flotilla violence, which it called “a cynical – but brilliant – public-relations debacle for Israel.”
Meanwhile, Council on Foreign Relations fellow Steven Cook wrote in Foreign Policy that “It is hard to admit, but after six decades of strategic cooperation, Turkey and the United States are becoming strategic competitors – especially in the Middle East.”
However, Andrew Blum, a Turkey specialist at the United States Institute of Peace, does not agree with this contention. “I find [Cook’s] framing strange. [Turkey and the US] disagree on certain policy issues, but how are they in competition?” Blum told NOW Lebanon. “There are disagreements, but I don’t see competition.”
Carnegie fellow Ottaway also finds such accusations problematic. “I think a hostile relation with the United States is not in Turkey’s interest,” she said. “But I think Turkey feels that it is being forced to choose.”
In Europe, where Turkey is still years away from any possibility of a long-sought European Union membership, its trilateral nuclear agreement and Israel’s flotilla attack has played out quite differently.
French President Nicholas Sarkozy and other notables have spoken out in favor of the fuel swap. Further, in addition to European citizens and leaders taking part in the Gaza aid mission, the flotilla effort enjoyed strong public support on the continent.
Still, the Erdogan government’s actions will be construed negatively in certain circles. “There might be concerns in some European capitals that the approach to diplomacy exhibited by the [Turkish] government might not completely conform to European diplomatic style,” said Fadi Hakura, associate fellow at Chatham House. “That will not play too well in some European capitals. But overall, I don’t suspect that this incident will greatly impact Turkey’s [European Union] accession.”
Jonathon Lavack, a program officer at the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, however, believes Turkey’s growing political clout can be leveraged to its advantage if it plays its cards right.
“Turkey has often said that it has a lot to give the European Union,” said Lavack. “In the past… it was basically more talk than walk. I think now… Turkey can really demonstrate what value it can add to the European Union.”
But, he cautions, “If Turkey wants to be a regional player, it has to maintain at least relations with all the other regional players… [including] Israel.”

Michel Aoun
June 9, 2010
On June 8, the Lebanese National News Agency carried the following report:
The Change and Development Bloc held its weekly meeting in Rabieh headed by General Michel Aoun. Following the meeting, General Aoun addressed the journalists by saying: Today’s schedule was full and the bloc’s ministers informed us about the budget discussions, the projects, the electricity plan and the problems of the dams. These are important issues and obstacles must be overcome, especially the water problem, so that we are able to implement the plans. We hope to find the necessary responsiveness from the Cabinet, especially the Finance Ministry. These projects were proposed in 2000 and so far, none have been implemented. Only one dam was built, the Shabrouh Dam, while the others are still pending. One day, we will have to rely on ourselves and implement the rest...
We also tackled the issue of the laws we presented two years ago. There is the old age pension which has been dragging inside the committees without any results… We have assigned Mr. Ghassan Mokheiber to draw up a program for the council’s productivity in order to define the number of work hours of the parliamentary committees, each committee alone, in order to see how productive they are in the studying of the laws. Sometimes, they leave a law pending for six years and then ratify it in one article… This is not acceptable. The Internet law was put forward five years ago and still no one can read and discuss it in detail because it has not been discussed inside the specialized committees. Let them create secondary committees and include the remaining deputies. This can be done. Let them expand or divide each committee into two sections and have each one of them present a brief proposal to the other. There are a hundred ways to hasten legislative action without hindering it.
There is controversy surrounding budget expenditures on private councils and funds. Speaker Berri originally presented a law to annul these practices once and for all by linking these councils to specific ministries. Now the controversy is about whether or not to introduce them in the budget. We are with their annulment and the establishment of a Ministry of Planning which would be responsible for implementation … We are trying to handle budget issues. Certainly, many accomplishments were secured and with God’s will, we will complete the discussion of the budget in the next session. Afterwards, we will settle the content of the budget and how funds should be spent…
I thank the press which is showing interest in the issue of the Free Patriotic Movement and “expressing concern toward us.” For twenty years, i.e. since 1990 when I was exiled and distanced from Lebanon, I heard that “General Aoun has become a political corpse,” “the Free Patriotic Movement is dead” and “the General’s popularity has dropped.” I did my calculations and found out that I owed 65 billion votes, i.e. as much as the Lebanese national debt. My debt is in terms of votes and thank God I am still alive and people are still voting for me. The votes we are getting in elections are all a debt and we have a satisfactory bloc in parliament as well as a party which is spread throughout the Lebanese territories. To those concerned about “who will succeed me,” I tell them they can be reassured because there is more than one successor based on a specific structure. So do not be afraid. We have enough competencies and the FPM is institutionalized…
We have asked officials in the FPM to place their resignations at the disposal of the movement’s head. This is seen in any democratic country wishing to conduct a comprehensive review. We wish to review the behavior of the four-year old movement… The FPM can handle many transformations and is able to adapt to circumstances and reforms. So, thank god we are in good health and let no one worry about us. We also thank all those who check up on us from time to time with an article published here and there to define our problems and shift our attention toward them…

Assessing the Strength of Hezbollah
By Danielle Pletka
http://www.aei.org/speech/100151
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
(June 08, 2010)
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, At the outset, let me say that I spent more than a decade working on the subject of today's hearing as a staff member of this committee; I'm a bit more accustomed to sitting in the chair behind you than the one in front of you. I am grateful for your invitation to testify today--because this feels like a homecoming, and more importantly, because I know from personal experience the important role this Committee can play in addressing this vital issue.
Despite a heightened awareness of terrorism and terrorist groups since 9/11, American policy toward Lebanon, Syria and Hezbollah remains confused--a mass of mixed signals and inconsistent approaches. Despite more than $1.6 billion in economic and military assistance to Lebanon since FY06 (including requests for FY2011), despite a concerted effort to reach out to the Assad regime in Damascus, and despite a willingness to overlook the increasingly dominant military and political role played by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Obama administration has little to show for its efforts in the Levant.
In the wake of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005--a murder in which Hezbollah was reportedly involved--the international community took a relatively hard line against Syria and its proxies. The resulting end to the Syrian military domination of Lebanon gave many of us hope that Lebanon was at last on track to regain the independence lost in 1976. Certainly, it seemed that Washington, at least, would no longer tolerate the exploitation of the Lebanese people by both Tehran and Damascus.
In the years that followed, there were troublesome developments that should only have fueled our commitment to helping Lebanon protect itself from Syrian and Iranian predations. In 2006, Hezbollah crossed Lebanon's southern border with Israel and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, sparking a war between Israel and Hezbollah that resulted in substantial loss of life, including among Lebanese civilians. How was it possible that one armed group could, without consultation or compunction, drag a nominally democratic nation into war?
Worse still, Hezbollah's performance in that conflict revealed that what some in Israel and the U.S. had dismissed as a ragtag group of terrorists was a sophisticated, well trained and very well armed fighting machine.
The subsequent passage of U.N. Security Council resolution 1701 and its call for "no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon" appeared to be a silver lining to the summer war--much as the aftermath of the Hariri murder led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops. But the resolution has been all but ignored in the face of repeated and flagrant violations.
And there were more frightening signs: revelations that Syria was pursuing a nuclear weapons capability; a series of assassinations of anti-Syrian politicians in Lebanon; the collapse of the March 14 movement; Hezbollah's 2008 armed take-over of Beirut, and the subsequent capitulation of March 14 to Hezbollah's demands for a veto over government decisions.
During this political turmoil, Iran and Syria continued to rearm Hezbollah. Transfers, which were slow in the immediate aftermath of the 2006 war, ramped up quickly, and Hezbollah is now significantly better armed than it was in 2006. According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, "Syria and Iran are providing Hezbollah with rockets and missiles of ever-increasing capability [and] we're at a point now, where Hezbollah has far more rockets and missiles than most government in the world." Consider the developments reported on AEI's Iran Tracker site from the last six months alone (citations and sources can be found on the site):
•The Times of London reports that Israeli and American officials believe Syria transferred two Scud missiles into Lebanon, where they are suspected to be in an underground storage facility in the Beqa'a Valley. (Israel reportedly planned to attack one of the Syrian trucks transferring weapons to Hezbollah as it crossed the Lebanese border, but held back on American request. American officials are still hoping that Syria can be convinced to stop supplying Hezbollah with weapons without military intervention. According to the report, satellite imagery shows one of the secret arms facilities in Adra, Syria, where Hezbollah militants have living facilities and trucks to transport the missiles to Lebanon.)
•Hezbollah sources told the Kuwaiti paper al Rai that the group had the capability to launch 15 tons of explosives at Israel every day in the case of another war between the two sides, going on to claim that Hezbollah possesses a wide range of missiles with a heavy payload, including the 1-ton Zilzal missile and half-ton Fateh 110 and M600 missiles.
•The Israeli Foreign Minister said that the arms seized from a cargo plane in Bangkok in December 2009 were destined for Hezbollah and Hamas. Thai authorities said that the plane, with weapons believed to have originated in North Korea, was carrying 35 tons of weaponry including rockets and RPGs.
•Reports in early May suggest that sometime in the last year, Syria supplied Hezbollah with M600 missile. (The M600 is the Syrian version of the advanced Iranian Fateh-110 missile. The missile's range would allow Hezbollah to hit Tel Aviv from southern Lebanon.)
•In January, a busy month, the Washington Post reported that Hezbollah placed long-range rockets deep into Lebanon and the Beqa'a Valley; Hezbollah terrorists fired an anti-tank rocket at an IDF bulldozer that was clearing a minefield along the Israeli-Lebanese border, killing a soldier; and the Israeli navy seized an Iranian ship en route to Syria carrying weapons destined for Hezbollah from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez; the Kuwaiti papers reported a U.S. official saying that Hezbollah operatives trained in Syria on SA2 anti-aircraft missile batteries; and finally UN peacekeepers uncovered 660 pounds of explosive devices near the border with Israel (this happened in December, but was reported in January).
All these details and more can be found on the Iran Tracker site--www.irantracker.org. But stop for a moment and ponder that fact that this is only news from 2010.
In short, Hezbollah is effectively a state within a state in Lebanon, with an ever growing and ever more sophisticated long range arsenal. It is untrammeled by the Lebanese government to which it belongs and answerable to no one in that nation, but rather to the dictatorships in Damascus and Tehran. Sadly, hopes that Lebanese leaders answerable to the Lebanese people--and not to foreign powers--would regain control have not been realized. There is no more poignant symbol of that failure than the fact that as Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was meeting with our own President Obama and his team, Lebanese President Michel Suleiman appeared on Hezbollah's television station, al Manar, praising Hezbollah and "calling on all Lebanese to embrace and protect [Hezbollah's] arms."
According to the Pentagon, Hezbollah receives up to $200 million in subsidies from Iran each year, in addition to weaponry. Other reports suggest they may receive even more. The group also raises money in the United States, including through criminal activities, and there have been several arrests of Hezbollah fundraisers and supporters in the United States, including one in Ohio last week.
Hezbollah receives training from the elite Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and in turn provides training to a variety of terrorist groups at its bases in Lebanon. The Pentagon reported in April that "Lebanese Hizballah has trained Iraqi insurgents in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon, providing them with the training, tactics and technology to conduct kidnappings, small unit tactical operations and employ sophisticated improvised explosive devices (IEDs), incorporating lessons learned from operations in southern Lebanon."
In short, Hezbollah is capable of waging war on its own behalf, has a wide network around the world, growing particularly in Latin America, has forged operational alliances with a variety of other terrorist groups, including Sunni groups and affords Iran the opportunity to open a second front in any conflict. And it is able to do all of this behind the façade of "national resistance" in Lebanon, playing the role at once of defender of Lebanese sovereignty, of terrorist training group and of political powerhouse with two seats in the Hariri cabinet and a veto over national decision-making.
What this means for Lebanon is the continued erosion of the state, its subjugation to foreign interests, a loss of independent will and democracy and a potent threat to American allies and American interests. In the years since the Hezbollah-Israel war, the United States has pursued a policy aimed at bolstering the Lebanese state at the expense of Hezbollah. That includes arms sales that top half a billion dollars and substantial aid. It is not entirely clear what either those arms or that aid have bought. If we had hoped it would buy the disarmament of Hezbollah, we were wrong. If we hoped it would buy independence from Syria or Iran or an end to terrorist training camps--camps whose teachings have resulted in the death of American soldiers--we were wrong.
The Obama administration has pursued a determined policy of engagement with Lebanon's overlords in Damascus. Others have said that this is the right policy, affording the U.S. an opportunity to talk directly to the Syrians about our concerns. I would counter that we have talked to the Syrians repeatedly, through both our embassy in Damascus and via regular visits from high level administration officials. And that hasn't paid off. Indeed, Damascus continues to pursue policies anathema to our interests, and some suspect the Assad regime is continuing to develop nuclear weapons.
Rumors abound lately that the Obama administration is considering the wisdom of reaching out directly to Hezbollah to establish a dialogue. Recently, John Brennan, the White House's top counter-terrorism official, suggested the United States needed to find a way to "build up the more moderate elements" within Hezbollah, which he termed "a very interesting organization".
His statements stand in stark contrast to those of other administration officials, including former DNI Denny Blair, who earlier this year refused to rule out a possible Hezbollah attack on the United States.
These mixed signals from Washington are dangerous, and we should have little doubt that we are perceived in the region as weak--by our friends as well as our enemies.
The time has come to reassess our relationship with Lebanon and the challenge posed by Hezbollah. I do not believe we will be served by greater rapprochement with Damascus or with their terrorist proxies.
Finally, at a certain moment it will be necessary for us to ask whether U.S. taxpayer dollars going to Lebanon are helping our friends, or subsidizing our enemies. If the support to Lebanon's army is not going to secure Lebanon's borders, and it's not going to rid Lebanon of terrorist groups, one might reasonably ask what it is going for. That's a question Congress has asked in years past, when Lebanon was a center of kidnapping, hijacking and murder. Thanks to Hezbollah, it is time to ask again.
***Danielle Pletka is the vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at AEI.