LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 09/2010

Bible Of the Day
Luke 9/37-43: " It happened on the next day, when they had come down from the mountain, that a great multitude met him. 9:38 Behold, a man from the crowd called out, saying, “Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child. 9:39 Behold, a spirit takes him, he suddenly cries out, and it convulses him so that he foams, and it hardly departs from him, bruising him severely. 9:40 I begged your disciples to cast it out, and they couldn’t.” 9:41 Jesus answered, “Faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you and bear with you? Bring your son here.” 9:42 While he was still coming, the demon threw him down and convulsed him violently. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the boy, and gave him back to his father. 9:43 They were all astonished at the majesty of God."/Naharnet

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
New Opinion: Conspiracy and conflict/Now Lebanon/March 08/10 
Hariri the son, and premier/Daily Star/March 08/10
Mideastern war fears are never hollow/By Shlomo Ben-Ami/March 08/10
The Region: Look out!/By Barry Rubin/Jerusalem Post
Pardon Me, Obama Administration, But Isn't Your Policy on Fire/By:By Barry Rubin/Gloria Centre/March 08/10   

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March 08/10 
Berri: Defense Strategy Talks ... Lebanese Issue, Not Arabs/Naharnet
Jumblat Urges Media to Ensure Accuracy before Publishing Syria Visit News/Naharnet
Hariri-March 14 to Meet Ahead of Dialogue Session/Naharnet
Gunmen Rob Jewelry Store in Ghaziyeh, Kill Owner/Naharnet
Otte from Grand Serail: Middle East Peace Talks Vital for Lebanon's Stability/Naharnet
Suleiman: Resistance Job Comes Only After Army Failure/Naharnet
Jumblat in Damascus 2nd Half of March/Naharnet
Fire Doused at Tripoli Port Depot/Naharnet
Mashnouq: Demands for Hizbullah Disarmament Illusionary/Naharnet
Geagea: Hizbullah Arms Only Item for Debate under Defense Strategy/Naharnet
Hariri Winds Up Kuwait Visit, Efforts Focused On Putting End to Israeli Threats/Naharnet
Shami: Arab Initiative Strategic Framework for Mideast Peace/Naharnet
Iran expanding military arsenal in defiance of warnings/AP
Baalbek highway reopened after protests over murder of local man/Daily Star
Cassese confident tribunal will start prosecution within year/Daily Star
Hizbullah says arms not up for debate at national talks/Daily Star
Hariri meets Kuwaiti emir for talks on bilateral cooperation/Daily Star
Sleiman urges reforms aimed at curbing sectarianism/Daily Star
Harb calls for new education policy to train Arab labor force/Daily Star
Lebanon ranks 82nd globally on ICT Development Index/Daily Star
LAF meets US Army delegation for talks in Yarzeh/Daily Star
Hamas in Lebanon urges Arabs to correct 'mistakes/Daily Star
Old munition kills 1, wounds 2 at Normandy dump/Daily Star
Acevedo highlights Spain's efforts for gender equality/Daily Star
Coastal pollution threatens Lebanon's fishermen/Daily Star
Hundreds 'Run for Love' in marathon for cancer charity/Daily Star
Iraqis cast their vote amid fears of arrest, documentation woes/Daily Star
Khalifeh calls for inter-Arab collaboration in healthcare/Daily Star
Ahed closes in on Championship title/Daily Star

Any dialogue with Hezbollah is futile
By: Elias Bejjani*
March 08/10
Lebanese politicians and leaders from rival parties are scheduled to engage tomorrow, March 09/10 in a new national dialogue session at the presidential palace under the chairmanship of President Michel Suleiman to look into means and ways that could ultimately lead to the disarmament of the Hezbollah terroris Iranian militia and give the Lebanese central government the sole authority on the decision making process of war and peace.
Hezbollah is insisting that the fate of its weapons is not on the table by any means, and arrogantly is calling on all the Arab countries to adopt its role model of resistance against Israel and abandon hope of reaching peace with Israel via negotiations.
Meanwhile, several top notch Hezbollah leaders have been lately boldly and with a tone of overt intimidation and threats asserting almost on daily basis that those Lebanese politicians and leaders who call for its disarmament are Israeli and American agents and traitors. Hezbollah wants all the Lebanese people to embrace its weaponry and support its "divine resistance".
Cabinet Minister Mohammed Fneish, representative of Hezbollah in the Al Hariri government, said yesterday that disarming his "resistance" group was not up for discussion in the dialogue session, but instead that the national defense strategy would be appropriate for discussion. According to Hezbollah this strategy should give its leadership more power and more authority to safeguard all of Lebanon against Israel. "Some have implied that the dialogue session seeks to decide on when Hezbollah will be disarmed," Fneish was quoted as saying by the Anbaa News Agency. "This issue is not a subject for discussion and will not be debated at the dialogue session," Fneish said.
Prime Minister Saad Al Hariri and his pro-independence 14th of March Coalition have failed to resolve the thorny issue of Hezbollah's weapons since the end of the Syrian occupation in 2005. The current Hariri government is crippled due to the fact that Hezbollah and its puppet allies who are Iranian and Syrian mercenaries have the upper hand in all its decisions. They have a veto power through which they can kill any decision that is not in their favor.
Although the 14th of March won the majority in last year’s parliamentary elections and defeated a Hezbollah-led coalition backed by Iran and Syria, Hezbollah has refused to disarm and has been doing so since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war and insists that its weapons are necessary to defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression.
The first Lebanese national dialogue sessions were held in 2006, before the devastating war between Hezbollah and Israel, to determine the fate of the weapons held by this Shiite Iranian terrorist militia. But it has been delayed several times because of the country's successive political crises.
Hezbollah has built up its arsenal in recent years from 14,000 rockets at the outbreak of the 2006 war to more than 40,000 now. It fired around 4,000 rockets into northern Israel during the 2006 war. Last month, Hezbollah General Secretary, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah vowed to unleash the group's military might on Israel's infrastructure, including Tel Aviv airport, should the Jewish state attack Lebanon.
It is worth mentioning that during its deplorable occupation era, Baathist Syria had forced since 1982 the armed Hezbollah Shiite organization under the disguise of resistance against Israel, as well as many other armed Lebanese and Palestinian militias, safeguarded the outlaw status quo of the cantons it created in all the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and produced a corrupt and conscienceless generation of subservient puppet Lebanese politicians who are professionals in camouflage, carrying on flimflam, fraud, knavery, treason, lying and cheating.
The disarmament of Hezbollah must be a priority in the rational dialogue sessions that will start today. All manipulative, Trojan and twisted justifications used by Hezbollah's leadership and their Syrian and Iranian rogue regimes to hinder Hezbollah’s disarmament must be addressed openly, exposed publicly and stripped of all lies and threats in front of all the Lebanese people and the whole world.
Hezbollah which is an Iranian-sponsored Shiite terrorist jihad militia based in southern Lebanon, Beirut and Bekaa Valley, was the only Lebanese armed militia allowed by Syria to remain armed in 1990 when Christian, Druze and Muslim Lebanese militias were all disarmed in accordance with the "Taef Accord" (forced on Lebanon's MPs in a conference held at the Saudi Taef City in 1988 to end 15 years of internal Lebanese wars). Syria also did not disarm any of the Palestinian militias and at the same time did not allow the Lebanese authorities to carry out this duty.   
Hezbollah militarily and administratively fully controls Lebanon and its government. This current  bizarre armed status quo is in defiance of the Lebanese constitution and of both the "Taef Accord" and the UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701, as well as the "Armistice Agreement" that regulated the Lebanese - Israeli borders (signed in 1949).
Both UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701 as well as the "Taef Accord , call for the disarmament of all militias, for the Lebanese army to patrol the Lebanese Israeli border and for the Lebanese government to enforce its control and authority on all the Lebanese territories through its own legitimate armed forces.
Hezbollah strongly refuses to disarm, while its General Secretary Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and many other of  his top aides have publicly cautioned that any hand that dares to touch their arms has to be an Israeli one and will be accordingly severed. At the same time they keep on threatening that any attempt for their disarmament will lead to a state of internal unrest and confrontations.
All the Lebanese leadership is required to take a clear-cut stance on Hezbollah's weaponry and declare publicly what kind of dialogue they are perusing? Is it the kind of dialogue that Hezbollah is after in a bid to safeguard its current military status quo at the expense of the central government authority, keep its huge arsenal, maintain full control on the cantons it erected in South Lebanon, Beirut suburbs and Bekaa Valley, and keep Lebanon's decision making process for peace and war in the hands of Syria and Iran?  Or a dialogue that is preset to fully disarm Hezbollah, disintegrate its military structure and help in its integration into the political, democratic and peaceful Lebanese life?
It is a sad reality that the majority of Lebanese political and religious groups, including the Lebanese government members, are either camouflaging and frightened to take a stance or are on Hezbollah's side for religious or personal agenda reasons.
We strongly believe that both the UN and free world countries who prepared, sponsored and passed the UN Resolutions 1559, 1701 and forced Syria to put an end to its occupation of Lebanon, have a further obligation to see that all clauses of these two resolutions are implemented and that Hezbollah and all the other Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias are disarmed, or otherwise the whole Middle East will know no peace and the war against terrorism will never be won.

Berri: Defense Strategy Talks ... Lebanese Issue, Not Arabs
Naharnet/National talks resume Tuesday amid tension between the majority March 14 coalition and the Hizbullah-led Opposition over the dialogue agenda with Speaker Nabih Berri warning against fishing for Arab support. "Lebanon can seek Arab help in everything except the defense strategy issue and the President is aware of that," Berri said in remarks published Monday by the daily As-Safir. Berri warned "those" calling for Arab League involvement in dialogue sessions against fishing for Arab support.
"Those who are pushing for Arab League participation are weaving a conspiracy against Arabs and want to get them to do something they don't want to do," Berri thought.
Meanwhile, Al-Akhbar newspaper said the Speaker will present a request to include "economic security" on the dialogue agenda. Beirut, 08 Mar 10, 07:52

Phalange Party Hopes Dialogue Would Lead to 'One Vision for Future of Security, Stability, Independence'
Naharnet/Phalange Party politburo on Monday "decided to participate in dialogue despite knowing in advance the obstacles facing the third round of dialogue."
"Phalange Party is determined to give dialogue sessions all support in order to enhance the position of the presidency and to stress its principle of endorsing dialogue instead of weapons, hoping the dialogue committee would reach one vision for the future of security, stability and independence in Lebanon," a statement issued after the weekly meeting of Phalange's politburo said. The politburo called on all parties for honest and practical response to President Michel Suleiman's initiative in dealing with the raised topics "topped by the fate of Hizbullah's arms."
The conferees called for approaching Hizbullah's arms "through the scheme of building the State and not through a perspective that considers (arms) as an inevitable reality."
"The issue of the defense strategy, which is the main topic of the dialogue session, implies the agreement of the negotiators on defining the role of Lebanon toward itself, in the first place, and toward the turbulent conflicts in the Middle East," the statement added. "Lebanon's role defines the defense strategy and not the opposite, as it is the case today."
On the other hand, the politburo welcomed the visits of each of Suleiman and PM Saad Hariri to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and hailed "the brotherly support offered by the officials of these two countries for the Lebanese State and the course of national consensus." Beirut, 08 Mar 10, 19:45

Jumblat Urges Media to Ensure Accuracy before Publishing Syria Visit News
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat urged the media outlets to ensure accuracy before publishing any reports related to his visit to Damascus "that will be officially announced by his press office once scheduled." In an editorial to his party's al-Anbaa weekly, Jumblat also urged the Lebanese authorities to start preparing the parliamentary electoral law "instead of waiting until the last months or weeks preceding the polls." He lamented the "the painful Lebanese political spectrum that keeps on allowing the election of old political figures who stand in the face of any development." "The 1960s electoral law, readopted recently, does not supplement reformation and will not, in any form, be able to make any relevant change in the political spectrum as a consequence of the adopted voting mechanism and the size of the electoral constituencies," he added. "The Iraqi polls that were characterized by good organization and by allowing Iraqi expatriates to vote while abroad represent a real chance for the Lebanese to reconsider some things, topped by the new electoral (parliamentary) law."
Beirut, 08 Mar 10, 18:45

Shami: Arab Initiative Strategic Framework for Mideast Peace
Naharnet/Foreign Minister Ali al-Shami on Monday said the Arab Initiative "provides a strategic framework for a comprehensive peace in the region."
Shami, during his meeting with EU Special Representative to the Middle East peace process Marc Otte, pointed to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and the Palestinian right of return "as a doorway to achieving a just and comprehensive peace and to resolve the many thorny issues in the region, and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanese and Syrian territory." Beirut, 08 Mar 10, 14:00

Otte from Grand Serail: Middle East Peace Talks Vital for Lebanon's Stability
Naharnet/European Union Special Representative to the Middle East peace process Marc Otte stressed the importance of relaunching the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, noting its importance to "Lebanon, its stability and citizens' security as well as regional stability." After meeting with PM Saad Hariri at the Grand Serail, Otte said he came to Lebanon to explore the concerns of the Lebanese "friends," adding that talks did not tackle only the developments in Lebanon and bilateral ties but also regional peace talks that are a source of concern for the peoples and governments of the region. Beirut, 08 Mar 10

New Opinion: Conspiracy and conflict
March 8, 2010
Now Lebanon/According to a recent survey conducted by the Dubai-based public relations firm ASDA’A Burson-Marsteller, young Arabs want democracy, jobs and affordable homes. The findings imply that the vast majority – 85 to 99 percent of the 2,000 18-to-24 year-olds polled in nine countries including the GCC, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon – share the same aspirations as their counterparts in the globalized community, clearly rejecting a hidebound Arab world that has failed to get with the program.
Still, old habits die hard. This weekend, while young Arabs were no doubt downloading music from iTunes and wondering how the job interview with the multinational went, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again bored us by announcing that the 9/11 attacks were a “big lie”, while in Lebanon, on the eve of the national dialogue, his proxy army, Hezbollah, gave the middle finger to Lebanon’s shaky democratic principles by announcing that its weapons, which have apparently tripled in number since the 2006 war with Israel, were non-negotiable.
Ahmadinejad is no stranger to sharing with the world his take on history. He infamously declared that the extermination of six million Jews during the Second World War was a myth. His latest theory, that the US engineered the flying of three commercial aircraft into national landmarks just to have an excuse invade Afghanistan and control the world’s oil reserves, is part of this world view.
It would be funny if so many people didn’t believe him. Tragically, the Arab world is built on suspicion and conspiracy, a paranoia fuelled by one very powerful drug: Israel. Ahmadinejad is a potent peddler of the line that Israeli and US ambitions are inextricably tied, and that a secret Jewish cabal controls Washington and concocts the most outrageous evil to achieve common goals. This theory says that Israel is the reason the Arabs are where we are today. It is Israel’s fault that the Palestinians have failed to achieve nationhood. The Jews concocted the Holocaust to convince the international community to give them a country. Israel planned the 9/11 attacks (remember the thousands of Jews who didn’t go to work that day) to further entrench US interests in the Middle East. Israel killed Rafik Hariri to make it look like Syria did it. Israel wants to absorb Lebanon (it says so in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so it must be true). Israel was behind every assassinated Lebanese politician or public figure. We could go on.
The Arabs have learned to blame Israelis or Jews for the many problems facing the world. It is easy and shifts responsibility from our own shoulders onto a more powerful enemy, a giant bogeyman. And so we sit in pathetic acceptance of what we see as our lot in life as part of nations still characterized by corruption, violence and repression, where human rights, equality, democracy, transparency and accountability have no place. We prefer to live in the opium den of anti-Semitism than be proactive.
In Lebanon, the plot takes a more cynical twist. Here, Hezbollah has succeeded in styling itself as the one entity in the last seven decades to successfully stand up to the Zionist enemy, one that it claims poses a permanent threat to Lebanon’s independence and sovereignty. And yet, in its pursuit of standing up to this perceived threat (we say perceived because we do not know what Israel’s military posture would be if Hezbollah did not exist) at the behest of Syria and Iran, Hezbollah tramples on the very sovereignty it claims to protect, while using fear to keep an obedient constituency in check. No wonder our best and brightest seek jobs abroad. They have spoken. They ache for a bite at life’s cherry. They want respect; they want prosperity and they want security. They won’t find it in a region that still flounders in the swamp of conspiracy and conflict.

Suleiman: Resistance Job Comes Only After Army Failure
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman said the basic item on the dialogue table is the national defense strategy, adding that other related topics could be discussed if all parties agree to that.
In remarks published Monday by pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, Suleiman jogged the memory. "The summary of the previous talks emphasized that the work of the resistance begins after the occupation or after the Lebanese army's failure to do its duty," Suleiman said. "It is known that when any country is subject to external aggression, efforts combine at all levels of human, national, diplomatic, military and economic such as everyone is involved in his field," he explained.Suleiman stressed that he would "defend himself" against any offensive, pointing out that Lebanon counts on its "readiness, cohesion and unity." Beirut, 08 Mar 10, 09:42

Mashnouq: Demands for Hizbullah Disarmament Illusionary
Naharnet/Mustaqbal bloc MP Nuhad Mashnouq said he does not believe that global and regional atmospheres facilitate an Israeli strike against Lebanon. "Israeli threats are not serious," Mashnouq told the Syrian daily Al-Watan. He described as "illusionary" demands for Hizbullah disarmament. "For me, these kinds of statements are neither objective nor realistic," he added. Beirut, 08 Mar 10, 11:31

Geagea: Hizbullah Arms Only Item for Debate under Defense Strategy
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said that the mere fact that dialogue will resume is a "positive sign." "The mere fact that the key parties are meeting even if they don't reach quick results is also a good sign," Geagea said in remarks published Monday by the daily An-Nahar. Politicians from rival parties are due to meet Tuesday for a new session on defense strategy under President Michel Suleiman at Baabda Palace. National dialogue was launched in March 2006, before the devastating summer war between Hizbullah and Israel, to determine the fate of the weapons held by the group. But it has been delayed several times because of the country's successive political crises. Prime Minister Saad Hariri's government has failed to resolve the thorny issue of Hizbullah arms since its formation in November, when it defeated the Hizbullah-led March 8 coalition. Hizbullah has refused to disarm since the end of the 1975-1990 Civil War and insists that its weapons are necessary to defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression. He noted that the "only" item which remains for discussion on the dialogue table was Hizbullah weapons. "So, there is no room for argument," Geagea said. "The topic has already been determined and Hizbullah arms fall under the defense strategy.""We look at the matter from this angle," he added. Beirut, 08 Mar 10, 09:09

Hariri Winds Up Kuwait Visit, Efforts Focused On Putting End to Israeli Threats
Naharnet/Prime Minister Saad Hariri returned home late Sunday from an official two-day visit to Kuwait where talks focused on exerting efforts to put an end to Israeli threats against Lebanon. On Sunday, Hariri met with the Kuwaiti Emir for over an hour. The two leaders discussed regional and global issues in addition to bilateral relations and ways to boost ties.
Hariri has briefed Emir Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmed al-Sabah on the Lebanese situation since formation of a national unity government all the way to improvement of Lebanese-Syrian relations.
He also touched on national dialogue on the eve of all-party talks scheduled to resume on Tuesday. Hariri pointed out that Lebanon was exerting efforts to seek global help in putting an end to Israeli threats. He hailed Kuwaiti efforts and stressed that Lebanon will be the "voice of the Arabs and defender of Arab issues in the Security Council."
Sheikh Sabah, in turn, stressed Kuwaiti support for Lebanon at all levels. Hariri also met with Kuwaiti Speaker Jassem al-Kharafi and PM Sheikh Nasser al-Mohammed.
He said Lebanon and Kuwait agreed to form joint ministerial committees that would "start coordinating meetings to find ways to improve cooperation, particularly at the economic and commercial levels." Hariri said he agreed with Kharafi to promote parliamentary cooperation between the two country's legislatures.
Lebanon and Kuwait also signed a memorandum of understanding for cooperation in the fields of exhibitions and a protocol of cooperation in the field of attracting foreign direct investment and a memorandum of understanding on industrial cooperation. Beirut, 08 Mar 10, 10:01

The Region: Look out!
By BARRY RUBIN
08/03/2010 10:52
Watching the Obama administration handle Syria and Iran is like watching a horror movie where a monster is creeping up behind someone.
The stories of the US engagement with Syria and the sanctions issue regarding Iran’s nuclear program are fascinating. Each day there’s some new development showing how the Obama administration is acting like a deer standing in the middle of a busy highway admiring the pretty headlights of the automobiles.
It’s like watching the monster sneak up behind someone. Even though you know he won’t turn around, you can’t help but watch in fascinated horror and yell: “Look out!” But he pays no attention.
Briefly, the Syrian government keeps punching the US in the face as Washington ignores it.
On March 1, a new record was set. The place: State Department daily press conference; the star, spokesman Philip J. Crowley. A reporter asks how the administration views the fact that the moment a US delegation left after urging Syrian President Bashar Assad to move away from Iran and stop supporting Hizbullah, Syria’s dictator invited Iran’s dictator along with Hizbullah’s leader to visit.
In other words, the exact opposite of what the US requested. Is the government annoyed? Does it want to express some anger or issue a threat?
Let’s listen. Crowley: “Well, I would point it in a slightly different direction... We want to see Syria play a more constructive role in the region. We also want – to the extent that it has the ability to talk to Iran directly – we want to make sure that Syria’s communicating to Iran its concerns about its role in the region and the direction, the nature of its nuclear ambitions...”
In other words, I’m going to ignore the fact that the first thing that Assad did after Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns’s visit was a love fest with Iran and Hizbullah. But even more amazing, what Crowley said is that the US government thinks Syria, Iran’s partner and ally, may be upset that Iran is being aggressive and expansionist. And it actually expects the Syrians to urge Iran not to build nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, as the administration congratulates itself on explaining to Syria that it should reduce support for Hizbullah, IDF military intelligence releases an assessment that Syria is giving Hizbullah more and better arms than ever before.
MEANWHILE, ON the Iran front, it is now March and still – six months after the first administration deadline and three months after the second deadline – no major sanctions on Iran. Remarkably, even former Democratic presidential candidate and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry has taken a stronger stance than the administration.

He supports the congressional call for tough sanctions to block Iran’s energy industry which easily passed both houses. “I believe that the most biting and important sanctions would be those on the energy side.” But the Obama administration wants far more limited sanctions focused on a small group in the regime elite.
Yet sanctions are getting further away rather than closer. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted at this by pulling back from her early prediction of sanctions by April, now saying it might be “some time in the next several months.” At the same time, we have endless evidence that the claim the Russians (and Chinese and others) are coming to support sanctions is nonsense. Just before meeting with Clinton to discuss the issue, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva explained, “Peace in the world does not mean isolating someone.” (Quick, invite him to explain this to the anti-Israel forces in Europe and elsewhere.)
But it’s outright amusing to see the efforts to spin the Russian and Chinese position. In this regard, the prize for this week should be won by an AP dispatch whose headline read: “Russia moves closer to Iran sanctions over nukes.” And what is the basis for this claim that there has just been “the strongest sign to date that the Kremlin was prepared to drop traditional opposition to such penalties if Teheran remain obstinate?” This statement from President Dmitry Medvedev: “We believe that [engagement with Iran is] not over yet, that we can still reach an agreement. But if we don’t succeed, Russia is ready – along with our partners... to consider the question of adopting sanctions.”
Get it? When Russia decides that talking with Iran won’t work, at that point – how long from now would that be? – it will “consider” sanctions. Actually, he said the same thing last August, a statement trumpeted in September by The New York Times as proving Obama’s policy was working.
There is more clarity with the Chinese, though the pretense is also made that they might do something. But Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang put it this way: “We believe there is still room for diplomatic efforts and the parties concerned should intensify those efforts.” At most, the optimists suggest, in the words of this Reuters dispatch: “China will resist any proposed sanctions that threaten flows of oil and Chinese investments, but most believe it will accept a more narrowly cast resolution that has more symbolic than practical impact.” Yes, that’s the kind of thing that already existed four years ago. Some progress.
Is it too much to ask policy-makers to pay attention to what’s going on occasionally?
So let’s leave it to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to sum up how things seem to Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizbullah and many others. The Americans, he said, “not only have failed to gain any power, but also are forced to leave the region. They are leaving their reputation, image and power behind in order to escape... The [American] government has no influence [to stop] the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties and Iran-Turkey ties – God willing, Iraq too will join the circle.”
I think this suggests that the radicals think that the US is weak, in retreat, and that the future belongs to them. In other words, US President Barack Obama’s policy isn’t moderating the radicals, it’s making them more aggressive and confident.
The writer is Director at the Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) (http://www.gloria-center.org) and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal (MERIA). He blogs at The Rubin Report (http://rubinreports.blogspot.com)


Pardon Me, Obama Administration, But Isn't Your Policy on Fire?
By Barry Rubin *
March 8, 2010
Click here to receive GLORIA Center articles directly to your inbox.
The story of the U.S. engagement with Syria and the sanctions issue regarding Iran's nuclear program are fascinating. Each day there's some new development showing how the Obama Administration is acting like a deer standing in the middle of a busy highway admiring the pretty automobile headlights.
Or to put it a different way, it is like watching the monster sneak up behind someone. Even though you know he's not going to turn around, you can't help but watch in fascinated horror and yelling out: "Look out!" But he pays no attention.
So I'm not just writing about these two issues in isolation but as very appropriate symbols of everything wrong with Western perceptions of the Middle East (and everywhere else) and the debates over foreign policy (and everything else) nowadays.
On Syria, for the most recent episodes of the story see here and here but, briefly, the Syrian government keeps punching the United States in the face as Washington ignores it.
But now, on March 1, a new record is set. The place: State Department daily press conference; the main character, departmental spokesman Philip J. Crowley. A reporter wants to know how the administration views the fact that the moment the U.S. delegation left after urging Syrian President Bashar al-Asad to move away from Iran and stop supporting Hizballah, Syria's dictator invited in Iran's dictator along with Hizballah's leader and Damascus moved closer to Iran and Hizballah. Indeed, Asad said regarding Hizballah, "To support the resistance is a moral, patriotic and legal duty."
In other words, the exact opposite of what the United States requested. Is the government annoyed, does it want to express some anger or threat?so
Let's listen:
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I would point it in a slightly different direction. It came several days after an important visit to Damascus by Under Secretary Bill Burns....We want to see Syria play a more constructive role in the region. We also want - to the extent that it has the ability to talk to Iran directly, we want to make sure that Syria's communicating to Iran its concerns about its role in the region and the direction, the nature of its nuclear ambitions...."
In other words, I'm going to ignore the fact that the first thing that Asad did after Burns' visit was a love fest with Iran and Hizballah. But even more amazing, what Crowley said is that the U.S. government thinks Syria, Iran's partner and ally, is upset that Iran is being aggressive and expansionist. And it actually expects the Syrians to urge Iran not to build nuclear weapons!
One Lebanese observer called this approach, "Living in an alternate universe."
Meanwhile, as the administration congratulates itself on explaining to Syria that it should reduce support for Hizballah, Israeli military intelligence releases an assessment that Syria is giving Hizballah more and better arms than ever before.
Oh wait! Now it's March 3 so time for something new. The ófficial Syrian press agency reports that Syria's government opposed an Arab League proposal to support indirect Palestinian Authority-Israel negotiations. Syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem asserted that Syria is "no way part" of the consensus supporting the plan.
But guess what? First, Senator John Kerry opened a meeting of his Senate Foreign Relations Committee by erroneously praising Syria as supporting the plan, giving this as an example of Damascus's moderation. The New York Times quoted from the Syrian report, making it sound like Moallem is praising the United States, but left out the paragraphs attacking the U.S.-backed plan! And the State Department circulated the Times article as proof of its success in winning over Syria when in fact Syrian behavior proved the exact opposite!
Oh, and that's not all! Not only did Syria oppose the plan but it attacked the Arab states that supported the U.S. effort and blasted the Palestinian Authority for not following the path of resistance, that is urged it to carry out terrorist violence against Israel.
Hey, that's not all either. Syria also issued a statement accusing Israel of "framing" it by dropping uranium particles from the air to make it seem that Syria had been building a nuclear reactor for making nuclear weapons. Not exactly evidence of rational moderation I'd say.
Meanwhile, on the Iran front, it is now March 2010 and still-six months after the first administration deadline and three months after the second deadline-there are no additional sanctions on Iran yet. In fact, the process has barely started.
Even former Democratic presidential candidate and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry has taken a stronger stance than the administration.
He supports the congressional call for tough sanctions to block Iran's energy industry which easily passed both houses. "I believe that the most biting and important sanctions would be those on the energy side." But the Obama administration wants far more limited sanctions focused on a small group in the regime elite.
Yet sanctions are getting further away rather than closer. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted at this by pulling back from her early prediction of sanctions by April, now saying it might be "some time in the next several months."
At the same time, we have endless evidence that the claim the Russians (and Chinese and others) are coming, to support sanctions, is nonsense. Just before meeting with Clinton to discuss the issue, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (or Lula for short) explained, "Peace in the world does not mean isolating someone." (Quick, invite him to explain this to the anti-Israel forces in Europe and elsewhere).
But it's outright amusing to see the efforts to spin the Russian and Chinese position. In this regard, the prize for this week should be won by an AP dispatch. The headline is: "Russia moves closer to Iran sanctions over nukes."
And what is the basis for this claim that there has just been "the strongest sign to date that the Kremlin was prepared to drop traditional opposition to such penalties if Tehran remain obstinate?" This statement from President Dmitry Medvedev:
"We believe that [engagement with Iran is] not over yet, that we can still reach an agreement," he said. "But if we don't succeed, Russia is ready - along with our partners...to consider the question of adopting sanctions."
Get it? When Russia decides that talking with Iran won't work, then at that point-how long from now would that be?-it will "consider" sanctions. Actually, he said the same thing last August, a statement trumpeted in September by the New York Times as proving Obama's policy was working.
There is more clarity with the Chinese, sort of, though the pretense is also made that they might do something. But Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang put it this way: "We believe there is still room for diplomatic efforts and the parties concerned should intensify those efforts." At most, the optimists suggest, in the words of this Reuters dispatch:
"China will resist any proposed sanctions that threaten flows of oil and Chinese investments, but most believe it will accept a more narrowly cast resolution that has more symbolic than practical impact."
Yes, that's the kind of thing that already existed four years ago. Some progress.
Is it too much to ask policymakers to pay attention to what's going on occasionally?
So let's leave it to Ahmadinejad to sum up how things seem to Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, and lots of Arabs both pro- and anti-American:
The Americans, Ahmadinejad said, "not only have failed to gain any power, but also are forced to leave the region. They are leaving their reputation, image, and power behind in order to escape....The [American] government has no influence [to stop]....the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties, and Iran-Turkey ties--God willing, Iraq too will join the circle...."
In other words, Obama Administration policy isn't making the radicals more moderate but rather--by feeding their arrogance and belief in American weakness--making them more aggressive.
* Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East (Routledge), The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin), the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan), A Chronological History of Terrorism (Sharpe), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
 

Hariri the son, and premier
Monday, March 08, 2010
Editorial/Daily Star
The truly unique circumstances which led Prime Minister Saad Hariri to enter politics have meant that his political life has been characterized by two different roles.
As the son of slain former Premier Rafik Hariri, Saad Hariri has campaigned diligently and passionately in support for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in its search for his father’s killers. As a prime minister, he has had to balance the potentially explosive findings of the tribunal with bringing much-desired stability to Lebanon.
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon announced in its annual report today that it was closing in on the suspects in the killing of Rafik Hariri, and expected to move to prosecution within 12 months. With this report we are presented with a stark reminder that Saad Hariri’s two roles are set on paths destined to converge, and that the result of this convergence is likely to have a profound effect on where the country is headed in the next few years.
To his credit, one could argue that Hariri has already shown that he is able to put the interests of Lebanon ahead of his own – to perform his duty as prime minister though it may conflict with his duties as a son. His historic visit to Damascus showed courage, a quality that will be required in abundance to face the challenges that lie ahead.
Much debate has been devoted to the potentially volatile outcome of any number of verdicts from the tribunal. Should Syrian intelligence services be implicated in the assassination, can we realistically expect Lebanon’s relations with Syria to continue as they are? At this critical time, when regional unity is so essential in the face of an ever-increasing threat of attack from Israel, the answer to this question deserves our attention. Internally also, Hariri must consider how the tribunal’s verdict will affect the fragile unity of what we call the Lebanese government; how even members of his own March 14 alliance may not be driven by the same fire that he is.
What is required now is preparation, both for the results of the tribunal and what may follow. As prime minister, Hariri faces the challenge of preparing the country for the potential fallout the tribunal’s verdict may bring. Again, this will require an unimaginable measure of personal strength, and Hariri will need to prove that whatever the verdict, his main concern is for the stability of Lebanon as well as reaching the truth and serving justice.
That justice needs to be done is not up for debate. Rafik Hariri is a martyr for all of Lebanon, and the Lebanese are committed to the process that will bring his killers to justice. It is Saad Hariri’s exceptional position as a son and a prime minister that makes his task all the more unenviable.
As a son, Hariri deserves to know who killed his father, as do the people who his father served. But it is Prime Minister Hariri who is needed to move the country forward when the truth is revealed.

Iran claims start of cruise missile production, adding to military arsenal, defying sanctions
Sun Mar 7, /By Nasser Karimi, The Associated Press
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran announced Sunday that it has started a new production line of highly accurate, short range cruise missiles, which would add a new element to the country's already imposing arsenal. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi told Iranian state TV that the cruise missile, called Nasr 1, would be capable of destroying targets up to 3,000 tons in size. The minister said the missile can be fired from ground-based launchers as well as ships, but would eventually be modified to be fired from helicopters and submarines.
Western powers are already concerned about Iran's military capabilities, especially the implications of its nuclear program. The U.S. and some of its allies, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency, fear Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. The West is considering stiffer sanctions against Tehran to try to force it to halt uranium enrichment, a process that has civilian uses but can be also used for nuclear arms if the uranium is enriched over 90 per cent. Iran also boasts an array of short and medium-range missiles capable of hitting targets in the region, including Israel, U.S. military bases in the region and much of Europe. Tehran frequently makes announcements about new advances in military technology that cannot be independently verified. Gen. Vahidi said the production of the cruise missiles, which took two years to develop, showed that sanctions on Iran have failed. He said the cruise missiles would strengthen Iran's naval power. Cruise missiles are highly advanced, usually subsonic rocket-powered weapons that can hug the ground and hit targets with great precision. The U.S. used large numbers of cruise missiles in its attack on Baghdad in 2002, launching most of them from warships in the Persian Gulf.
Iranian state TV showed a video of boxes in a warehouse containing several missiles. It also showed footage of Iran's cruise missile test in 2007. That missile was apparently imported.
Tehran began a military self-sufficiency program in 1992, under which it produces a large range of weapons, including tanks, missiles, jet fighters, unmanned drone aircraft and torpedoes.

Mideastern war fears are never hollow
By Shlomo Ben-Ami
Daily Star/Monday, March 08, 2010
Across the Middle East, a fatalistic conventional wisdom is taking hold, namely that war is unavoidable. Some see war as a way of resolving an increasingly deadlocked situation, as shaking up a dysfunctional regional order whose main actors are not only at loggerheads, but are also incapable of resolving the legitimacy deficits of their respective regimes.
A volley of incendiary remarks exchanged recently between Israel on the one side and both Syria and Hizbullah on the other has fueled anxieties about the possibility of war on Israel’s northern border. The level of sensitivity is such that the latest tension was initiated by the Syrians, who misinterpreted as a threat Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s call to start peace negotiations precisely in order to prevent “an all-out regional war.”
Hizbullah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, for the first time explicitly warned the Israelis that a new round of conflict would no longer be confined to an Israeli-Lebanese showdown, but would involve the entire regional “axis of confrontation” – Syria, Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas. This would also be the case if Israel unleashed its air force against Iran’s nuclear installations. Moreover, Nasrallah made it clear that Israel’s “Dahyia Doctrine” of total devastation of Lebanon in case of war would be answered in kind.
The prospect of a Middle East conflagration has prompted an airlift of senior American officials to Israel to warn of the devastating consequences that an Israeli attack on Iran might have. Indeed, the Obama administration’s main challenge these days is not peacemaking, but regional conflict management and preemption. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, have already gone through Israel, with Vice President Joe Biden and a high-level delegation of the State Department and the National Security Council due in Jerusalem this week.
But preventing war will not be easy, because US President Barack Obama’s mystique has worn off in the Arab world. The expectation that he would allow the Arabs, particularly the Syrians and the Palestinians, to recover their land without resorting to arms has proven to be unrealistic, by the president’s own admission. Nor has he been able to rein in Iran’s relentless drive for regional hegemony, or convince it to abandon its quest for nuclear arms.
Israel will most likely listen to US advice and consider a preemptive attack on Iran only after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, and after whatever sanctions are agreed upon fail to cut short Iran’s march toward possessing the bomb. No matter how unjustified Israel’s traditional military behavior seems in the eyes of its enemies and critics, it has always aspired to base its military actions on grounds that can be justified.
This would seem to be particularly true when it comes to an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Israel would not like to be seen as the spoiler of a diplomatic solution to a dispute that in any case cannot be resolved by military means alone.
Wars in the Middle East, it should be recalled, have started even when the parties did not really want them. The 1967 war is one example. Today’s anxieties, too, are fed by perceptions and fears, by real and imagined concerns. The Iranian challenge to Israel’s strategic hegemony is presented as a Holocaust-style existential threat, and Israel’s other enemies – Hizbullah, which believes that it can bring about “the end of the Zionist entity,” and Syria, which publicly boasts of its ballistic missiles’ capacity to destroy Israel’s main urban centers – are similarly viewed as irrational actors.
A covert war between Israel and Iran has been going on for some time now. The assassinations – allegedly by Israel – of Imad Mughniyeh, Hizbullah’s military chief and Iran’s closest ally in the organization, two years ago, and more recently of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, the Hamas liaison officer with the Al-Quds force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, suggest that an unplanned chain of events could trigger a real war.
The Lebanese front may ignite if Hizbullah seeks to avenge Mughniyeh’s assassination, or simply as a result of a knee-jerk reaction to a provocation, as in July 2006. If Iran and Syria then decide to back Hizbullah, a direct Israeli-Iranian showdown could follow. What Israel planned as a preemptive attack on Iran might then be presented as an act of self-defense.
General James Jones, Barack Obama’s national security adviser, recently put forward a different, albeit equally ominous, prediction. Iran’s response to the mounting international pressure, he said, might be to launch an attack on Israel through its proxies, Hizbullah and Hamas. Such attacks might trigger a wider regional conflagration.
War threats in the Middle East should never be dismissed as hollow. Prophecies of war, moreover, have too frequently proven themselves to be self-fulfilling. But the United States’ extraordinary efforts to rein in Israel might not be enough to avert a regional calamity. The days of Pax Americana in the region are over, which means that avoiding a regional explosion will require mobilizing the major international actors that favor diplomatic solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict and to Iran’s quest to become a legitimate partner in a new regional system.
*Shlomo Ben-Ami is a former Israeli foreign minister who now serves as vice president of the Toledo International Centre for Peace. He is the author of “Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.” THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org).