LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJuly 07/2010

Bible Of the Day

Isaiah 49/24-26
Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captives be delivered? 49:25 But thus says Yahweh, “Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered; for I will contend with him who contends with you, and I will save your children. 49:26 I will feed those who oppress you with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I, Yahweh, am your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports

Who are Hezbollah?
BBC/Who are Hezbollah?/July 05/10
A US-Iran faceoff will hurt Lebanon/Daily Star/July 05/10
UNIFIL needs a charm offensive/By Oussama Safa/July 05/10
Containing Iran Requires Getting Smart, Tough, and Serious/By: Barry Rubin/July 05/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 05/10
France, Italy, Spain Intensify Efforts to Contain UNIFIL Crisis/Naharnet
UNIFIL losing power as Hezbollah expands its deployment/Ha'aretz
Lebanon will not agree to amending UNIFIL’s mandate/Now Lebanon
Hariri, Mubarak discuss implementation of 1701/Daily Star
GLC chief lauds Hariri's efforts in addressing trade unions' grievances/Daily Star
ARMY, UNIFIL thwart Israeli bid to steal water/Daily Star
Biden pushes for Iraq government breakthrough/AFP
Jumblatt, Abu Faour head to Turkey/Daily Star
'Israel preparing to occupy Lebanon'/Tehran Times
Hizbullah seen behind 'clearly organized' attacks on UN forces in southern Lebanon/World Tribune
Syria: The prospect of war grows/Jerusalem Post
Report: Israeli Gas Facilities Are Tempting Target for Hizbullah/Naharnet
Zahra: Forcing UNIFIL Out of South 'Biggest Favor' for Israel/Naharnet
Houri Defends UNIFIL Patrols, Warns of 'Dangerous Unknown'/Naharnet
Hizbullah: We've Been Told of France's Intent to Change Rules of Engagement/Naharnet
2 Killed in Ain el-Hilweh Clashes/Naharnet
Fires Rage for 6th Day in Iqlim Kharroub, Hajjar Wants it Declared Disaster Area/Naharnet
Qahwaji: Skirmishes with Residents Won't Affect UNFIL's Mission in South/Naharnet
Abul Gheit: No War Looming on Horizon, Both Sides Should Avoid Provocations/Naharnet
UNIFIL: Freedom of Movement, Peacekeepers' Security Essential for Mission/Naharnet
Jumblat Wonders if Uproar over Suspected Spy is Related to his Affiliation to a Certain Political Party/Naharnet
Phalange Party Describes Attacks on UNIFIL as 'Swoop' on U.N. Resolutions: Fadlallah a Symbol of Tolerance, Moderation/Naharnet
Hariri Meets Mubarak in Paris: UNIFIL's Presence Intends Only to Protect the Country/Naharnet
Thousands Take Part in Fadlallah's Funeral/Naharnet
The ayatollah of Canterbury/The Guardian

France Links South Tension to Hariri Tribunal, Says Freedom of Movement is Crucial Prerequisite
/Naharnet/France has insisted that freedom of movement is a crucial prerequisite.
"Freedom of movement of UNIFIL in the area of operations is essential for the United Nations to carry out its peacekeeping operations," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero told a news conference. A French source told As-Safir daily that Paris believed Hizbullah's reading of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 was "wrong."
The source said he believed there was a link between tension in south Lebanon and the international tribunal in an effort to "shift toward other issues like reconsidering Resolution 1559, where we keep hearing voices close to Hizbullah calling for annulment" of the Security Council decision. Beirut, 06 Jul 10, 12:03

Hizbullah: We've Been Told of France's Intent to Change Rules of Engagement
Naharnet/Hizbullah has reportedly been told of France's intent to change the rules of engagement in south Lebanon. A Hizbullah MP said Italian officers working within UNIFIL have informed the party of France's intention to "go beyond" U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. "What the French are doing on the ground does not come in line the U.N. resolution," the Hizbullah lawmaker said in remarks published Tuesday by pan-Arab Asharq al-Awsat. "They want to come forward and change the rules of engagement," he added.
Beirut, 06 Jul 10,

Maritime Border Demarcation Based on 1949 Armistice Line, Not Blue Line
Naharnet/Cabinet will reportedly discuss during Thursday's meeting a report put forth by the Committee which was set up by the government to demarcate the southern boundaries of the economic zone before submitting it to the office of U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon. The daily An-Nahar, which carried the report, said the report deals with two aspects -- legal and technical. It said Foreign Minister Ali Shami was briefed on the Committee report. An-Nahar quoted sources from the Committee as saying that demarcation was based on the 1949 Armistice Line and not the Blue Line. Beirut, 06 Jul 10,

France, Italy, Spain Intensify Efforts to Contain UNIFIL Crisis
Naharnet/France, Italy and Spain have raised the level of coordination among them following clashes between UNIFIL and residents in several southern Lebanese villages.
In this regard, An-Nahar newspaper said the ambassadors of France, Italy and Spain made an unannounced visit to south Lebanon on Monday. They were accompanied by UNIFIL commander Maj. Gen. Alberto Asarta. They examined the situation on the ground in light of measures undertaken to boost patrol coordination between UNIFIL and the Lebanese army.
An-Nahar said the coordinated action between Italy, France and Spain came ahead of a July 14 U.N. Security Council meeting which intends to discuss the report of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the implementation of Resolution 1701. It said the UNIFIL issue and the situation in southern Lebanon will likely be discussed anew during Thursday's Cabinet meeting. The daily As-Safir, for its part, said the three ambassadors met with Asarta at UNIFIL headquarters in Bir Hasan. Beirut, 06 Jul 10,

Report: Israeli Gas Facilities Are Tempting Target for Hizbullah
Naharnet/The Israeli defense establishment is demanding that the state delay approval for the construction of gas reception terminals on Israel's coastline over fears that the area could become "a tempting target for Hizbullah," Israeli daily Haaretz reported Tuesday. Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai told Haaretz that the Jewish state should withhold authorization for the plan - which calls for the terminals to be built on the coast between Zichron Yaakov and Hadera - until the security authorities conduct a thorough check of all possible dangers entailed in the project. "Until we receive satisfactory answers regarding the security issue, we will not allow such a decision to pass," Vilnai said. Haaretz said residents are arguing that the facilities pose an even greater security threat than originally thought since their location near a heavily populated area renders them a target for rocket and missile fire from Hizbullah and Syria in the event of a new war. They say reports of Hizbullah's acquisition of precision-guided rockets mean they are at even greater risk. Beirut, 06 Jul 10,

Zahra: Forcing UNIFIL Out of South 'Biggest Favor' for Israel
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces MP Antoine Zahra said forcing UNIFIL to abandon south Lebanon would be a "big favor" for Israel.
"The biggest favor we can do for the Israeli enemy, is seeking to force UNIFIL out of southern Lebanon, leaving the arena open to all possibilities," Zahra said in an interview Tuesday with Future News channel. "The facts that took place on the ground and the stories that came out confirm they were not innocent," he added, pointing to the political attitudes that embraced this action as well as the conditions imposed on UNIFIL."Do we want war in the south?" Zahra asked. "I don't think that the southerners who are involved in these skirmishes want war."
Beirut, 06 Jul 10, 11:33

Houri Defends UNIFIL Patrols, Warns of 'Dangerous Unknown'
Naharnet/MP Ammar Houri on Tuesday defended the patrols of U.N. peacekeepers inside Lebanese villages and said skirmishes between villagers and foreign troops take Lebanon to a "dangerous unknown." "I would like to believe that what happened was spontaneous. However, believing this requires several convincing means that are inexistent so far," Houri told Radio Orient about the latest attacks by villagers on UNIFIL troops. "Such messages take Lebanon to the unknown and put peace in it and the region under a big threat," the Mustaqbal lawmaker said. He added: "the U.N. Security Council authorizes UNIFIL to do all that is necessary in its area of deployment … to make sure that the area is not exploited to carry out aggressive operations of any kind." Beirut, 06 Jul 10,

State Mourning for Fadlallah
Naharnet/Lebanon on Tuesday observed a day of national mourning as it prepared to bury Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah. The Lebanese government declared Tuesday a state mourning over the death Fadlallah's death. A government statement also announced a one-day countrywide shutdown on Tuesday. Fadlallah, former spiritual mentor of Hizbullah and branded a "terrorist" by Washington, died in hospital on Sunday. He was 75. His funeral will take place at 1:30pm Tuesday in Beirut's southern suburbs of Haret Hreik.
A top authority of Shiite Islam in Lebanon and the region, especially Iraq where he was born, Fadlallah held the title of "sayyed" to denote direct lineage with the Prophet Mohammed and was known for his moderate social views. A fiery anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli critic, he died in a Beirut hospital where he was admitted on Friday for internal bleeding Beirut, 06 Jul 10,

Maritime Border Demarcation Based on 1949 Armistice Line, Not Blue Line
Naharnet/Cabinet will reportedly discuss during Thursday's meeting a report put forth by the Committee which was set up by the government to demarcate the southern boundaries of the economic zone before submitting it to the office of U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon. The daily An-Nahar, which carried the report, said the report deals with two aspects -- legal and technical.
It said Foreign Minister Ali Shami was briefed on the Committee report. An-Nahar quoted sources from the Committee as saying that demarcation was based on the 1949 Armistice Line and not the Blue Line. Beirut, 06 Jul 10,

2 Killed in Ain el-Hilweh Clashes
Naharnet/Two people were killed in a clash between two families in the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain el-Hilweh in south Lebanon, local media said Tuesday. They said another man was wounded in the overnight fight that pitted members of Awad family against others from al-Hussein. Beirut, 06 Jul 10,

Abul Gheit: No War Looming on Horizon, Both Sides Should Avoid Provocations
Naharnet/Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit "reassured the people of Lebanon that no war is looming on the horizon" and urged all sides to avoid provocations.
There would be no war with Israel "as long as there has not been any operation to launch missiles or cross the border," Abul Gheit told pan-Arab daily al-Hayat in remarks published Tuesday. Asked about skirmishes between the people of the south and U.N. peacekeepers, the Egyptian FM said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and UNIFIL commander Maj. Gen. Alberto Asarta "should discuss the reasons behind this tension in order to solve" the problems. He warned the U.N. against withdrawing its troops from Lebanon, saying such a move "would lead to dangerous repercussions." He said the meeting between Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Premier Saad Hariri in Paris on Monday reflected continuous consultations between the two sides over the situation in Lebanon and the region and willingness to guarantee stability and peace in the country. When asked by al-Hayat about a lack of reconciliation between Cairo and Damascus, Abul Gheit said: "We support any Arab reconciliation and Egypt seeks to achieve stability in Lebanon and equality in Lebanese-Syrian ties."
"There is no animosity (between Egypt and Syria) but clam relations which should be more active," he added. Beirut, 06 Jul 10,

Document - Lebanon: Forcible return from Lebanon of Iranian Arab: Mohammad Taher Batili
UA: 147/10 Index: MDE 18/005/2010 Lebanon Date: 30 June 2010
URGENT ACTION
FORCIBLE RETURN from lebanon OF IRANIAN ARAB
Iranian national and member of Iran’s Arab minority, Mohammad Taher Batili, is at risk of being forcibly returned from Lebanon to Iran. If returned, Amnesty International fears that he would be at risk of torture and possibly the death penalty.
Mohammad Taher Batili, aged 29, is recognized as a refugee by the UN refugee agency, UNHCR. He was arrested by members of the security forces when he was getting into a car in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, on 2 June 2010. He produced a UNHCR document proving his refugee status but was nevertheless arrested on the grounds that he entered Lebanon illegally from Syria and was detained in Zahle prison, in the Bekaa Valley in east Lebanon. On 26 June he was convicted for “irregular entry”, and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment and payment of a fine. He faces forcible return to Iran after serving the sentence.
Mohammad Taher Batili arrived in Lebanon from Syria with his family on 28 May 2009 and sought asylum there. They had fled Iran due to his and his father’s political activities in support of the Arab minority in Ahvaz, Khuzestan province, Iran. If returned to Iran, he would be at risk of torture and may face the death penalty because of his political activities.
Following his detention in Zahle prison, officials from Iran’s embassy in Lebanon twice interrogated Mohammad Taher Batili. They interrogated him at length about his father’s political activities and that of other members of Iran’s Arab minority in Syria and Lebanon. They threatened him that other inmates in the prison would harm him.
Lebanon hosts a large population of asylum-seekers and refugees, mostly from countries suffering from war or systematic human rights violations. Hundreds of them face arrest and prolonged detention as well as forcible return irrespective of whether they are formally registered as refugees by UNHCR. In 2008, the Lebanese authorities agreed informally to allow refugees a grace period of three months, renewable once, to find an employer to sponsor them and provide them with a residence permit, but the authorities do not appear to be keeping to this agreement.
PLEASE WRITE IMMEDIATELY in Arabic, French, English or your own language:
•Urging the Lebanese authorities not to forcibly return Mohammad Taher Batili to Iran, where he would be at risk of torture and possible execution;
•Expressing concern that his removal would violate Lebanon’s obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and contravene the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return in any manner whatsoever of any person to a situation where they would be at risk of torture or other serious human rights violations;
•Calling on the Lebanese authorities to ensure that, while held, he is protected from torture or other ill-treatment, and is granted immediate access to his family, a lawyer of his choice, and adequate medical care. Iranian officials in Iran should not be allowed to interrogate him while in the custody of Lebanese security forces.
PLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 11 AUGUST 2010 TO:
President
Michel Sleiman
Baabda Palace
Baabda, Mount Lebanon, Lebanon
Fax: + 961 5 959 210/922 400
Email:president_office@presidency.gov.lb
Salutation: Your Excellency
Minister of Interior
Ziyad Baroud
Sanayeh, Beirut, Lebanon
Fax: + 961 1 751 618/750 084
Email: ministry@interior.gov.lb
Salutation: Your Excellency
And copies to:
Minister of Justice
Ibrahim Najjar
Rue Sami Solh, Beirut, Lebanon
Fax: + 961 1 612 564/427 975
Email: webmaster@justice.gov.lb
Salutation: Your Excellency
Also send copies to diplomatic representatives accredited to your country. Please check with your section office if sending appeals after the above date.
URGENT ACTION
FORCIBLE RETURN OF IRANIAN ARAB FROM LEBANON
Aditional Information
Ahwazi Arabs are one of Iran’s many ethnic minorities and live mainly in Khuzestan province in south-western Iran, bordering Iraq. Khuzestan is strategically important because it is the site of much of Iran’s oil reserves. The Arab population do not feel they have benefited as much from the oil revenue as the Persian population. Historically they have been marginalized and discriminated against, for instance by being denied the right to an education in their own language.
Although mainly Shi’a Muslims, some Ahwazi Arabs converted to Sunni Islam, leading the authorities to accuse some local activists of being Wahhabis (followers of a conservative form of Sunni Islam). Tension mounted among the Arab population after April 2005, when it was alleged that the government planned to disperse the country’s Arab population or to force them to relinquish their Arab identity. Following bomb explosions in the city of Ahvaz in June and October 2005, killing at least 14 people, and explosions at oil installations in September and October 2005, the violence intensified, with hundreds of people reportedly arrested. There were reports of torture. Further bombings on 24 January 2006, in which at least six people were killed, were followed by further mass arbitrary arrests. At least 15 men have been executed as a result of their alleged involvement in the bombings. Around the end of September 2009, at least one Ahwazi man was executed following trials of some 10 Ahwazi men, some of whom were known political activists, before a branch of the Revolutionary Court in Ahvaz. They received unfair trials in which they had no access to a lawyer (see Amnesty International,Iran: Seven men at risk of execution in Iran, (Index: MDE 13/109/2009), 21 October 2009. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE13/109/2009/en).Mohammad Taher Batili’s father, Hadi Mohammad Jawad Batili, has been arrested in Iran several times for his political activities and his support to families of detained or killed Ahwazi people. In 1993 he was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment; he served five years of the sentence, including seven months in solitary confinement, before being released on bail. He was reportedly tortured and otherwise ill-treated during this period. In 2004 he was handed a three-year suspended sentence and in 2005 he was arrested and detained for four months before being released on bail. He was summoned to appear before Branch 12 of the Revolutionary Court in Khuzestan on 9 July 2009 and the case is ongoing.
On 27 September 2008, six Ahwazi asylum-seekers, Ma’soumeh Ka’bi and her five children aged between four and 14, were forcibly returned to Iran from Syria. She and her children were immediately arrested upon arrival in Tehran. Her five children were released in late October 2008 (see Iran: Forcible return/ Prisoners of conscience/ Fear of torture and ill-treatment, (Index: MDE 13/147/2008), 10 October 2008, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE13/147/2008/en). On 1 January 2009, Ma’soumeh Ka’bi was sentenced by the Revolutionary Court in Ahwaz, Khuzestan province, to four and a half years’ imprisonment for leaving Iran using false travel documents and reportedly in connection with her husband’s political activities. She appealed the sentence and was released on bail of around US$151,000. Amnesty International has not received information on the outcome of her appeal.
Although Lebanon is not a state party to the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, it is, like all other countries, bound by international customary law, including the principle of non-refoulement: countries may not forcibly return people to countries where they would face serious human rights violations, including torture and other ill-treatment. It is also a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Hariri, Mubarak discuss implementation of 1701
Incidents in south under examination, say Kahwaji, Asarta
By Wassim Mroueh and Mohammed Zaatari
Daily Star staff
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Listen to the Article - Powered by
BEIRUT: Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri discussed Monday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak the implementation of Resolution 1701, while similar talks were held between Lebanese Army commander General Jean Kahwaji and the commander of peacekeeping forces in south Lebanon Major General Alberto Cuevas Asarta.
During a meeting at Mubarak’s residence in Paris, Hariri and Mubarak also discussed regional developments and in particular those taking place in Lebanon.
After the meeting, Hariri told reporters he briefed Mubarak on the recent events in Lebanon with regard to the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
“We hope the situation in Lebanon remains calm because it is of no one’s interest that provocative acts targeting any side take place,” said Hariri.
The premier reiterated Lebanon’s commitment to Resolution 1701 stressing that the only reason for the presence of UNIFIL was “protecting Lebanon and nothing more.”
While Hariri is paying a private visit to France, the Egyptian president is in France for an official visit during which he met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
On Saturday, a UNIFIL patrol belonging to the French contingent was attacked by southern residents in the village of Qabrikha, with residents commandeering a soldier’s weapons and wounding the company leader.
UNIFIL reinforcements and Lebanese Army personnel intervened, with the Lebanese Army recovering UNIFIL weapons from the civilians and restoring calm in the area.
The attack was the second of its kind in less than a week, after villagers from Khirbet Silim threw stones at a UNIFIL patrol, injuring two French peacekeepers last week, following large scale capacity-testing exercises by the force.
The Lebanese Army commander and the UNIFIL commander stressed Monday that the “incidental” skirmishes occurring in the south would not affect the mission of the peacekeeping forces.
Both commanders said such incidents were being examined, which would reflect peace and stability in the south as well as enhancing developmental projects in the area.
Kahwaji held talks with Asarta in the south after he toured the headquarters of the Lebanese Army where he had been briefed on ground measures taken by Lebanese soldiers.
The two touched on suitable mechanisms to boost coordination between UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army, along with improving relations with local southerners.
Kahwaji and Asarta stressed that the peacekeepers have been embraced by southerners since they arrived in Lebanon, downplaying concerns over their security.
The Lebanese Army commander highlighted Lebanon’s commitment to Security Council Resolution 1701 and its framework, stressing that Israel should abide by the resolution and halt its violations of Lebanese sovereignty.
Meanwhile, Lebanese daily An-Nahar reported Monday that the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL might sign a new “memorandum of understanding” that would emphasize current rules and lead to a close coordination between the two in a bid to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents in the future.
In remarks published by the newspaper on Monday, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri had labeled all what is being said about changing the rules of 1701 as “lies.”
“ There is no problem [ with the UNIFIL], and we do not need any side to give us lessons over how to deal with UNIFIL that has maintained the best relations with our people,” said Berri.
UNIFIL official spokesperson Neeraj Singh said in a statement on Monday that peacekeeping forces were “100 percent” coordinating with the Lebanese Army.
“All our activities, on all levels and on all fields are being coordinated with the [Lebanese Army],” said Singh.
The UNIFIL official said Asarta was holding talks with Kahwaji when the Qabrikha incident had taken place, adding that direct coordination has been carried out to contain consequences.
Singh said the rules of engagement would not change because resolution 1701 that such rules were based on has not changed.
The statement said the “freedom of movement along with the security of the peacekeepers are an essential factor enabling the force to carry out its mission for the sake of the Lebanese and Lebanon.”
Singh added that the soldiers in the French patrol have adopted the highest levels of self-restraint.
Singh said UNIFIL was organizing 350 patrols every day south of the Litani river in coordination with the Lebanese Army and “this coordination has never changed since four years.”
Separately, Deputy Speaker Farid Makari, also a Future Movement MP, said in a statement Monday that the repetitive clashes with UNIFIL and the injury Saturday of a French soldier aimed at delivering a message to the international community.
Makari said the message implied that any progress in the investigations carried out by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon would be met by “punishing representatives of the international community in Lebanon.”
Also, Makari said the incidents indicated that Lebanon was the battlefield from which response to the imposition of sanctions on Iran would be made.
Batroun MP Butros Harb said that the recent clashes with UNIFIL were a source of worry, as he called for discussing the issue during the next Cabinet session and taking an official stance regarding the matter “especially that the renewal of UNIFIL’s mandate will take place next month.” Harb made his comments to Voice of Lebanon Radio station on Monday.
On another note, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported Monday that a joint position would be announced by Italy, France and Spain on July 14, expressing discontent regarding recent skirmishes with UNIFIL. CNA reported that French Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bernard Valiro stressed that the freedom of movement of his country’s forces operating with UNIFIL in the south was a “necessary condition” to preserve peace in its field of operations.
Valiro voiced his belief that Resolution 1701 allowed UNIFIL to resist any attempt to prevent it from performing its duty.

ARMY, UNIFIL thwart Israeli bid to steal water
By Mohammed Zaatari /Daily Star staff
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
WAZZANI: Units from the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL thwarted Monday an Israeli attempt to steal water from the Al-Wazzani well near the occupied border village of Ghajar.
A number of workers coming from the occupied Syrian part of Ghajar tried to cross the technical fence between Lebanon and Israel along the Blue Line to the Lebanese side.
The intruders pretended to be fixing a pump that provides their houses with water. Spanish peacekeepers and Lebanese Army troops aimed their weapons at the intruders and kept them from approaching the well and Lebanese water installations. An Israeli patrol, comprised of three Hummer vehicles with 25 soldiers on board, moved from the Lebanese northern part of Al-Ghajar and stopped near the Blue Line. In response, additional Spanish forces intervened and created with the Lebanese Army a buffer zone around the Al-Wazzani well.

GLC chief lauds Hariri's efforts in addressing trade unions' grievances
By The Daily Star /Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Listen to the Article - Powered by
BEIRUT: Head of the General Labor Confederation Ghassan Ghosn praised Monday the efforts of Prime Minister Saad Hariri in addressing the demands of trade unions.
Ghosn told the Central News Agency (CNA) that Hariri, who is at the head of the ministerial committee charged with studying the unions’ demands, showed care more than the government had done for a long time. He was referring to the dialogue session held between the GLC and the committee last week at the Grand Serail. “This is the first time we witness such a serious behavior by the government,” Ghosn said. “Previous solutions were temporary and occasional but today the government showed an initiative to open dialogue and overcome the problem without conflict,” he added. Ghosn then noted that the main result of the dialogue had been Hariri’s decision to execute the union’s demands within two weeks, after placing them to study. Concerning demands specific to the union, Ghosn said each file would be considered separately. “If the matter concerns a certain sector then officials responsible for this sector will be summoned,” he said. Ghosn then noted that all files will be discussed because none could be postponed any further. Concerning the price of fuel, Ghosn said the dialogue session focused on public transportation and the rising prices of gasoline. “We demanded a limit to gasoline prices … and we suggested reducing taxes on gasoline,” he added. The suggestion of tax reduction also included gasoline based products. – The Daily Star

Biden pushes for Iraq government breakthrough
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Listen to the Article - Powered by
Arthur MacMillan
Agence France Presse
BAGHDAD: US Vice President Joe Biden made a final bid Monday to persuade Iraq’s squabbling leaders to end their differences and form a government, four months after polls ushered in political deadlock.Biden, on the final day of a visit to Baghdad, held talks with the war-torn country’s President Jalal Talabani, after urging all politicians to “honor the trust” shown in them by voters to act in a democratic manner. It was not immediately clear whether the US leader’s discussions in the capital with parties from across the political spectrum would achieve anything, but his intervention exposed the challenges facing Iraq’s fledgling democracy. Iyad Allawi, a Shiite former premier, insists as the March 7 election’s narrow victor that he has the right to become premier, especially as his Iraqiya coalition had strong backing in Sunni-dominated provinces.
He has warned that a failure to see Sunni voters properly represented in power could reignite the sectarian violence that saw tens of thousands killed in the years following the 2003 US-led ouster of Saddam Hussein.
Allawi narrowly pushed serving Premier Nuri al-Maliki’s Shiite-led State of Law alliance into second place in the election, but the incumbent is doggedly fighting to hold on and serve a second term as prime minister. Biden’s comments at an Independence Day address at the US Embassy on Sunday highlighted that the formation of a new government in Baghdad had been stymied by byzantine power struggles and unwillingness to compromise on who gets what.
He stressed that Washington, conducting a phased pullout of US combat troops after seven years of fighting had no “hidden agenda” over Iraq’s future.
“My plea to you is finish what you started,” the US vice president said in a speech that was quickly followed by several mortar rounds landing in the Green Zone where the American Embassy is located. “Iraqiya, State of Law, Iraqi National Alliance, the Kurdistan Alliance, all are going to have to play a meaningful role in this new government for it to work,” he said, referring to the country’s major political blocs. A reminder of Iraq’s fragile security came Sunday when a long period of relative calm was shattered in Anbar Province, whose capital Ramadi was hit by a female suicide bomber who killed at least four people and wounded 23 outside government offices.
On Monday Biden, who flew out of the country late afternoon, also met with Shiite leader Ammar al-Hakim of the influential Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council.
Hakim said in a statement that he told the US leader he would not be part of an “unsuccessful government,” in comments interpreted as a snub to lingering but unsubstantiated prospects of an eventual deal between Maliki and Allawi.
Biden stressed Sunday real progress on hammering out a government could only be made if leaders put national interest first. “Subordinating individual interest is fundamental to the success of any nation,” he said. “You should not, and I am sure you will not, let any state, or the US or any state in the region dictate what will become of you all,” he added in a thinly veiled reference probably directed at Iran and Saudi Arabia. Biden’s remarks came just hours after the firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr called on Iraqi leaders not to be swayed by Washington.“I advise Allawi and Maliki not to allow the occupier to intervene,” said Sadr, whose militia, the Mehdi Army, has repeatedly clashed with US forces since the invasion.
A senior US administration official travelling with Biden, said Biden had delivered a consistent message during the trip. “We are not disengaging from Iraq, our engagement is changing. We are moving from a military lead to a civilian lead,” said the aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. “He [Biden] made it very clear that we have no candidates, we have no preferred outcomes. There was no discussion of an American plan for Iraq because there isn’t one.”

A US-Iran faceoff will hurt Lebanon
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Editorial/Daily Star/We find rather suspicious the recent clashes between some UN Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) troops and a smattering of south Lebanon’s inhabitants.
No, this is not about any dark conspiracy theory, but rather the roles of domestic political forces and known regional powers. Such incidents typically occur because indigenous peoples decide to stand up to the ways of foreign soldiers which locals regard as crude or at least inappropriate. However, these troops have been here for almost four years in beefed-up numbers, and UNIFIL has operated in south Lebanon for decades without recurring scuffles – in fact, relations have largely been quite good. We do not see any inherent, logical cause for recent events, and the cause of such clashes rarely remains so murky.
We are not siding with the various pontificating politicians, but we do not give much credibility to the denials of involvement by the south’s political overlords – as they lately proved in the municipal elections, they cover every last space in south Lebanon like a suffocating blanket.
We wish to make clear to all sides this is a very dangerous development. To be sure, the mostly European soldiers of UNIFIL are never going to prevent Israel from inflicting its wrath on Lebanon. They did not do so in 1982 or in 2006, and they would not and could not do so now. The presence of the international contingent provides instead a diplomatic shock absorber between Israel and Hizbullah. The UN regularly announces violations by Israel and Hizbullah of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; UNIFIL’s use stems from its skill in tolerating and calibrating those infringements. More importantly, UNIFIL also does deter the sides from undertaking a much bigger conflict here. Israel has demonstrated in recent years that it has chosen a military doctrine of disproportionate force; at the same time, Hizbullah unquestionably has a sizable and capable army.
Absent a clear provocation, it appears that Israel and Hizbullah’s Iranian patrons could indeed be ratcheting up tensions in south Lebanon. As we have said repeatedly in this space, this must concern all Lebanese gravely, because the confrontation between the US and Iran – and between all their various allies – is coming to a climax, and Lebanon could well become their battlefield. Sadly, this rising disquiet in south Lebanon – and the looming US-Iran showdown – look much like just the result of mistakes on all sides. With Benjamin Netanyahu meeting Barack Obama Tuesday, we want to emphasize to them that their tactic of simultaneously pursuing sanctions against Iran and settlement building in Palestine represents one of the worst mistakes. Following these policies at the same time only paves the way to further escalation, from which Lebanon will likely feel the pain.

Jumblatt, Abu Faour head to Turkey
By The Daily Star /Tuesday, July 06, 2010
BEIRUT: Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt and Minister of State Wael Abu Faour headed to Turkey on Monday, media reports said. Jumblatt had wrote in comments published Monday in his weekly editorial in PSP’s Al-Anbaa newspaper that he did not understand the debate over the arrest of an Alfa telecom company technician suspected of spying for Israel. “Maybe because he seems to be affiliated with a certain political group?” he asked. Jumblatt added that the recent crackdown on spy cells “demonstrated just how vulnerable Lebanon is to Israeli intelligence.” He called on security forces to unite their efforts. Jumblatt also urged political groups not to find excuses “to lift pressure off agents. The head of the Democratic Gathering parliamentary bloc said all sects have Israeli agents. He also slammed attempts to discredit the army intelligence, in reference to parliamentary majority MP Oqab Saqr, accusing the apparatus of leaking confidential information to the press. – The Daily Star

UNIFIL needs a charm offensive
By Oussama Safa
Daily Star/Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Since the end of the July-August war of 2006, south Lebanon has not been the same. That is not because the war obliterated vast swaths of villages and residential communities, but because the presence of international forces has contributed greatly to speeding up the restoration of normalcy and a climate of detente. The deployment of the Lebanese Army came as a welcome development that, together with the expanded United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), contributed to a sense of calm and peace, no matter how precarious that feeling was and is.There is no denying the presence of over 12,000 troops and the natural rise in the demand for goods and merchandise have shored up the faltering local economy in the south. This is evident in the rent hikes and the proliferation of small shops in the various sectors where UNIFIL operates; not to mention the swell in business at tourist destinations such as restaurants, beaches and other outlets. Despite the positive presence of UNIFIL and its ability to preserve a cessation of hostilities, the international troops have not been able to establish the friendly relations with local communities worthy of a peacekeeping mission the size of UNIFIL. This is not the force’s fault. The peacekeepers have been manipulated and used as a voodoo doll on several occasions whenever political messages needed to be sent.
However, that is not to say that UNIFIL’s performance has been without error. Some contingents have had a rocky relationship with the locals ever since they set foot in the south – largely due to their ignorance of local sensitivities or short troop rotations that do not permit the establishment of trust and strong, friendly relations. Some troops rotate their officers after only four months of deployment, hardly enough time to get to know the south and establish constructive working relationships with the inhabitants.
The good news is that none of the problems besetting UNIFIL’s relationship with the locals is irresolvable. The fact remains that those in the south need UNIFIL as much as the peacekeepers need the southerners, and this bodes well for the future of the foreign forces. What most Lebanese don’t know is that UNIFIL’s civilian units have been working actively to win the hearts and minds of locals with much-needed community projects. These range from offering free medical dispensaries to donating olive presses, building school soccer fields, and contributing to infrastructure projects. UNIFIL’s civilians are the unknown soldiers of peace-building and development in the south and the main liaison with mayors and local officials.
To reinvent its relationship with the locals and improve its image politically, UNIFIL needs to beef up its civilian affairs unit and reach out to communities hitherto hostile to its presence or that have refused cooperation. This cannot be easily done with the occasional donation of an ambulance or the refurbishing of a school. What UNIFIL needs is a sustainable, long-term strategy to develop the civilian aspect of the force. For starters, the number of civilian personnel must increase to become commensurate with the number of troops. This need not add a financial burden and can be done by cooperating closely with other UN agencies or opening up an internship program that absorbs large numbers of local and international volunteers eager to help and do good work.
UNIFIL has not benefited from the successes of sister peacekeeping missions elsewhere, such as the one in Congo. The mission there built a community radio station that became the go-to outlet for objective news and interesting entertainment. UNIFIL should set-up its own community radio station in the south, and if possible, a television station that offers interesting programming that can attract youths and others, and help burnish the mission’s positive image with locals.
UNIFIL’s development and education projects need to be expanded in a consistent and sustained manner. Children summer camps and out-of-school activities, such as educational trips, should become a main staple of the peacekeeping mission. Open days where locals can come and visit UN bases and get to know the life of peacekeepers and listen to the range of services they offer should become more frequent.
All of this can and should be done in a manner sensitive to local customs, traditions, and religious observances, which, I am confident, UNIFIL civilian affairs personnel and some troops understand quite well. In addition, UNIFIL should work hard to resolve longstanding disputes that some of its troop bases have with local communities. This will doubtless help increase mutual trust. UNIFIL should develop and customize cultural awareness training for new incoming troops in order to minimize mishaps and mistakes with the locals. In areas known for being sensitive to a certain contingent, a replacement contingent from another nationality enjoying better relations with the inhabitants should be deployed. UNIFIL can benefit particularly from a public relations office that should be devoted solely to organizing its relationship with the local population and maintaining a positive image of the peacekeepers.
While politically motivated hostilities with locals are likely to continue, UNIFIL could more easily contain the fallout quickly if its civilians were better grounded in local communities.
**Oussama Safa is director of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Saudi Denies Telling Obama Iran and Israel Should not Exist
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu/Arutz Sheva
The Saudi Arabia monarchy has denied a report in the French newspaper Le Figaro that King Abdullah told U.S. President Barack Obama that the countries of Iran and Israel should not exist. The king allegedly made the remark after the May 31 flotilla clash between Israeli Navy commandos and Turkish terror activists. He visited President Obama at the White House last week. The report is "untrue altogether,” an official source told the Saudi Press Agency. “The positions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are clear and declared," the source added. The report was given credence because it was written by a journalist who has a respected reputation as a Middle East specialist. Le Figaro reported that the quote was confirmed by military and diplomatic sources. King Abdullah has said he is concerned by the growing nuclear threat posed by Iran. As a Persian and not an Arab country, Iran is not part of the Arab League, is distrusted by most Muslim states in the region, and threatens to become the dominant power in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia does not recognize Israel, and distances itself from any association with Israel officials or even shaking hands with them. The Saudi 2002 Initiative calls on Israel to surrender all of the land restored to the country in the Six Day War in 1967, in return for normalization of relations with the Arab world. There is no specific mention of recognizing Israel as a country.

Syria Reaches Out from Iran to Argentina for Allies
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu/Arutz Sheva
Syria has branched out from its alliance with Iran, which is supplying it with advanced radar systems. Syria has promised Argentina support for its claim on the Falkland Islands, and in return, Argentina has offered Damascus its support for Syrian claims on the Golan Heights. Syrian President Bashar Assad, on his first tour of Latin America, is trying to broaden the growing Iranian-Syrian axis, which now includes close ties with Turkey, Venezuela, Cuba and Brazil as well as the Hizbullah terrorist organization.
Assad assured Argentinean President Cristina Kirchner he would back her efforts to take sovereignty over the Falklands, which it calls the Malvinas. Argentina invaded the British held Falkland Islands located off the shore of Argentina in1982 but the ensuing war was won by Great Britain who had reclaimed the islands in 1833 after a period when they were left in the hands of France and Spain. Kircher replied that Argentina supports Syrian claims to the Golan Heights, an addition to the backing Assad received from Brazil and Cuba during his tour.
Syria has denied as “classic Israeli PR stunts” a report in The Wall Street Journal that Iran has supplied it with sophisticated radar that could reduce Israel’s ability to launch a surprise aerial attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The system, which one report stated has been placed in the mountains of Lebanon near Israel’s northern border, also would allow Hizbullah to achieve accuracy if it attacks Israel with missiles. In the Second Lebanon War, Israeli planes were able to fly over southern Lebanon without interference. U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley, commenting on the report in the Journal, told reporters, "We don't believe that Iran's designs for the region are in Syria's best interest.”

Containing Iran Requires Getting Smart, Tough, and Serious
By Barry Rubin*
July 6, 2010
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/07/containing-iran-requires-getting-smart-tough-serious
We depend on your contributions. To make a tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card, click the Donate button in the upper-right hand corner of this page. To donate via check, make it out to "American Friends of IDC," with "for GLORIA Center" in the memo line. Mail to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003.
Note: This is an updated and revised version of my article in the July-August issue of Foreign Affairs.
It should be too obvious to have to say so but unfortunately some people don't get it: dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran is an extraordinarily important task in which the lives of millions of people will be at risk. Such a policy cannot be based on wishful thinking, on faith in the "rationality" of Iran, or on faith in the competence of the current U.S. government. This is not an issue of ""left-wing" or "right-wing" interpretation but of policy analysis.
What concerns me is that the mainstream debate regarding containment is being conducted in a flippant and sloppy manner, based on some questionable assumptions. Attempts to critique those concepts are blithely dismissed rather than seen as pointing out serious issues and necessary adjustments. At present, this seems an abstract debate. In future, though, the failure to consider and plan could be the source of a major tragedy.
In my view, the most likely outcome is not a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, or an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. While these are, of course, real possibilities, too much focus has been devoted to them. I want to suggest two other scenarios that are more likely: a U.S.-Iran war based on American mistakes and Iranian miscalculations, or huge strategic gains for Iran and revolutionary Islamism in the Middle East.
Another key point is the common error of assuming that there is only one "rational" response by Middle Eastern regimes or states and that this has to be a mirror image of how American experts or policymakers would respond. What is required of an expert is to understand the particular rational response--based on perceptions, history, power structure, ideology, and other factors--that takes place in the context of a specific country's leadership making decisions.
Rational responses are not necessarily moderate ones. For example, based on his "rational" response that Iran was weak, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Iran and set off a long, bloody war. Based on his "rational" response that America would not intervene, Saddam invaded Kuwait setting off a world crisis and another war. Neither of these moves was "irrational," they were merely based on false perceptions and mistaken assumptions that were quite understandable given Saddam's world view and information.
Might Iran, then, some day make a "rational" decision that produces aggression--even if indirect--sets off wars and massive instability in other countries? Of course, the answer is "Yes." The Western assumption that if Iran is rational there must inevitably be moderation and stability is one of the silliest of those made by Western policymakers that has in the past created crises, wars, and massive suffering.
When Iran gets nuclear weapons a containment strategy will be the best U.S. strategy. But how should that containment policy be carried out? That is a far more delicate and complex question than is generally realized.
If the extraordinarily large challenge this problem will pose is underestimated and the idea of containment is too narrowly defined, the resulting failure will bring disaster in the region and the biggest crisis of our era.
James M. Lindsay and Ray Takeyh in, "After Iran Gets the Bomb," Foreign Affairs, March-April 2010, propose what U.S. policy should be after Tehran obtains nuclear weapons. But there are significant problems in its predictions and recommendations.
By making the possibility of containing Iran seem easier than it is and narrower than it need be the article may stir complacency and rationalize the current lack of serious diplomatic effort to stop Iran from succeeding. In addition, the article's assumptions are repeatedly "best-case" ones that understate the problems involved. It is like the planning of a military campaign by advocates who keep insisting that everything will work out properly. We have repeatedly seen in recent history the dangers of such a procedure.
In particular, the article makes four questionable assumptions.
First comes the premise that U.S. willpower and credibility with both enemies and friends is sufficient to succeed at containment. The authors note that U.S. policy needs "to reassure its friends and allies in the Middle East that it remains firmly committed to preserving the balance of power in the region."
Yet to do so, there must be a clear understanding as to why these countries don't believe this claim. As the authors point out, "Iran is determined to get nuclear weapons but the West, despite endless talk, is not determined to stop it from doing so" and Tehran's success is a major failure for U.S. credibility. Given this U.S. defeat, "Friends and foes would openly question the U.S. government's power and resolve to shape events in the Middle East. Friends would respond by distancing themselves from Washington; foes would challenge U.S. policies more aggressively."
Yet the article doesn't draw the obvious conclusion from this situation: Iran emerges as the most powerful regional player; America declines into relative irrelevance compared to the past. It would be a strategic shift in which revolutionary forces become more aggressive and those who can do so use appeasement to survive.
Simply declaring that it will protect regional states or issuing verbal warnings to Iran will not be sufficient. Does Iran's government believe that President Barack Obama would go to war, even nuclear war, to constrain it? Will Arab rulers bet their lives on this expectation? Is Israel going to trust its security to a U.S. government which could arguably be called the least friendly to Israel in history? "No" seems the likely answer.
Israel cannot and will not appease Iran. But the authors state that "the Israeli government's calculations about Iran would depend on its assessment of the United States' willingness and ability to deter Iran." Since the Obama Administration's efforts against Iran have been unimpressive and support for Israel has plummeted, Israel's calculations will not assume confidence in U.S. policy.
As for Arab states, the authors dismiss the danger of massive appeasement, saying, "Pursuing that strategy would mean casting aside U.S. help and betting on the mercy of Tehran." But there is no reason that appeasement must be all-or-nothing. Certainly, they'll take U.S. security guarantees but then hedge their bets, limit cooperation, and try hard to please Iran. Combining U.S. guarantees with buying off Tehran is sensible policy.
Second is the idea that Iran will act rationally and, at least as the result of pressure, moderately as well.
One doesn't have to think Tehran eager to commit suicide to understand how it is prone to risk-taking, not to mention the likelihood of miscalculation by a highly ideological regime which profoundly misunderstands the West. Even if not insane or suicidal, Iran's regime is the farthest thing from a rational-actor state the United States has confronted since Berlin fell in 1945.
Moreover, the regime may think it has found ways around the "suicide" problem or simply discount the risk. Its nuclear weapons will be controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the most fanatical institution with the closest ties to terrorist groups. Iran's defense minister is an internationally wanted terrorist. Any system based on confidence about Iranian self-restraint is on a shaky foundation.
Modern Middle East history is full of examples of less volatile rulers and regimes jumping off cliffs. Egypt provoked the 1967 war; Iraq attacked Iran and Kuwait; the PLO chose launching a losing war rather than making peace and getting a state in 2000.
Taking up an Obama Administration talking point, the authors say all will be well if U.S. policy shows "Tehran that acquiring the bomb will not produce the benefits it anticipates but isolate and weaken the regime." Nuclear weapons, they say, "can accomplish only a limited set of objectives." But it seems more likely the regime is right in concluding the bomb will bring many benefits: making it more powerful, respected, and influential abroad.
Containment advocates understate many elements in this context. For example, consider their minimizing the possibility of Iran transferring nuclear weapons to others because it fears U.S. wrath. Yet precedents, as seen from Tehran, suggest America is a paper tiger. The United States has been passive in response to Iran's transferring weapons to Iraqi Shia radicals, Hizballah, Hamas, Afghan Islamists, and even cooperating with al-Qaida, despite the fact that Americans have died as a result.
To some extent, the authors put faith in Iran's "common sense":
"Iran has observed clear limits when supporting militias and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Iran has not provided Hezbollah with chemical or biological weapons or Iraqi militias with the means to shoot down U.S. aircraft. Iran's rulers understand that such provocative actions could imperil their rule by inviting retaliation."
That's true up to a point, but what about possible Iranian involvement in Syria's effort to build nuclear facilities? As for advanced anti-aircraft systems, Iran has already provided them to terrorist groups. The U.S. Department of Defense Quadrennial Report for 2010 warns: "Non-state actors such as Hizballah have acquired...man-portable air defense systems from Iran." Equally, Iran provides bombs to Iraqi militias to "shoot down" American convoys.
Thus, while Iran may not transfer weapons of mass destruction it is more possible than containment optimists claim. Tehran will certainly escalate the transfer of other arms for wars against the United States and to try to overthrow its allies.
A third assumption is the nature of the threat to be contained, which goes far beyond the need to ensure Iran doesn't fire nuclear weapons at others. Consider the tidal wave effect as millions of Muslims conclude that mighty Iran got it right; that revolutionary, anti-American Islamism works. Islamist movements will increase violence and struggle everywhere, including Europe.
Moreover, Iran will practice what can be called nuclear-defended aggression. The authors say a U.S.-backed Israel would keep radical groups "in check." Tehran, "will not risk a nuclear confrontation with Israel to assist" Hamas and Hizballah. But Iran is already helping them at no cost to itself or nuclear confrontation.
In contrast, Israel has no leverage to defeat revolutionary Islamist groups outside the West Bank. Indeed, U.S. policy ensures Israel can't overthrow Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The United States won't battle to stop an Iranian-Syrian takeover of Lebanon already in progress through Hizballah and other assets. In this context, too, Palestinian leaders and Arab states will be too fearful of Iran-and their own people thrilled by Iran's defying the West-to move toward peace with Israel. If they do, Iran and its allies will sabotage these efforts, using them to escalate conflict and anti-Americanism.
A more accurate picture is presented by Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid, director-general of the al-Arabiya television network, writing in al-Sharq al-Awsat last February: "An Iranian bomb...will not be put to military use; it will be used as a way to change the rules of the game." With nuclear weapons, Iran's nuclear umbrella will protect itself and its clients who seek or take power in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, and in the Palestinian lands "from deterrence" by the United States. Iran doesn't need to attack anyone else; it must merely ensure no one else attacks itself as it steps up subversion and terrorism.
Another advantage for a nuclear-armed Iran is brinkmanship. As Ahmad al-Jarallah, editor of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, explained last February, Arab states would be "hostage to fears of rash actions by Iran that could cause nuclear catastrophes...." Thus, they would do everything possible to avoid any risk of being obliterated by keeping Iran happy no matter what the United States promised them. It would be cold comfort for them to fear incineration comforted by expectations that Iran would also be flattened.
Finally, there's the plan proposed for U.S. policy toward Iran itself. Washington needed "to persuade the Iranian ruling class that the revisionist game it has been playing is simply not worth the candle." But why should we assume the United States can convince these rulers of anything, least of all that Iran's ambitions are mistaken? It's far more likely that the revisionist game yields much fruit, especially since the containment being proposed would cost Iran almost nothing more than it's facing now.
The article suggests, "To press Tehran in the right direction, Washington should signal that it seeks to create an order in the Middle East that is peaceful and self-sustaining." But this is exactly why Iran, Syria, and revolutionary Islamist movements see the United States as blocking their ambitions. Thus, its influence must be destroyed if Iran and "Islam" is to gain what they consider to be its "legitimate interests."
The authors conclude U.S. policy can live with an Islamic Republic that abandons its nuclear ambitions and respects neighbors' sovereignty. That's fine in theory. But is there going to be such an Islamic Republic, at least before decades of bloody attempts to overturn the regional order? Containing the USSR took almost a half-century through numerous subversive campaigns and wars. And when the United States began that effort, the Soviet Union was far closer to being a cautious, status quo power than Iran is today.
Successful containment, then, will not just be difficult but extraordinarily so, requiring major changes in current U.S. government thinking and behavior. The first step is to understand the inescapable conflict between U.S. interests and revolutionary Islamist movements, to see the Iran-led alliance as an extremely dangerous adversary which is more determined, ruthless, and probably tactically cleverer than the United States itself.
That's why it's so important to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons at all. Otherwise, despite a framework of soothing promises, verbal threats, and military build-ups, Iran's bomb will change the Middle East strategic balance; inspire revolutionary Islamist movements to new levels of violence, foster Arab and Western appeasement, and shift power toward Tehran.
But we are all going to face a nuclear Iran. To deal with this situation, the United States cannot merely take one element-nuclear umbrella and deterrence-from its Cold War experience as containment on the cheap. It must adapt an entire repertoire including a truly tough posture; readiness to contest every country and battle every revolutionary surrogate of Tehran in an appropriate manner, employing a full gamut of overt and covert military, diplomatic, and economic tools.
The struggle will be long and hard. On a regional level, victory cannot be taken for granted. Certainly, unless the United States takes containment, struggle, credibility, deterrence, and other such things seriously, a massive defeat for the United States can be taken for granted.


Lebanon will not agree to amending UNIFIL’s mandate
July 6, 2010
“Lebanon will never agree to any amendment of UNIFIL’s mandate,” Al-Balad newspaper reported on Tuesday, quoting an unnamed Lebanese diplomatic source.
This comes against the backdrop of a series of protests against UNIFIL in the South, which began on June 29 during a deployment exercise conducted by the peacekeeping forces.
The source denied that Lebanon is planning to sign a memo of understanding with UNIFIL concerning its mission in the South.
“Lebanon is keen on maintaining an excellent relationship with these troops and wants their work coordinated with the Lebanese army,” the source added.
Al-Balad also quoted an unnamed political source as saying that France, Italy and Spain, which contribute troops to UNIFIL, will adopt a joint stance on July 14 expressing displeasure with last week’s public protests against UNIFIL by local residents in South Lebanon.
-NOW Lebanon




Israel’s coastal gas facilities may make a tempting target for Hezbollah
Amos Harel , HAARETZ.com, July 6, 2010
The defense establishment is demanding that the state delay approval for the construction of gas reception terminals on a strip of Israel's coastline pending an examination of the facility's security risk.
Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai told Haaretz yesterday that the state's inclination to issue a speedy green-light for the project, as per a request from businessman Yitzhak Tshuva, is liable to pose the same risk as "the [Haifa Chemicals] ammonia storage tank in Haifa Bay multiplied by 50."
Tshuva is a billionaire real estate and energy baron who owns a controlling interest in Delek Group, which is currently drilling at three offshore sites that are believed to hold significant reserves of natural gas.
Vilnai said the state should withhold authorization for the plan - which calls for the terminals to be built on the coast between Zichron Yaakov and Hadera - until the security authorities conduct a thorough check of all possible security dangers entailed in the project.
"Until we receive satisfactory answers regarding the security issue, we will not allow such a decision to pass," Vilnai said. "It would not behoove them to threaten me with timetables."

Who are Hezbollah?
BBC/ 06/07/10
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4314423.stm
Hezbollah presents itself as a force of resistance for Lebanon and the region
Hezbollah - or the Party of God - is a powerful political and military organisation in Lebanon made up mainly of Shia Muslims.
It emerged with financial backing from Iran in the early 1980s and began a struggle to drive Israeli troops from Lebanon.
Hostility to Israel has remained the party's defining platform since May 2000, when the last Israeli troops left Lebanon due in large part to the success of Hezbollah's military arm, the Islamic Resistance.
Hezbollah's popularity peaked in the 2000s, but took a massive dent among pro-Western Lebanese people when it was at the centre of a huge, destructive war with Israel following the capture of two Israeli soldiers in 2006.
Lebanese divisions
Hezbollah is the strongest member of Lebanon's pro-Syrian opposition bloc which has been pitted against the pro-Western government led by Saad Hariri.
It has several seats in parliament and has ministers in a national unity government formed in late 2009.
It also blocked the election of a new president by repeatedly boycotting sessions of parliament.
The stalemate ended on 21 May 2008, when the group reached a deal with the government under which its power of veto was recognised.
Washington has long branded Hezbollah a terrorist organisation and has accused it of destabilising Lebanon in the wake of Syria's withdrawal of its troops from the country following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Israel threw considerable military might against Hezbollah in the 2006 war
The movement long operated with neighbouring Syria's blessing, protecting its interests in Lebanon and serving as a card for Damascus to play in its own confrontation with Israel over the occupation of the Golan Heights.
Hezbollah leaders have continued to profess its support for Syria, while stressing Lebanese unity by arguing against "Western interference" in the country.
As well as a political clout, Hezbollah has wide popular appeal by providing social services and health care. It also has an influential TV station, al-Manar.
Hezbollah's biggest test came in mid-2006, when its fighters captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border attack, killing a number of others.
The incident triggered a fierce month-long war with Israel, which ended in a ceasefire.
Having survived a massive military onslaught, Hezbollah declared victory, enhancing its reputation among many in the Arab world.
Its critics, however, blamed it for provoking the massive destruction which Israel wreaked in Lebanon.
Despite two UN resolutions (1559 passed in 2004, and 1701, which halted the war) calling for disarming of militias in Lebanon, Hezbollah's military arm remains intact.
Starting out
Hezbollah was conceived in 1982 by a group of Muslim clerics after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah
It was close to a contingent of some 2,000 Iranian Revolutionary guards, based in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, which had been sent to the country to aid the resistance against Israel.
Hezbollah was formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation.
It also initially dreamed of transforming Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state, although this idea was later abandoned in favour of a more inclusive approach that has survived to this day.
The party's rhetoric calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. It views the Jewish state as occupied Muslim land and it argues that Israel has no right to exist.
The party was long supported by Iran, which provided it with arms and money.
Passionate and demanding
Hezbollah also adopted the tactic of taking Western hostages, through a number of freelance hostage taking cells.
In 1983, militants who went on to become members of Hezbollah are thought to have planned a suicide bombing attack that killed 241 US marines in Beirut.
Hezbollah has always sought to further an Islamic way of life. In the early days, its leaders imposed strict codes of Islamic behaviour on towns and villages in the south of the country - a move that was not universally popular with the region's citizens.
But the party emphasises that its Islamic vision should not be interpreted as an intention to impose an Islamic society on the Lebanese.


Mohammad Raad
July 5, 2010
On July 4, the Lebanese National News Agency carried the following report:
The head of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc, Deputy Mohammad Raad, stated that “UNIFIL does not have the authority to act as it wishes during its presence in Lebanon. It must respect the stipulations of Resolution 1701 and consistently coordinate with the Lebanese army who are the security reference of the Lebanese. However, if some want to impose themselves as a security force to confiscate the security sovereignty of the South, they are violating the aforementioned resolution.”
During a funeral in Maydafoun in the presence of Deputies Yassin Jaber and Abdul Latif al-Zain, he added: “A few days ago, there were breaches which almost generated great misunderstandings between our people in the South and the international troops in the area. This was caused by the fact that some UNIFIL units exceeded their powers and went beyond their mission provided for in resolution 1701. We do not wish to get into politics and had hoped to see the international forces respect their tasks and their prerogatives as per the resolution which was issued by the United Nations. However, the fact that some of these forces are implementing their countries’ policies in Lebanon under the umbrella of the United Nations is something which will lead to problems and misunderstanding.
“The task of UNIFIL is to support the Lebanese army. It is not a tutelage power or one which enjoys all prerogatives. It is governed by a specific task, i.e. the maintenance of peace in the South under the ceiling of Resolution 1701 which says these troops are here to support the Lebanese army and that they cannot plan and implement military maneuvers against our people and their choices without coordination with the Lebanese army. Therefore, this force cannot infiltrate the alleyways and walk beneath the windows of houses where children are sleeping, wreaking terror as though war had erupted in the South without notice.
“This force cannot act as it wishes and must respect the stipulations of resolution 1701. It should permanently coordinate with the Lebanese army that is the security force of the Lebanese. If some want to impose themselves as a security reference to confiscate the security sovereignty in the South, this is a violation of the aforementioned resolution.” He called on UNIFIL to “correct its performance and restore the compass. We are not at ease in regard to the performance we have started seeing at the level of some UNIFIL units. These units should correct their performance. We are not in a hurry and our people enjoy the necessary awareness, alertness and intelligence to act responsibly toward all the flaws and misunderstandings in their towns and villages.
“We do not want to ruin the good relations between the international troops and the people and want to see the prevalence of normal and intimate relations between the two parties. However, this can only be achieved through respect of Resolution 1701, while any violation will generate commotion and ruin the existing climate. We want UNIFIL to operate in a cooperative environment, but this environment cannot be fooled since it knows its fate and choices and has paid the highest price defending its soil. Therefore, it cannot be stabbed in the back and previous attempts to do so against this popular environment have repeatedly failed.
“If the foreign minister of a country that is part of UNIFIL wants to offer a card to the Israelis, he can do so out of his own pocket and not out of our people’s. We do not deal with international units based on the political background of the states to which they belong, rather based on the fact that their political mandate is in the United Nations and the Security Council. However, if some units are taking their orders directly from their defense minister without respecting Resolution 1701, let them try something else. There are many states with which we do not agree at the level of foreign policy and are participating in UNIFIL, but we have accepted their presence in Lebanon because they are operating under the umbrella of the United Nations and the ceiling of Resolution 1701.”