LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJuly 31/2010

Bible Of the Day
Colossians 3:12–13
Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.
Today's Inspiring Thought: Bear with One Another
No one is perfect. On the contrary, life is full of difficult people. Yes, even our brothers and sisters in Christ can set our patience to the test. But this verse tells us just how to deal with troublesome individuals—become a "put on!" Paul tells us to put on compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, and forgiveness.
The Bible speaks a lot about forgiveness because the Lord knows how often we need to forgive and be forgiven. It may not feel natural or easy, and that's why it's a put on, but this is how we bear with one another—through compassion, humility and forgiveness

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
General Aoun in his maze/By: Hazem al-Amin/July 30/10
Illusion and reality clash in Lebanon/By JONATHAN SPYER/July 30/10
Is it goodbye, America?/By: Michael Young/July 30/10
Beirut summit unlikely to resolve basic differences/By Michael Bluhm/July 30/10
Is Middle East war inevitable?/By Volker Perthes/July 30/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 30/10
Abdullah, Assad Urge Lebanese to Avoid Resorting to Violence/Naharnet
Inmates Set Fire to Lebanon's Roumieh Prison Cell amid Quarrel, Several Injured/Naharnet
Historic Beirut Summit Brings Together Abdullah, Assad, Suleiman to Defuse Tensions/Naharnet
Lebanon Hosts Syrian and Saudi Leaders Friday/Voice of America
Obama renews asset freeze of people undermining Lebanon/AFP
U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Reaffirms Commitment to Help Lebanon Counter Extremism/Naharnet
Hizbullah Slams U.S. General Remarks: He Aims to Spur Civil Strife/Naharnet
Obama Renews Asset Freeze of People 'Undermining' Lebanon/Naharnet
Williams: Visit of Abdullah, Assad Beneficial for Lebanon's Future/Naharnet
Moussa: Visits of Arab Leaders Aimed at Backing Lebanon/Naharnet
STL's Issawi Rejects Hizbullah 'Politically Motivated' Charges: Office of the Prosecutor will Issue an Indictment when it is Ready/Naharnet
Qassem: Tribunal Indictment is a Project of Strife/Naharnet
Al-Mashnouq: Accusations against STL have No Legal Basis, Tripartite Summit Guarantee for Lebanon's Stability/Naharnet
Canada jails man for attempting nuclear exports to Iran/AFP
Hariri hit suspect is Hizbullah bigwig/Jerusalem Post
Lebanon facing crisis if Hizbollah charged over political murder/Telegraph
U.N. envoy discusses Lebanese stability/UPI
US to boost LAF aid 'to counter Syria, Hizbullah'/Daily Star
Arab intelligence agencies too busy protecting regimes/Haaretz
Saudi king comes to Syria amid regional tensions, heated rhetoric about Hezbollah/The Canadian Press
Syria Blasts US "Interference"/CBS
Key events in Lebanon-Syria ties since 2005/Gulf News
UN leader hails landmark ban on cluster munitions/AFP

Abdullah, Assad Urge Lebanese to Avoid Resorting to Violence
Naharnet/Visiting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Saudi King Abdullah on Friday urged Lebanese parties to avoid resorting to violence in the face of mounting political tensions in the country. "The leaders stressed the importance of stability... the commitment (of the Lebanese) not to resort to violence and the need to place the country's interests above all sectarian interests," said a communiqué issued by the Lebanese presidency after a mini-summit between the two leaders and President Michel Suleiman.
The statement also stressed the need to "resort to legal institutions and Lebanon's unity government to resolve any differences."
The Syrian president and Saudi monarch made the hours-long visit to Lebanon in a bid to defuse tensions over reports of an impending indictment against members of Hizbullah for former premier Rafik Hariri's murder. The communiqué urged Lebanese parties to "pursue the path of appeasement and dialogue and to boost national unity in the face of outside threats," referring to Israel. The Saudi and Syrian leaders said they stood in solidarity with Lebanon "in the face of Israel's daily violations of its sovereignty and its attempts to destabilize the country."
Asked about the outcome of the brief talks as he left the presidential palace, the Syrian leader gave a thumbs up and said: "The discussions were excellent."
Assad was visiting Lebanon for the first time since Hariri's assassination soured bilateral ties and forced the pullout of Syrian troops from Lebanon after a 29-year presence.
Damascus has consistently denied accusations it had a hand in the killing. Relations between the two countries have been on the mend since 2008, when diplomatic ties were established for the first time. Prime Minister Saad Hariri, son of the slain Sunni leader, has also made four trips to Syria in the past eight months. Saudi Arabia, a staunch supporter of the Hariri family, has played a key role in the rapprochement between the Arab neighbors. Abdullah and Assad arrived together from Damascus aboard the king's plane at around 2:00 pm. After a welcoming ceremony at the airport in which Suleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri, Premier Saad Hariri, cabinet members and other officials took part, the two Arab leaders headed to Baabda palace for summit talks. Abdullah, Assad and Suleiman held brief talks at the airport guest hall before heading to Baabda. The expanded talks that followed the summit were attended by Foreign Minister Ali al-Shami, his Syrian and Saudi counterparts Walid al-Muallem and Saud al-Faisal respectively, Syrian presidential advisor Buthaina Shaaban, and head of the Saudi intelligence service Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz. Saudi and Syrian flags were being flown throughout the Lebanese capital on Friday for the unprecedented joint visit, along with huge portraits of the king together with a welcome message. Security was also tight, with additional army and police deployed. The expanded talks were followed by a lunch banquet in honor of King Abdullah and President Assad, in attendance of a number of ministers, MPs, high-ranking military and security officials, and a number of Arab and foreign ministers. The Phalange Party was the most notable absentee although Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea was also uninvited. However, LF MP Strida Geagea attended the banquet. MPs of the Phalange Party, which is headed by former president Amin Gemayel, decided to boycott the gathering after President Suleiman decided not to invite former Lebanese presidents, hence Gemayel, heads of political parties who are not MPs, and religious leaders. In addition to attending the summit at the presidential palace, the Saudi monarch paid a brief visit to Hariri's Center House in downtown Beirut where he met with religious leaders and other officials. For his part, Assad held talks with Speaker Berri at the Baabda Palace while Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, who accompanied Assad to Beirut, met there separately with several Hizbullah deputies.(Naharnet-AFP) Beirut, 30 Jul 10,

Inmates Set Fire to Roumieh Prison Cell amid Quarrel, Several Injured
Naharnet/Inmates set fire to a cell at the juvenile wing of Roumieh prison amid a quarrel Friday that left several of them wounded. The Rapid Intervention Force of the Internal Security Forces encircled the location and called in firefighting vehicles. Media reports said that the ISF Leopards Commando Unit managed to contain the quarrel. Beirut, 30 Jul 10,

Historic Beirut Summit Brings Together
bdullah, Assad, Suleiman to Defuse Tensions
Naharnet/Lebanon on Friday hosts a historic and fateful summit of regional leaders aimed at defusing tensions over reports of an impending indictment against Hizbullah members for the murder of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri. The meeting between President Michel Suleiman, Saudi King Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar Assad was hastily organized amid fears of Sunni-Shiite violence should the Special Tribunal for Lebanon implicate "rogue" Hizbullah members. Abdullah visited Beirut for the first time as Saudi king. He had attended the Arab summit in Beirut in 2002 when he was still crown prince. He became the first Saudi monarch to visit the country since 1957. As for Assad, he visited the Lebanese capital after an eight-year absence to consolidate the resumption of normal ties between the two countries following five years of tension that erupted after Hariri's assassination in February 2005. Abdullah and Assad arrived together from Damascus aboard the king's plane at around 2:00 pm. After a welcoming ceremony at the airport in which Suleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri, Premier Saad Hariri, cabinet members and other officials took part, the two Arab leaders headed to Baabda palace for summit talks. Abdullah, Assad and Suleiman held brief talks at the airport guest hall before heading to Baabda. The meeting between the three heads of state will also be attended by Berri, Hariri and members of the Saudi and Syrian delegations and their Lebanese counterparts. An Nahar newspaper said around 250 people have received invitations to attend a luncheon with the exception of some members of the national dialogue, former presidents, party leaders who are not lawmakers and religious officials. Phalange leader Amin Gemayel and Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea are among those who haven't been invited while former President Emile Lahoud received an invitation, An Nahar said. However, Baabda sources told LBC the presidential palace did not send an invitation to former presidents, including Gemayel and Lahoud, to attend the luncheon. According to An Nahar, Phalange MPs and ministers who have been invited to the luncheon will boycott the gathering.(Naharnet-AFP)
Beirut, 30 Jul 10, 08:00

The General in his maze
Hazem al-Amin, July 30, 2010
General Michel Aoun accused Egypt of interfering in Lebanon’s internal affairs following Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu al-Gheit’s statement that a return to “May 7” would be unacceptable. The general’s statement seems generously in favor of some states, alliances and parties. He thus overlooked Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Qatar, the states that are supposed to be taking part in the new settlement. He paid no heed to the Iranian Shura Council speaker who said that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon targets Iran and Lebanon. Likewise, he took no notice of the successive scheduled visits of Arab leaders who are supposedly coming to Beirut in order to provide an Arab cover for truce in the country … Only Abu al-Gheit’s statement amounted to interference in Lebanese affairs.
Lebanon is witnessing today an unsettled period on the regional level. Every detail on the domestic stage is under intense regional scrutiny. The postponed war in the South is a regional one, and so is the potential domestic strife, especially if we look back to the statements of Iran’s Shura Council Speaker, Ali Larijani, which did escape Michel Aoun’s attention and did not prompt him to consider them as interference in Lebanese affairs.
Only Abu al-Gheit’s statements were insufferable for the General. A little comedy is acceptable as the Lebanese hold their breath, as their fate hinges on the aftermath of the STL indictment. The General’s taking a jab at Egypt, comic though it is, is useful since, in that case, we would be in front of an illusory target that saves us from real targets. How else could we explain what the leader of the Change and Reform Bloc said? Indeed, Abu al-Gheit’s saying that a remake of “May 7” is unacceptable could be interpreted as interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs if it goes against Lebanon’s wishes, i.e. if Lebanon is willing to bring about a remake of “May 7,” whereas Egypt stands in the way of that wish. The negative interference in Lebanon’s affairs in that case is supposed to prevent the Lebanese from carrying out their wishes.
It does not end here, as the Egyptian foreign minister was one of those who least talked about the Lebanese situation and who kept as much as possible from delving into the details of the domestic situation. General Aoun knows that Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan has reportedly talked in his private circles about the municipal elections in Zahle. He also knows that the slogan “the South has won, thank you Qatar” hangs on both sides of the road leading to the Beirut International Airport. Egypt’s interference in Lebanese affairs is then totally meaningless.
Michel Aoun believes that he will recover his status when the tensions in Lebanon blow up and that he can exploit his allies’ “strength” to bolster his dwindling popularity. Aoun has let out several indications backing this theory over the past couple of weeks. First, he said he believes some parties on the domestic level are helping the Israelis prepare for their presumed war, and this amounts to a clear instigation against Christian parties. The General recently failed to suppress his underlying wish for a new “May 7”: He thus condemned Egypt’s objection of the remake of such an experience and interpreted it as interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs.
This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Friday July 30, 2010

Samir Geagea
July 30, 2010
On July 30, As-Safir daily carried the following report:
During a chat with journalists in Maarab, the Head of the Executive Committee of the Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea, called for the “need to wait for the results of the “S-S” formula in Lebanon and the entire region.” He added: “the data I have says that this formula has given everything that must be given and that all Lebanese teams must stay committed to calm and civil peace as no one can help them.”Answering a question, he said that the issue of false witnesses needs judicial references and an investigative judge in order to prove whether they are false witnesses or not. He stressed that “all the false witnesses in the Hariri assassination case are Syrians and the majority work for the Syrian Intelligence apparatuses starting with Hussam Hussam all the way to Zuhair al-Siddiq.” He concluded that the “sender” [of these false witnesses] is “the other team, with the aim of shaking up the investigation and spreading an unhealthy atmosphere.” He added: “the witness Hussam Hussam is present in Syria. If he indeed made a false testimony against his own country, shouldn’t he be arrested and questioned especially as his whereabouts are known?” He also called for “the need to wait for indictment in order for us all to get acquainted with it. In case the indictment turns out to be [erroneous] and not built on facts and proof, we will all reject it.” He suggested that Hezbollah, which is announcing a conspiracy for sedition, should warn us against it and invite us to sit together to discuss this indictment.” Geagea responded to MP General Michel Aoun's comments summoning him for investigation…by saying “General Aoun had a headache yesterday.” He also reminded Aoun of the celebration held by the Nationalist Party “… We saw a military parade last week during a celebration held by the party of former Minister Abdel-Rahim Murad. So why doesn’t the General ask for their transfer to the general Prosecution?”On the possibility of a difference between Syria’s and Hezbollah’s positions regarding the tribunal, Geagea saw no deep difference “because the Syrians are smarter than the Hezbollah guys and they announce their positions smoothly.” On the other hand, Geagea discussed the local and regional situations with the Egyptian Ambassador, Ahmad al-Bedawi. He also met with Michele Sison, the Ambassador of the United States in Lebanon. Geagea’s media bureau stated that the meeting parties discussed the issue of the international tribunal “that is absolutely supported by the USA because [the US] believes that [the tribunal] has high and prominent experience in judicial work...”

Is it goodbye, America?
Michael Young, July 30, 2010 /Now Lebanon
The Arab world might want to watch what happens now that WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to posting leaked sensitive documents online, has released secret American military field reports from the war in Afghanistan. What has resonated most is information that Pakistan, the United States’ purported ally in the war, has been coordinating with the Taliban frequently against the Americans.
Why should this matter to the Arabs? Because the single most destabilizing development in the Middle East during the past year and a half has been the American drawdown in Iraq – one that is even more psychological than political and military. And to witness a replication of this in Afghanistan due to declining support for the war, which the information provided by WikiLeaks can only exacerbate, would have a significant impact on the broader region.
That’s not to suggest that Washington should maintain its forces indefinitely in Iraq, and the withdrawal that must be completed by the end of this month will still leave behind up to 50,000 military personnel. But the United States under President Barack Obama has revised its ambitions in the region, downwards. The administration has many objectives, but also no clear strategy binding these together. Its minimalism in Iraq has created a vacuum, one the Arab states and Iran are competing to fill. The end result will define the Gulf region, and beyond, for years to come, yet the unavoidable conclusion is that the Americans are not proactively shaping this process.
Which leads us to Afghanistan. There, too, an ill-thought-out American retreat will have grave regional consequences. The Obama administration is losing confidence in its Afghan venture, which is hardly surprising, and the moral of the story as provided by WikiLeaks shows why: The Americans simply cannot win the conflict if Pakistan is working against them, in its own bid to bring much of Afghanistan once again under Islamabad’s thumb.
This week, David Ignatius of the Washington Post examined the WikiLeaks affair, writing that it “has been damaging partly because it came at a time when the Washington mood about Afghanistan was darkening … White House officials talk these days about seeking an ‘acceptable endstate’ in Afghanistan, rather than victory.”
And what does this endstate entail? “[A] patchwork process that brings greater security through a stronger Afghan national army and police, plus the tribally based ‘local police.’ The crucial driver will be a political process of reconciliation, brokered partly by Pakistan.”
For those who followed the twists and turns of American thinking on Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, this will sound familiar. At the time, the Bush administration also found itself adrift in the face of a stubborn insurgency, and imagined that the solution lay in building up the Iraqi army and police force. Like Obama’s team today, it considered that American salvation in Iraq might require ceding more room to the country’s neighbors to pacify the situation, an approach notably expressed in the Iraq Study Group report.
To his credit, President George W. Bush was never convinced by this rationale, perhaps because he realized that the neighbors were the ones most responsible for Iraq’s travails. It was always unlikely that they would reach an agreement that could be to the benefit of the Iraqis. This truth now applies just as well to the Afghans. Pakistan, like overbearing geographical neighbors anywhere, holds the keys to some problems in Afghanistan; but because of the enmity it elicits among neighborhood rivals, not to say among powerful Afghan ethnic groups, Islamabad cannot possibly impose order on its own.
Washington seems blithely unaware of what is going on. For many officials in the American capital, talk of a United States in retreat is absurd. The Obama administration is involved in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, you will hear them say; it remains a player in Iraq, and is working harder than ever to contain Iran. That may be true, but is also misleading. Talks between the Palestinians and Israelis are going nowhere, and the administration will avoid redoubling its efforts if failure becomes inevitable. In Iraq, the Americans have been largely invisible during the government-formation process.
As for Iran, it’s true that Washington has tightened sanctions on the regime, in conjunction with its European allies. However, the primary motive, and quite understandably, has been to avoid being drawn into a military conflict with Tehran. In other words, the administration is doing its best to more fully avoid the region’s tribulations, once again interpreting its political mandate in a modest way. Some, of course, may welcome this. However, that’s not the point. The broader Middle East has been accustomed to the reality of American power for six decades, creating some sort of political balance, albeit at times a debilitating one. When Washington doesn’t fulfill its role a free-for-all ensues. We should brace ourselves for more modesty from Washington, and the headaches that will accompany it. **Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut. His book, The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle (Simon & Schuster), was recently published.

Yes, yes…but
July 29, 2010 /Now Lebanon
Friday’s three way mini-summit in Beirut hosted by Lebanese President Michel Sleiman and attended by King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria (they may even travel together on the same plane) and Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani I (who brokered the 2008 Doha Agreement), is many things to many people.
On the face of it, it is a united Arab front (Egypt appears to have already given its blessing) against Hezbollah and its Iranian backers. Much has changed since the remarkable dinner in Damascus, hosted by Assad, at which the guests of honor were Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, leaving no one in any doubt who had first dibs for seats at the region’s top table.
But that was then, and the Middle East’s tectonic plates have since shifted. Iran is increasingly isolated and heading for more censure from the UN, and Turkey has moved closer to the action, attracting the attentions of both Saudi Arabia and Syria. Hezbollah, in the meantime, is feeling the heat. It has come under scrutiny from the international justice system just as it might be required to fight a war with its archenemy Israel, either on behalf of Iran or in response to a preemptive strike by Tel Aviv.
The fears (not to mention the threats) of Hezbollah-inspired civil violence such as we witnessed on May 7, 2008, or even a fully-fledged coup d’état to prevent indictments by the Special Tribunal, have pushed King Abdullah and President Assad to formally solemnize the understanding reached at the end of 2009 that appeared to underwrite the government of Saad Hariri.
It is a move that, on the face of it, we should welcome. Hezbollah has discarded all pretence of being a mature partner in government by its childish posturing and its cynical attempts to undermine state and international institutions by spreading fear and suspicion among its constituents and the general population. A party that is predicated on conflict and intolerance – “anyone who supports the tribunal is an Israeli agent” – must be brought to heel, and Nasrallah will be worried by the fact that Assad will not see him, at least not officially, when he comes to town. This is all very well. But let us consider the calculations. Saudi Arabia wants to secure its man in Beirut and at the same time, if not draw Damascus out of Iran’s orbit, at least give it a glimpse of what the friendship of Riyadh can mean to a country in need of economic help. Much has been said, most recently on this site, on the rock-solid nature of Syria’s relationship with Iran and how one must not be fooled by what is in all likelihood a temporary glitch. But Syria is in full-on survival mode and feathering its nest for a future that will either see Iran in isolation, at war or under new management. Where does this leave Lebanon? While we welcome the support from the Arab community, we hope that Lebanon will not once again be the victim of a regional deal. Syria has done nothing in the last five years to show that it has changed its attitude toward Lebanon, and by that we mean that it still sees the country as a lost province whose rightful place is within the larger Syrian fold. When the original deal over Lebanon was brokered at the end of 2009, Syria negotiated one foot in Lebanon’s door by ensuring that the so-called national-unity government was in reality one in which Damascus had a stake. There is nothing to suggest that Syria would never send its tanks rolling over the border once again, perhaps even as an excuse to restore stability after a war (possibly one in which it had a hand in starting). There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Syria still wants Hezbollah to treat it, and not Iran, as its main patron and may be maneuvering precisely to achieve this end. So yes, Hezbollah may have overplayed its hand, and yes there appears to be Arab cover for Lebanon, but at what price?

Williams: Visit of Abdullah, Assad Beneficial for Lebanon's Future
Naharnet/U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams described the visits of Saudi King Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar Assad to Beirut on Friday as "historic" and "beneficial" for the country's stability. "The visit of these Arab heads of state will be enormously important and beneficial for Lebanon's stability and future," Williams said following talks with Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun in Rabiyeh. "They have very important contributions to make in that regard, and I warmly welcome the engagement of Lebanon's partners and friends," he said. Williams hoped that the engagement of regional countries together with the efforts of President Michel Suleiman, Aoun and other leaders would play an important role "in resolving the issues that face Lebanon and bring stability for the coming months."
Asked about a draft law on civil rights to Palestinians, the diplomat said: "I believe everybody is now approaching this in a constructive and positive manner and, in particular, looking for advances with the regard to the right of work for Palestinians."
On whether he thought that giving civil rights to Palestinians was a first step in settling them in Lebanon, Williams told reporters: "No, I think this is completely different and separate altogether. I think it would be for the benefit of Palestinians but also for Lebanon if Palestinians are given, accorded the right to work." "We are not sure (yet) which way events will evolve," he said about the reported indictment of Hizbullah members by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. "Obviously we're very concerned about some of the tensions that have taken place here, and we want to see if those can be settled. I believe they can," Williams added. Beirut, 30 Jul 10, 13:27

Moussa: Visits of Arab Leaders Aimed at Backing Lebanon
Naharnet/Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa described the visits of Saudi King Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar Assad to Beirut as positive and aimed at stressing Arab support for Lebanon. "The visits of Arab leaders to Lebanon are positive and aimed at stressing Arab support for Lebanon," Moussa told pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat in remarks published Friday. "Lebanon is not alone and will not be left alone in the face of any negative developments or any attacks," he said  "During their visits to Beirut, the Arab leaders speak in the name of all Arabs in their willingness to support Lebanon," Moussa added. Beirut, 30 Jul 10, 09:06

Qassem: Tribunal Indictment is a Project of Strife
Naharnet/Hizbullah deputy leader Sheikh Naim Qassem said reports about the international tribunal's indictment of the Shiite group's members are part of efforts to weaken the resistance. The indictment is "a project of strife," Qassem said Thursday. This month Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah assailed the court as an "Israeli project" after saying he had received word that it planned to indict members of his group in connection with ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's killing. "The Arab leaders' visit to Lebanon is an opportunity to show Arab unity in the face of this plot which aims to destabilize Lebanon and sow sedition," Hizbullah deputy Hassan Fadlallah told Agence France Presse. "This would not be in the interest of the Lebanese or their Arab brothers."(Naharnet-AFP) Beirut, 30 Jul 10, 09:41

U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Reaffirms Commitment to Help Lebanon Counter Extremism
Naharnet/Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Michael Vickers reaffirmed U.S. commitment to providing the Lebanese army's special operations forces with the advanced training and equipment necessary to counter extremism inside Lebanon, the U.S. embassy said in a statement. It said the equipment also help the government in extending Lebanon's authority throughout the country's territory. During his visit to Beirut, Vickers will meet with Defense Minister Elias Murr, Army chief Gen. Jean Qahwaji and LAF Special Operations Forces. The embassy statement said Vickers noted that over the past year the Department of Defense provided nearly $7 million dollars in training and equipment to LAF special operations forces.
He made visits to Roumieh and Amchit to talk with LAF special operations soldiers and officers, who displayed their new equipment and demonstrated unit capabilities during live-fire exercises. The assistant secretary also attended with Ambassador Michele Sison an annual reception hosted by the U.S. Department of Defense's Near East and Southeast Asia (NESA) Center which brought together over one hundred LAF officers who are alumni of NESA sponsored executive seminars and training. Beirut, 30 Jul 10, 11:02

Hizbullah Slams U.S. General Remarks: He Aims to Spur Civil Strife
Naharnet/Hizbullah on Thursday snapped back at General James Mattis -- President Barack Obama's nominee to lead the U.S. Central Command after the sacking of General David Petraeus – over his recent remarks on U.S. "support for the Lebanese Army to enable it of countering the influence of Hizbullah and Syria." "He aims to spur civil strife among the Lebanese and with their brothers through attempting to pit Hizbullah and Syria in a confrontation against Lebanon and the Lebanese," Hizbullah said in a communiqué.
Such statements "demonstrate the level of the blatant U.S. intervention in Lebanese affairs, as well as the level of meddling in Lebanon's relations with its brothers, particularly with a state with which Lebanon has special and solid brotherly ties," the party went on to say. The party reminded the U.S. general that "Hizbullah is an essential internal component of the Lebanese social fabric and that the attempts of the U.S. administration will not succeed in pitting the Lebanese against each other to serve its own interests.""Lebanon is neither a U.S. colony nor a military base on which Washington imposes what it wants in a bid to achieve its interests that are identical to the interests of the Zionist enemy." Beirut, 29 Jul 10, 20:14

STL's Issawi Rejects Hizbullah 'Politically Motivated' Charges: Office of the Prosecutor will Issue an Indictment when it is Ready
Naharnet/The Special Tribunal for Lebanon on Thursday rejected charges by Hizbullah that its work is politically motivated. "Experience of other international tribunals has shown that the results of the work of such institutions speak for themselves and contradict the unsubstantiated allegations of hostile interference," Fatima Issawi, spokeswoman for the STL said Thursday. "We are convinced that this will also happen in the case of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon," she added. Asked about the anticipated indictment which has become a controversial topic in Lebanon, Issawi said: "It would be quite unhelpful to add to the existing speculations. The Office of the Prosecutor will issue an indictment when it is ready."Answering a question on the probability of Hizbullah or the Lebanese government refusing to hand over any possible indicted suspects, Issawi stressed that the government had an obligation to respond to the tribunal's requests. "Though we certainly hope it would not come to that, the absence of an accused will not prevent the tribunal from conducting proceedings and examining evidence against those who may be indicted," Issawi said. "The final results of STL's work, rather than unfounded allegations or speculation, can be the only basis for assessing its effectiveness," STL's spokeswoman answered to a question on whether Hizbullah's allegations had affected the tribunal's credibility. As to media reports about a possible funding problem STL would face soon, Issawi said: "So far there has been no indication that funding will be reduced in any way." Beirut, 29 Jul 10, 16:45

Al-Mashnouq: Accusations against STL have No Legal Basis, Tripartite Summit Guarantee for Lebanon's Stability
Naharnet/MP Nouhad al-Mashnouq said Thursday that the Lebanese-Saudi-Syrian summit is a "major Arab guarantee for Lebanon's stability."
He described Saudi King Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's visit to Lebanon on Friday as an historic event that would present the necessary guarantees to all sides and help them better understand the nature of the visit. He added that Prime Minister Saad Hariri's initiatives towards Syria have turned the Syrian leadership into an honest mediator that deals with all Lebanese powers, "but this does not indicate a change in Syria's stance towards the Resistance." Addressing the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Mashnouq said: "The tribunal is an international authority … and all assumptions and accusations against it are exaggerations that have no legal or constitutional basis." Beirut, 29 Jul 10, 18:09

Obama renews asset freeze of people undermining Lebanon
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hO7cPi_ijylWyUgk8Ol-8YYi53wQ
(AFP) – WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama renewed an emergency measure Thursday to freeze the assets of persons who work with Hezbollah militants and "infringe upon" Lebanese stability.
"While there have been some recent positive developments in the Syrian-Lebanese relationship, continuing arms transfers to Hezbollah that include increasingly sophisticated weapons systems serve to undermine Lebanese sovereignty," Obama said in a message to Congress. Obama said the national emergency measures declared on August 1, 2007, must "continue in effect beyond August 1, 2010." The original executive order under president George W. Bush, continued by Obama, found that threats against Lebanese stability and moves to restore Syria's former dominant influence there presented an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."The statement came hours after confirmation Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will visit Beirut on Friday for a summit aimed at easing tensions in Lebanon, in his first visit since the 2005 assassination of Lebanese ex-premier Rafiq Hariri that forced the pullout of Syrian troops after a 29-year presence.Syria, also accused of backing Hezbollah, was widely believed to have a hand in the killing but has consistently denied any involvement.
Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Canada jails man for attempting nuclear exports to Iran
MONTREAL (AFP) - A Canadian court on Thursday sentenced a Toronto man to four years and three months prison for attempting to export dual-use nuclear-related items to Iran, in violation of UN resolutions. Mahmoud Yadegari was sentenced in the Ontario Court of Justice to 20 months in jail, as well as the 15.5 months of pre-sentence custody, Canada's public prosecution service said in a statement. "Because the court granted double credit for pre-sentence custody, this amounts to a four-year, three-month sentence," the statement read.
Prosecutors were seeking 6.5 years prison for Yadegari, 37, who was born in Iran but has been living in Canada since 1988. On March 4, 2009, Yadegari "attempted to export controlled material to Iran" via Dubai, read the statement. "The goods, known as pressure transducers, are subject to a United Nations embargo on nuclear-related exports to Iran."
The items, it said, "are also on Canada's Export Control List."Yadegari was arrested in April 2009 following a two-month investigation carried out jointly with US officials.
He was found guilty on July 6 of nine out of 10 charges, including offences under the Customs Act, the United Nations Act, and the Criminal Code.Yadegari is the first person convicted of violating UN anti-nuclear proliferation resolutions against the Tehran regime, Crown prosecutor Bradley Reitz said earlier. Western powers believe that Iran is building nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, a charge Tehran vehemently denies

US to boost LAF aid 'to counter Syria, Hizbullah'
By The Daily Star
Friday, July 30, 2010
BEIRUT: The US will boost the capabilities of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to balance against the influence of Syria and Hizbullah in Lebanon, As-Safir newspaper quoted a senior US Army official as saying on Thursday. According to the newspaper, the remarks were made by General James Mattis, who will succeed General David Petraeus as the Head of the US Central Command. When answering a number of written questions he received from members of the US Armed Forces Committee, Mattis said the relations between the Central Command and the Lebanese Army focused on building the latter’s capabilities “to preserve internal stability and protect borders.” Mattis stressed he would continue such a policy when he assumes office, outlining seven objectives for his move. These are: defending borders and maintaining security, strong air support and accurate deliverance, special operations, establishing a safe national defense, telecommunications engineering, enhancing protected military mobility, improving training programs and military facilities, and developing military logistic aid engineering.
Asked whether US military aid should boost its anti-terrorist capabilities or work on building the Lebanese Army’s institutions, Mattis stressed that the Lebanese Army was a “non-political institution.” “I believe it will be fruitful to focus on building the capabilities of LAF to balance against the influence of Syria and Hizbullah,” he said. Mattis will appear before the US armed forces committee during House of Senate sessions that will see the approving of his appointment. He also noted that combating terrorism was one of the announced goals of the Lebanese Army, besides defending and securing borders, preserving internal security and stability along with supporting social development. He stressed that he would proceed with efforts aimed at meeting those goals. “A strong and effective LAF constitutes a pillar for the stability of the Lebanese Cabinet on which Lebanese citizens can rely, the fact clearly demonstrated during the conflict of Nahr al-Bared camp in 2007,” said Mattis. Armed clashes broke out between the Lebanese Army and members of Fatah al-Islam Islamist movement during summer 2007, from which the army emerged victorious. Mattis acknowledged that such a process would be time-consuming, but added that there was a mutual agreement between Lebanon and the Central Command which enabled the implementation of the assigned objectives. Answering a question about the interest of US national security in Lebanon, Mattis asserted that the first goal was to help Lebanon in maintaining a democratic government providing a fair representation of the country’s 18 religious sects. “The second goal is [protecting] the sovereignty of Lebanon that is being challenged by Hizbullah via activities undermining stability,” added Mattis. “The current national unity Cabinet embraces Hizbullah which is blacklisted by the US as a foreign terrorist organization.” Asked how the US would deal with a Lebanese Cabinet in which Hizbullah participated, Mattis said the Central Command was focusing on the “ground level, that is on the Lebanese Army, in line with the US adopted policy.” – The Daily Star

Beirut summit unlikely to resolve basic differences
understanding among leaders could still help to defuse situation, say analysts
By Michael Bluhm /Daily Star staff
Friday, July 30, 2010
BEIRUT: While Friday’s summit in Beirut will likely focus on easing tensions here, it will not resolve the fundamental difference over the international tribunal among Lebanon’s factions, while the meeting will also help cement Syria’s resurgent position in Lebanon, a number of analysts told The Daily Star on Thursday.
“There will be an understanding on defusing the situation,” said Oussama Safa, executive director of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies. “There is a very strong interest in keeping things cool in Lebanon. It’s a very positive meeting. It will probably continue the renewed commitment to the Doha accord.”
Saudi King Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar Assad will confer with President Michel Sleiman and other local leaders at Baabda Palace on Friday, in a move to restore some stability here after Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said last week his group would reject any indictment of its members by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Support for the tribunal’s investigation of the 2005 assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri has long been a cornerstone of the March 14 political coalition, which is led by his son, Prime Minister Saad Hariri.
While declarations after the Abdullah-Assad summit will highlight calm and confidence, the continuing uncertainty over the looming tribunal indictment means that Friday will probably not mark a new Doha accord, said Paul Salem, head of the Carnegie Middle East Center. The March 14 camp and the Hizbullah-led March 8 alliance signed a deal in the Qatar capital in May 2008 to end days of civil strife, establish a unity cabinet and elect Sleiman.
“We’re in a pre-Doha phase,” Salem said. “We’re at the beginning of a period of rising tension, where there are two positions that are [opposed] to each other.” At the same time, Salem added, the situation remains rather peaceful despite the widely expected prospect that the tribunal will charge Hizbullah members with complicity in Hariri’s killing; members of Hizbullah and Saad Hariri’s Future Movement continue to work together in the Cabinet, although the possibility of Hizbullah’s implication has long been the worst fear of many in the March 14 faction, Salem said.
“Things are remarkably calm for what is a worst-case scenario,” he added.
Nevertheless, in spite of whatever accommodation springs from Friday’s meeting, the basic and seemingly intractable division over the tribunal will persist, said Hilal Khashan, who teaches political studies at the American University of Beirut. For Hizbullah, the court is an Israeli plot, while the Future Movement and its March 14 partners have not wavered in their respect for the tribunal, Khashan added.
Abdullah and Assad “cannot reconcile Hizbullah’s position with the position of the Future Movement on the matter,” Khashan said. “You have a division on a matter of principle.”
Friday’s air of bonhomie will also do little to alleviate Hariri’s unenviable position – if he accepts a potential indictment of Hizbullah members, he would rile Hizbullah, while rejecting an indictment would mean alienating his political partners, his mostly Sunni constituents and the international community, said retired General Elias Hanna, who teaches political science at various universities. “He is in a lose-lose situation,” Hanna said.
For Assad, meanwhile, the summit represents a milestone in the Arab world’s “recognizing and legitimizing Syrian control in Lebanon,” Khashan said.
Abdullah met with Assad in Damascus on Thursday before proceeding to Lebanon. Syria fell into Arab disfavor after Rafik Hariri’s February 2005 assassination; many in the March 14 coalition have accused Damascus of involvement in the killing, but Syria has always categorically denied any role in the crime. Mass demonstrations in Beirut in the weeks after the assassination led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops after a 29-year presence in Lebanon.
“Syria has won a new mandate in Lebanon,” Khashan added. “The next weeks will show everyone that Syria is returning to Lebanon.”
Syria’s return to prominence in Lebanon also illustrates how Damascus has become the nexus of the region’s geopolitics, Khashan said. After years of international isolation following suspicions in Hariri’s assassination, the Saudis have entered a rapprochement with Syria, while Khashan said he expected an Egyptian-Syrian rapprochement to begin soon, as Turkey also courts Damascus.
“Syria has become a regional prize,” Khashan added. “Everyone wants to be on the good side with Syria. Syria is cardinal within the region.”
The harmony expected to be in evidence on Friday also marks a turnaround in the regional atmosphere, Salem said. With Ankara and Cairo joining Abdullah’s new collaboration with Syria, a new era has taken root of regional actors working together to address regional issues – with the US and Iran largely on the sidelines, Salem added.
“The regional dynamic is one of cooperation, whereas three years ago it was one of outright confrontation,” he said.
While these latest regional developments mirrored in Friday’s summit appear to be an encouraging sign, they do little to clarify how the coming phase will play out in Lebanon, Khashan said. For example, Syria’s regaining much influence here leaves Hizbullah “confused,” because the two allies have had shaky moments in their relationship – Hizbullah senior commander Imad Mughniyeh was assassinated while visiting Damascus in 2008 – and their interests are not always identical, Khashan added.
In the end, regardless of whatever deal might be reached on Friday, and regardless of how much sway Syria recoups in Lebanon, Hizbullah’s response to any tribunal indictment will largely determine the course of events in Lebanon, Khashan said. Although the tribunal has consistently refrained from giving any information about whether Hizbullah – or anyone else – has been a target of its investigation, tribunal President Antonio Cassese told The Daily Star in May that he was expecting the court’s prosecutor to file a request for indictment between September and December. “The question is, does Hizbullah want to keep the peace or not?” Khashan asked. “The ball is in Hizbullah’s court. Hizbullah will decide the next move in Lebanon.”

Thoughts From Tehran
Barry Gewen
http://www.tnr.com/blog/foreign-policy/76656/iran-muslim-brotherhood-zionism-hezbollah
Barry Gewenview bioThoughts From Tehran Afghanistan Without Illusions Why Do British Conservatives Treat Deficits So Differently? July 29, 2010 | 2:05 pm
2 comments |MorePrint.More From this Author
Gewen: Why There Is Actually Hope for Democracy in Afghanistan
Why Do British Conservatives Treat Deficits So Differently?We were all dreamers then. When we overthrew the Shah, we thought a bright new age had dawned. Tyranny had been defeated and soon we would vanquish all the secularists, Westernizers, imperialists, and Zionists. Our glorious revolution would be the model for millions, not only in the Middle East but among Muslims everywhere. Islam would be restored to its rightful place at the center of people’s lives, and piety would replace politics. Some of us even imagined that all the prophecies of the Koran were about to come true.
Such dreams. Could we not have seen that Arabs would never follow Persians, and that Sunnis would not consider a Shia revolution to be a true Islamic revolution? We are not a vanguard, as it turns out. Instead, we are dangerously isolated, with enemies on every side. And so we have worked very hard to find allies—but what allies are these!
Bashar Assad is completely unreliable, a sheer opportunist. He would make a deal with the Zionists tomorrow if it suited him. Fortunately, he continues to hope for a Greater Syria, a Syria that strides across the world stage instead of the puny state that it is. It’s good for us that his reach exceeds his grasp. But if reality ever seized his fevered mind, he could abandon us as quickly as he has abandoned his other allies when it has suited his purposes.
Hamas? Let us not kid ourselves. They would hate us if they didn’t need us. And if the Muslim Brotherhood takes control of Egypt, the Palestinians of Hamas are certain to discover their true feelings about Persian Shiites.
In Iraq Bush did us a favor by getting rid of that atheistic dictator Saddam Hussein and bringing in a Shia government. There’s no question that our influence in Iraq is greater than when that Sunni slaughterer of millions was threatening us. And yet what kind of Shiites are these Iraqis? Did they rise up when Saddam waged war against us for eight long years in the 1980s? No, they were loyal subjects to our greatest enemy and fought by his side in his brutal war of aggression against us. They have proved one thing to us: They are Arabs before they are Muslims.
Praise be to Allah for Hezbollah in Lebanon! They are genuine friends, pious Shiites committed to ridding the region of the Zionist entity. They remind me so much of what we were like when our revolution was young, and we must do whatever we can to assure that they remain strong.
And yet we must face the truth: This is an alliance not of strength but of weakness. Hezbollah cannot stand on its own—they would barely exist without our money and arms. They will never be able to take control of Lebanon simply because no one can—the country is divided into too many sects and sub-sects. Even I can’t fathom them all. Besides, the Zionists and Western powers would never permit a Hezbollah takeover; and our great “ally” Assad would probably oppose it as well.
What’s worse, should our imperialist or Zionist enemies ever attack us militarily, we can’t be sure Hebollah would fight with us. We could ask them to fire rockets into the Zionist entity, but would they risk the inevitable retaliation and do it? It’s important to them, and to their credibility in Lebanon, that they be seen as Lebanese patriots, not proxies for us and our interests. It’s good for us that they are willing to harass the Zionists, even to the point of waging hopeless war against them (what is the Western phrase? “Useful idiots”) but we can’t ask more of them, nor can we expect them to provide more for us if it endangers their own country.
No, if we remain clear-headed, if we refuse to dream, we have to accept that in this perilous world we are alone, utterly alone. And here we can learn from the Zionists: When you are isolated and surrounded by enemies, your best friend is a nuclear weapon.
Of course our enemies want to deny us this ultimate security. I would be surprised if they said anything else. But when I read the debates in the West about how to stop our nuclear program, I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. The fools! Can’t they see that nothing will stop us? The Zionists have the bomb. So do the Americans, sitting to our west in Baghdad, and our eternal enemies the Russians, to the north. The Hindus have the bomb and even those unruly barbarians the Pakistanis have it. We are a great, a noble civilization, over 3,000 years old, and in our region especially, a civilization can only be great if it possesses nuclear weapons. No Iranian patriot denies this. Even President Ahmadinejad’s opponents understand that Iran needs the bomb.
This is a question of both national pride and national security. Our enemies continue to propose sanctions against us, and then even more sanctions, but they are fooling themselves if they think economic deprivation would cause us to change course. The crazier ones speak of the possibility of military action and some of the craziest demand it, because they claim that if we had the bomb we would promptly use it against the Zionist entity. This is the talk of fanaticism, of people unable to view the world from any point of view but their own. They really seem to believe that our leaders would sacrifice millions of Iranians to an inevitable nuclear retaliation, that in effect they would turn our entire country into one large suicide bomber.
But what would be the point when everyone knows that in a generation or two, Zionism will be finished? Before long, the Palestinians will outnumber the Jews, and the empty claim of democracy will be revealed as a sham. The Zionists have already lost most of their friends in Europe, and their Muslim friend, Turkey; in America the anti-Zionists are steadily gaining ground, even, we are told, among American Jews. It’s only a matter of time. All we have to do is keep the pressure on, and sit and wait.
Yet the crazies in the West could prevail. At the end of the day, perhaps after the next American presidential election, Washington and Tel Aviv could decide to bomb our facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak, take out our factories and missile bases, even target universities to kill our scientists. And what will they have accomplished? They will not destroy our nuclear program, only delay it for a few years—and at the cost of a possible all-out war that nobody could win, a never-ending war that would require them to stage raid after raid year after year as we rebuilt. When I try to think of the consequences if the Zionists or the Americans bombed us, my mind reels.
Still, I cannot deny, Allah forgive me, that a part of me wishes they would bomb us. Our revolution has grown feeble. We are being forced to use ever harsher measures to suppress our opponents. The young are increasingly seduced by the hedonistic, decadent West; they take us seriously only when they experience the pain we can inflict in Evin prison. Sometimes, I think we are losing, that Islam is losing, and that everything we have worked for, sacrificed for, is coming to nothing. It’s at such moments as these that I wish for the bombs.
For if our “forms of persuasion” can’t bring the young back to the revolution, surely the bombs of the Zionists or the imperialists would. I can imagine no more effective means of solidifying public support for one, two, maybe three generations than Western aggression. Even today, after all, the fallen Mosadegh is spoken of reverently in the streets of Tehran. How much more powerful would be the memory of thousands of innocent martyrs who would lose their lives to the aggressors’ bombs?
But then another question immediately presents itself. What will happen when we get the bomb—what then? This is a formidable question indeed. Our enemies, even in the umma, would not sit back quietly. Even now, many in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States are urging the Zionists to bomb us. Certainly, an Iranian bomb would induce them to start up their own nuclear programs, and here we are truly caught on the horns of a dilemma: The effort to make us more secure could end up making us less secure. It’s a paradox, to be sure.
But perhaps it’s a paradox with a solution. What if we did everything to develop a nuclear weapon except take the final step, or what is called making the final twist of the screwdriver? Or what if we do what the Zionists have done all these years and build up an arsenal without ever acknowledging our nuclear capability? The Zionists play a parlor game in which no one is fooled. Still, it’s a game that has forestalled a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East. Why couldn’t we do the same? We will have to think all this through, and ponder very carefully. It may be that we have a great deal to learn from the Jews.
**Barry Gewen has been an editor at The New York Times Book Review for over 20 years. He has written frequently for The Book Review, as well as for other sections of The Times. His essays have also appeared in World Affairs, The American Interest,World Policy Journal, and Dissent.

Illusion and reality clash in Lebanon
By JONATHAN SPYER
07/29/2010 17:29
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=183090
Initially, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon probing the murder of Rafik Hariri focused on Syria as the culprit. Lately, indications suggest that the main focus of the investigation is now on Hizbullah.
Tension is currently rising in Lebanon, amid reports that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is to issue indictments in the coming months. The tribunal is tasked with investigating the 2005 murder of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Earlier this year, its president, Antonio Cassese, said he expected that indictments would be issued at some stage between September and December.
The Hariri tribunal has followed a long and winding path since its formation shortly after the murder, which took place on February 14, 2005. In its initial period, it was expected that its main angle of investigation would focus on the Syrians. Hariri was known as a defender of Lebanese sovereignty and therefore a natural adversary of the Syrian regime.
The latest indications, however, suggest that the main focus of the investigation is now on Hizbullah. This has led some Lebanon watchers to raise the specter of possible renewed civil strife in the country. Others have suggested that the prospect of indictments represents a serious dent in Hizbullah and Iran’s power in the country. Neither of these claims, however, holds water.
The first claim rests on the idea that if Hizbullah is indicted for the murder of Rafik Hariri, this will place Saad Hariri – current prime minister and son of the murdered man – on a collision course with it.
But for a civil war, you need two sides. In 2008, it was the effective capitulation of Hariri and his March 14 movement which averted conflict. This time around, Hariri has even fewer options and this makes renewed confrontation less likely.
In a press conference last week, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that he had been personally informed by Hariri that the tribunal would accuse some “undisciplined members” of Hizbullah (i.e. not the movement as a whole) of the murder of his father.
Nasrallah also noted that he had received a personal assurance from Hariri that he would publicly confirm that individual Hizbullah members, rather than the movement itself, were implicated in the murder.
Informed sources suggest that Hizbullah has already selected the individuals it will throw to the wolves if indictments are indeed issued (which is itself not certain).
The men in question are low-level operators reputed to be involved in crime as well as movement activity.
Nasrallah’s rare press conference may have indicated that Hizbullah is uncomfortable at the prospect of the indictments. But his name-checking of Hariri also confirmed that he thinks he has little to worry about from the murdered man’s son.
The available evidence suggests that he is right. Mustafa Allouche, a former MP from Hariri’s March 14 bloc, said last Friday that if the tribunal issued indictments “not backed by proper evidence,” then the position of the Hariri movement toward it would change.
Allouche added that Hariri would consider matters in cooperation with Nasrallah to ensure “calm.” Hariri is reported to have held a private meeting with Nasrallah in recent days to lay the basis for this cooperation and reassure the Hizbullah leader.
The idea that a group of Hizbullah members decided independently to assassinate Rafik Hariri belongs in the realm of comedy. Hizbullah is a fiercely centralized, disciplined body in which no dissent is brooked. Its militants do not go about pursuing their own political and military policies.
It is made doubly so by the known sophistication of the Hariri murder. The notion that a group of Hizbullah men acting independently could have assembled, planted and detonated the massive explosive device that killed him, without their own movement’s knowledge or the knowledge of the Syrian de facto rulers of the country at the time, is without any foundation in reality.
SO WHY IS Saad Hariri apparently bowing before the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah axis that murdered his father? Hariri is a client of the Saudis, and the Saudis, for reasons of their own, are currently engaged in a process of rapprochement with the Syrians. Saudi King Abdullah is due to visit Lebanon this week. The Lebanese prime minister possesses no military power on the ground. A civil war between his supporters and Hizbullah would be exceedingly short, and would rapidly conclude with Hariri’s destruction.
As a result, he is carrying out his own slightly macabre courtship dance with the people that killed his father. Syria is quietly rebuilding its power in Lebanon, with no effective pro-Western counter-force to oppose it. Hariri therefore must bow to reality and avoid clashing with Hizbullah and/or Syria over the tribunal.
The Saudi approach in turn is supposed to shore up the troubled Arab diplomatic system by drawing Syria back into it.
Some commentators have claimed to see a silver lining in this. They depict the current situation as representing a weakening of Iran and its Hizbullah client in the face of a new alignment of Syria and Hariri, backed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Such a depiction has little foundation. Syria’s return to political influence in Lebanon is a product of its alliance with Iran. Its continuation depends on the continued existence of this alliance. So the idea that Syria’s new friendship with Hariri portends a significant shift in the balance of power is an illusion. It is a friendship on Syrian terms, made possible by the implicit threat of Iranian-backed muscle. The Syrians will be happy to reap the fruits of their alliance with Iran in the form of renewed political sway in Lebanon. This has no implications for the real Iranian power in the country, or for Syria’s alignment with it.
The real power in Lebanon today, whose resources, investment and ambitions dwarf those of the Syrians, is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran exercises its power through its Hizbullah client. Hizbullah, in turn, is able to have the last word in any argument in the country because of its military power on the ground. Hizbullah and its patrons prefer to allow the Lebanese political system and government to exist, and will continue to do so for as long as they do not interfere in their plans.
Iran’s plans are region-wide, and it is interested in Lebanon mainly insofar as its control of the southern part of that country allows it to maintain the most active front currently in existence in the Israel- Islamist conflict. Syria is riding back into Lebanon in the form of a minor carriage attached to the Iranian- Hizbullah train.
Against this political-military juggernaut, the conscientious researchers of the SLT can do little. Saudi diplomacy and its Lebanese clients lack the tools to oppose Iran and its allies directly. They are therefore seeking to convince themselves and the world that their strategy of drawing Syria away from Iran is working. It is not.
The US, meanwhile, is engaged in matters elsewhere, and the administration still appears to be in a learning process regarding the ambitions of the Iranled regional axis.
It is against this background that the latest developments in Lebanon should be understood. Neither the SLT, nor Saad Hariri, nor Turkey, nor Saudi Arabia are going to break the power of Iran and its allies in Lebanon. This will be achieved, if it is to be achieved, as a result of the frustration of Iranian plans on a broader, regional level.
*The writer is senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.

Hariri hit suspect is Hizbullah bigwig
By JPOST.COM STAFF AND AP
07/30/2010 01:41
UN tribunal to announce "chief suspect" is Mughniyeh’s cousin.
The UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon is reportedly set to announce that Mustafa Badr al-Din, a senior Hizbullah operative and close relative of the former Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh, is the main suspect in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.
According to an Israel TV report on Thursday night, Hariri’s son, the current Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, asked the tribunal to postpone releasing Din’s name, because of the potentially incendiary implications for Lebanon of such an announcement.
alDin, the cousin and brother- in-law of Mughniyeh, who was killed in a car bomb in Damascus in February 2008, was also reportedly responsible for planning the attempted assassination of the ruler of Kuwait in 1985, among other operations.
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, said last week that members of his group would be among those indicted by the tribunal, which he dismissed as an “Israeli plot.”
Many in Lebanon have worried that if the tribunal implicates Hizbullah, it could lead to another round of clashes between Lebanon’s Shi’ite and Sunni communities, like the bloody conflict that convulsed Beirut in 2008.
Tensions in Lebanon have generated so much concern that Syria’s President Bashar Assad was expected to travel to Beirut on Friday, his first trip there since his troops were forced out.
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah made a rare journey to Damascus on Thursday, in a visit apparently intended to indicate a united front as regional tensions mount over the pending indictments in the Hariri assassination.
Syria and Saudi Arabia have long been on opposite sides of a deep rift in the Arab world, with Syria backing groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas. The Saudi kingdom is a US ally, along with Jordan and Egypt.
Assad and Abdullah agreed that the “challenges facing Arabs, mainly in occupied Palestine, necessitate that all [Arabs] double their efforts to upgrade inter-Arab relations,” Syria’s official news agency reported after the end of a meeting between the two leaders.
They also stressed the need to support all means to boost stability and unity in Lebanon.
Many in Lebanon blame Syria for the Hariri assassination, a claim that Damascus denies. Hariri was a Sunni leader with strong Saudi links, and his killing exacerbated the already-strained relationship between Riyadh and Damascus.
Hariri’s death was followed by the rise of the US and Saudi-backed March 14 coalition, named after a day of massive anti-Syrian protests in 2005 dubbed the “Cedar Revolution.”
The demonstrations eventually led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops, ending almost three decades of Syrian domination established during Lebanon’s civil war.
Regional tensions are also high over reports that Syria sent Scud missiles to Hizbullah and suspicions that Hizbullah patron Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons. Syria, which denied sending Scuds, is Iran’s strongest ally in the Arab world.

Is Middle East war inevitable?
By Volker Perthes
Published on July 30, 2010
Cyprus Mail
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/opinions/middle-east-war-inevitable/20100730
FUAD SINIORA, Lebanon’s former prime minister, is a thoughtful man with deep experience in Middle Eastern politics. So when he speaks of “trains with no drivers that seem to be on a collision course,” as he recently did at a private meeting in Berlin, interested parties should probably prepare for unwanted developments. Of course, no one in the region is calling for war. But a pre-war mood is growing.
Four factors, none of them new but each destabilizing on its own, are compounding one another: lack of hope, dangerous governmental policies, a regional power vacuum, and the absence of active external mediation.
It may be reassuring that most Palestinians and Israelis still favor a two-state solution. It is less reassuring that most Israelis and a large majority of Palestinians have lost hope that such a solution will ever materialize. Add to this that by September, the partial settlement freeze, which Israel’s government has accepted, will expire, and that the period set by the Arab League for the so-called proximity talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, which have not seriously begun, will also be over.
Serious direct negotiations are unlikely to begin without a freeze on settlement building, which Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu is unlikely to announce or implement, given resistance within his coalition government. Syria, which until the end of 2008 was engaged in its own Turkish-mediated proximity talks with Israel, does not expect a resumption of talks with Israel anytime soon. This may be one reason why Syrian President Bashar al-Assad mentions war as an option, as he recently did in Madrid.
Moreover, Israelis and people close to Hezbollah in Lebanon are talking about “another round,” while many pundits in the Middle East believe that a limited war could unblock a stagnant political situation. Their point of reference is the 1973 war, which helped to bring about peace between Egypt and Israel. But the wars that followed, and the latest wars in the region – the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza war of December 2008/January 2009 – do not support this reckless theory.
Iran, whose influence in the Levant is not so much the cause of unresolved problems in the Middle East as the result of them, continues to defy the imposition of new sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. Iranian rulers have as little trust in the West as the West has in them, and they continue to increase international suspicion by their words and actions. Repeated calls by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about Israel’s eventual disappearance play into the hands of those in Israel who argue that Iran’s nuclear program must be ended militarily.
Some of the Middle East’s most important players are increasing the risks of confrontation because they have either lost a proper feeling for their regional and international environment, or seek to increase their own political power through provocation and brinkmanship. Netanyahu’s short-sighted reluctance to give up settlements and occupied territory threatens Israel’s long-term interest to reach a fair settlement with the Palestinians. In its deadly assault on the Gaza flotilla in May, Netanyahu’s government demonstrated a kind of political autism in its inability to realize that even Israel’s best friends no longer wish to accept the humanitarian consequences of the Gaza blockade.
In the Arab world, there is currently no dominant power able to project stability beyond its own national borders. It will take time before Iraq will play a regional role again. The Saudi reform agenda mainly concerns domestic issues. Egypt’s political stagnation has reduced its regional influence. Qatar over-estimates its own strength.
The only regional power in the Middle East today is Iran, but it is not a stabilizing force. The Arab states are aware of this. Much as they dislike it, they are also fearful of a war between Israel or the United States and Iran, knowing that they would have little influence over events.
Indeed, intra-regional dynamics in the Middle East today are driven by three states, none of which is Arab: Israel, Iran, and, increasingly, Turkey. In recent years, Turkey tried to mediate between Israel and Syria, Israel and Hamas, opposing factions in Lebanon, and lately between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.
Turkey should continue to play this role. But the Turkish government has increasingly allowed itself to be dragged into Middle East conflicts, rather than functioning as an honest broker.
The Obama administration has had a strong start with respect to the Middle East. But a year and a half after his inauguration, Obama’s “outstretched hand” to Iran has turned into a fist, and his attempts to encourage Israeli-Palestinian negotiations seem stuck. Domestic issues are likely to preoccupy Obama and his team at least up until the mid-term elections this November, thus precluding active diplomacy during the critical months ahead.
And the European Union? There has not been much active crisis-prevention diplomacy from Brussels or from Europe’s national capitals. None of the leading EU states’ foreign ministers seems even to have made an attempt to mediate between Europe’s two closest Mediterranean partners, Israel and Turkey.
Twenty years ago, in the weeks that preceded Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, many observers saw signs of a looming crisis. But Arab and Western players somehow managed to convince themselves that things would not get out of hand.
That crisis, and others before and since, showed that tensions in the Middle East rarely dissolve with the passage of time. Sometimes they are resolved through active diplomatic intervention by regional or international players. And sometimes they are released violently.
**Volker Perthes is Chairman and Director of Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin.
© Project Syndicate 2010

Key events in Lebanon-Syria ties since 2005
Key events in Lebanon-Syria ties since the 2005 assassination of five-times premier Rafiq Hariri
AFP
Published: 11:29 July 30, 2010
Beirut: Key events in Lebanon-Syria ties since the 2005 assassination of five-times premier Rafiq Hariri:
2005:
•February 14: Rafiq Hariri killed in Beirut bomb blast. The anti-Syrian opposition accuses Damascus of ordering the killing, which it denies. The crisis brings calls for the withdrawal of Syrian troops, and the last ones leave in April.
•In May and June, parliamentary elections give a majority to anti-Syrian coalition led by Hariri's son Saad.
2006:
•August: Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem visits Beirut as much of Lebanon is shattered by a devastating war between Israel and the Shiite militia Hezbollah.
2007:
•June 10: The United Nations sets up a Special Tribunal for Lebanon to investigate the Hariri assassination. The first reports conclude there is evidence implicating Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services.
2008:
•May: Social unrest erupts, partly sparked by government efforts to curb a Hezbollah telecommunications network. After around 100 people are killed in a week of clashes, the main Lebanese factions meet in Doha and reach a political accord, under which army leader Michel Sleiman is appointed president.
•July 11: A unity government is formed, with Fuad Siniora as premier.
•July 12: Meeting in Paris between Sleiman and his Syrian counterpart, Bashar al-Assad. The two countries say they will soon open embassies in each other's capitals.
•August 13-14: Sleiman visits Syria.
•October 15: Lebanon and Syria formally establish diplomatic relations for the first time since they emerged as independent states after World War II.
2009:
•June 7: Lebanese parliamentary election is won by the outgoing anti-Syria majority.
•October 8: Saudi King Abdullah and Syria's Assad meet in Damascus and call for a unity government in Lebanon.
•November 9: Prime Minister Saad Hariri forms a government of national unity.
•December 19-20: First official visit to Damascus by Hariri, seeking "privileged, sincere" ties with Syria.
2010:
•July 18: The two countries sign a string of cooperation accords during Hariri's third visit as premier to Syria.
•July 22: Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah says he expects members of his party to be charged by the UN court probing the murder of Rafiq Hariri.
•July 29: Assad and Saudi King Abdullah due in Beirut for summit talks.

7. Report: Hizbullah Activist Behind Hariri Assassination
by Elad Benari/Arutz Sheva /An Israeli television report which aired on Thursday said that a Hizbullah activist is responsible for the assassination of a former Lebanese Prime Minister.The report that aired on Israel’s Channel 1 identified Mustafa Badr Aldin as the prime suspect in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri. Hariri, who was known for opposing Syrian interference in Lebanon, was assassinated on February 15, 2005 when explosives were detonated as his motorcade drove past the St. George Hotel in Beirut. 22 additional people were killed as a result of the explosion. Aldin who is suspected of being behind the assassination is also the brother in-law of Hizbullah commander Imad Mughniyeh who was killed in 2008 in a car-bomb attack in Damascus, while reportedly in the midst of planning major terrorist attacks in moderate Arab countries. Aldin’s name has been mentioned as a candidate to replace Mughniyeh as Hezbollah's chief operations officer. The Channel 1 report stated that Aldin, who is also known by the name "Elias Sa'ab", commanded the failed attempt to assassinate Kuwait's ruler in 1985. Last Thursday it was published that Hizbullah members are expected to face charges in the Hariri assassination. Hizbullah head Hassan Nasrallah addressed this and blamed the United States and Israel, saying the expected indictments were part of a Zionist and American plot to push their Middle East agenda. He suggested that Israel was in fact behind the assassination and said of the tribunal that looked into the Hariri killing: “As long as it didn't focus on Israeli involvement, it's not an honest tribunal.”
Hizbullah has several times denied that it is behind the Hariri assassination. Last year, following an article in the German news weekly Der Spiegel that charged Hizbullah with being behind the assassination, Hizbullah called the report an Israeli-American conspiracy "aimed at sowing discord between [Lebanon's] Sunnis and Shi'ites."
Thursday’s report on Channel 1 added that current Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri (Rafik's son) is pressuring the Special Tribunal for Lebanon not to publish Aldin’s identity as a prime suspect in his father’s killing due to his government's ties with Hizbullah, which is currently a part of Lebanon’s coalition government.
Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Saudi King Abdullah will travel to Beirut on Friday as part of the Saudi king’s tour of the Middle East. This will be the Saudi king’s first visit to the country since 2002. Assad and Abdullah are expected to meet President Michel Sleiman as well as PM Hariri and members of his national unity government to discuss ways to maintain stability in Lebanon.

Al-Qaeda Creating an Army in Yemen
by Maayana Miskin/Arutz Sheva
The heads of Al-Qaeda in Yemen claimed Thursday to be creating an army in the country's south. In an audio recording posted online, terrorist commander Mohammed Sayeed al-Omda said Al-Qaeda will soon have a fighting force of 12,000 soldiers based in the cities of Aden and Abyan. Omda issued a threat to continue attacking Yemeni troops. “This is a message to the Yemeni government forces and National security service: Our swords are ready and we are going to cleanse the land,” he declared. Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for two fatal attacks on government targets in Yemen since June, and is suspected of being behind an additional two attacks in the same period. The international terrorist group accuses the Yemeni government of joining with “crusaders” and killing Muslims in the battle against insurgent groups.
Al-Qaeda poses a real and immediate threat to the Yemeni government, according to United States Marine Corp General James Mattis, who is charged with heading US forces in the region. At his nomination hearing Tuesday Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Yemen has been pushed “to the breaking point.”
Yemeni President Ali Abdallah Saleh has dealt with crises “through negotiation and by co-opting his opponents,” Mattis said, adding “there are signs his ability to exert control is waning.”
Mattis listed Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan as the locations from which come the greatest threat from Al-Qaeda and its affiliate groups. The greatest threat lies in tribal regions of Pakistan “as those are strategic footholds for Al-Qaeda and its senior leaders,” he said.

Arab League Tries to Score Points for Abbas, 'Endorses' Talks
by Maayana Miskin/Arutz Sheva
On Thursday, the Arab League published a letter backing direct talks with Israel, the first such negotiations since 2008, leaving the timing of the proposed talks for PM Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to decide. Maainstream media such as the Wall Street Journal, hailed this move, quoting U.S. officials who saw it as a step up of "critical momentum" towards negotiations, in response to United States Prsident Obama's pressure on the PA leader. Obama had begun demanding that Abbas engage in direct talks following Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington where the Israeli PM repeatedly declared willingness for direct talks without any preconditions from Israel, thereby placing the ball in the PA court.
The Arab League's missive, however, according to those who saw it, repeats the preconditions set by Abbas that remain the stumbling block to negotiations, as they predecide some of the PA desired outcomes of these very same negotiations: a return to 1967 borders, an end to settlements, the return of refugees, this by asking the US government to secure assurances that the demands are met before talks can begin.
Abbas was quoted by the official Egyptian Maan News Agency as reiterating "When I receive the demanded guarantees, which are the acceptance ofthe1967 borders and an end to settlements...I will immediately enter negotiations", just before the Arab League vote on Thursday.
Abbas has repeatedly demanded that Israeli completely freeze construction for Jews in areas east of the 1949 armistice line, including north, south, and east Jerusalem, and that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu commit to creating a PA state with borders based on the armistice line. Until those conditions are met, Abbas has said, the PA will not negotiate.
Almost no notice was taken of another pre talks decision that the PA chairman revealed, as he announced clearly that if a Palestinian Authority state is created in Judea and Samaria, no Israeli citizen will be allowed to set foot inside.The PA chairman also stated that he would block any Jewish soldiers from serving with an international force stationed on PA-controlled land.
"I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land,” Abbas declared. Israel is home to a sizable proportion of Arab citizens, who have the vote and are represented by Arab parties in the Knesset. De facto, both Abbas and the League nixed the talks, but INN analysts viewed the publication of the letter and discusiion of conditions as an attempt to throw the ball back into Israel's court, while trying to gain empathy for Abbas.
In this vein, the WSJ reported that members of the PA delegation to the League meeting considered denouncing Abbas for accepting the contents of the League's letter but changed their minds. The newspaper quoted Arab leaders as saying tht the Arab League endorsed the talks but left the timing and location up to Abbas, which results in isolating him and pressuring him to start before he is ready.. "All the pressure is now on his shoulders," a person close to him was said to have remarked sympathetically.
Arab League members also claimed they had received new support from United States President Barack Obama. A recent letter from Obama to Abbas included “guarantees,” according to League head Amr Moussa. He did not specify if the alleged promises were the ones requested in the League's Thursday letter.
During the Arab League meeting, Abbas expouunded on why negotiations with the previous Israeli administration, headed by then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, failed to yield a peace deal. “We almost reached an agreement, and I agreed to a land swap for 0.19% of the territory, while he suggested 6.5%. I refused, and we did not reach an agreement,” he said.
The land swap idea is meant to allow Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria to remain in their current locations even in the case of an Israel-PA peace deal.
Abbas also reiterated his support for the “right of return,” the demand by Arabs who fled Israel during the War of Independence when their leaders promised them a quick return after the Jews' annihilation, to come back to the country along with the hundreds of thousands of children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren born since. That demand is the reason they remained in squalid refugee camps as opposed to the larger number of Jewish refugees expelled from Arab lands in 1948 who became productive citizens of the land of Israel.
Abbas said he had discussed the “right of return” with Olmert, and had warned that the issue was “very dangerous” and must be resolved “according to the Arab initiative.”

More Sharia Law in Gaza: Hamas Crackdown on Mannequins
by Maayana Miskin//Arutz Sheva /Hamas continues to enforce its stringent interpretation of Islamic law in Gaza. In its most recent ruling, the organization has laid out a list of rules that must be followed by stores selling women's clothing, according to AFP. Earlier in the month Hamas declared that women and teenagers are no longer permitted to smoke hookahs in public.
According to new rules, women's clothing stores are not allowed to have dressing rooms. Stores also cannot have tinted windows, and cannot have cameras inside the shop. Any mannequins shaped like women must be dressed in modest clothing. The new set of rules is aimed at maintaining “public morality,” Hamas spokesmen said.
Hamas has taken other restrictive steps toward enforcing Islamic law (Sharia) in Gaza. It has banned women from riding motorcycles, required men to wear shirts while swimming in the sea, and has ordered female attorneys to wear a headscarf while in court. The Islamic terrorist group may be spurred by the opposition it faces from Salafi Muslim organizations, which claim to represent an estimated 11,000 residents of Gaza. Salafi extremists have accused Hamas of failing to enforce Islamic law enough, and have carried out bombings targeting music stores, Internet cafes, and even United Nations camps in which boys and girls are allowed to mingle.