LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِOctober 10/2010

Bible Of The Day
Luke 6/12-19: " It happened in these days, that he went out to the mountain to pray, and he continued all night in prayer to God. 6:13 When it was day, he called his disciples, and from them he chose twelve, whom he also named apostles: 6:14 Simon, whom he also named Peter; Andrew, his brother; James; John; Philip; Bartholomew; 6:15 Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of Alphaeus; Simon, who was called the Zealot; 6:16 Judas the son of James; and Judas Iscariot, who also became a traitor. 6:17 He came down with them, and stood on a level place, with a crowd of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him and to be healed of their diseases; 6:18 as well as those who were troubled by unclean spirits, and they were being healed. 6:19 All the multitude sought to touch him, for power came out from him and healed them all."

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Obama ultimatum makes Assad responsible for any Hizballah violence in Lebanon/DEBKAfile/October 09/10 
Dual court/By: Ayman Jezzini/October 09/10 
Ahmadinejad Throws Dangerous Stones in Lebanon/By: Seth Wenig/October 09/10
Is Hizbullah trying to take over Lebanon with Iran's help?/By: Khaled Abu Toameh/October 09/10
Ahmadinejad’s target audience/By Caroline Glick/October 09/10
Will Ahmadinejad Be in Danger in Lebanon?/By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/October 09/10
War and Tehran's Illusions/By Amir Taheri/October 09/10
Hezbollah Mobilize to Welcome Iranian President/By Paula Astatih/October 09/10
Abolishing the Tribunal…Is Abolishing the Settlement/By: Walid Choucair/October 09/10 

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for October 09/10 
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, Feltman to Riyadh and Cairo to Discuss Situation in Lebanon/Naharnet
USA ambassador to Lebanon, Connelly after Meeting Hariri: We are Worried about Any Action that May Destabilize Lebanon
A number of Lebanese Citizens to Issue Tens of Lawsuits against a Number of March 8 Figures on Monday/Naharnet
Syria's Foreign Affairs Minister, Muallem Confirms Coordination with Saudi Arabia: Situation in Lebanon is Worrisome/Naharnet
Official Internal Interest in Ahmadinejad's Visit While West is Apprehensive/Naharnet
Nasrallah comes out of bunker to plant tree/J.Post
Maronite Patriarch, Sfeir disgusted with the situation in Lebanon/Ya Libnan
M.P, Mashnouq Calls on Hariri to Resign: Syrian Arrest Warrants are a Political Assault on Lebanon/Naharnet
Lebanon's House Speaker,Berri Visited Syria Thursday for Talks with Top Officials/Naharnet
Druze Lebanese MP, Jumblat: I'm Worried about the Frightening Internal Tension, Ahmadinejad's Visit Beneficial/Naharnet
Minister Sayyed Hussein: Contacts to Restore Matters to Institutions Underway, Difficult Issues are Resolved in Cabinet/Naharnet
Lebanese-Syrian Summit in Damascus ahead of Ahmadinejad Visit/Naharnet

Obama ultimatum makes Assad responsible for any Hizballah violence in Lebanon
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report October 9, 2010,
http://www.debka.com/article/9072/
US diplomat Frederic Hof in Damascusdebkafile exclusive from Washington and Beirut: Early Friday, Oct. 8, senior US diplomat Frederic Hof landed in Damascus with a strong ultimatum from US President Barack Obama warning Syrian President Bashar Assad that he would be held personally responsible for military action Hizballah may pursue in Beirut or any other part of Lebanon; there would be consequences for the Syrian ruler's standing in Washington and that of his country.
After delivering the message, Obama's emissary was told to remain in Damascus and keep close tabs on the situation over the coming days. Fred Hof is the deputy of US Special Middle East envoy George Mitchell with excellent connections in top Syrian circles. By keeping him in Damascus, Obama makes sure his personal emissary sits on Assad's back and sends him fast updates on any developments in Syria and Lebanon.
The Syrian ruler will be tested next week, when his great ally, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, spends two days in Lebanon on a visit that has aroused feverish tensions in the country and around the region.
President Obama had four objects in mind when he posted his exceptionally tough ultimatum:
1. The Syrian and Iranian presidents have been leaning hard on Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah to strike as soon as Ahmadinejad is gone to grab Lebanon's centers of power and burn the ground from under Saad Hariri's government.
2. This action carries the high risk of civil war or Israeli military intervention, both of which the Obama administration is intent on averting.
3. When US diplomats asked Arab League foreign ministers gathered in Sirte, Libya, Friday not to slam the door on direct Israel-Palestinian talks, they were informed by the Saudi and Egyptian ministers that this issue was inextricably bound up with the crisis in Lebanon. If Washington agreed to step in firmly to preserve the stability of the Hariri administration, they would see to it that the US is given time to overcome the impasse on the Israeli-Palestinian track over Israeli construction on the West Bank and Jerusalem.
And indeed, the Sirte meeting, while endorsing Mahmoud Abbas' position, gave Washington a month's grace for another push to bring the parties together.
4. The Damascus mission assigned to Hof and the threat it carries of direct American steps against the Assad regime, is unprecedentedly harsh in terms of Washington diplomacy vis-à-vis any Arab government.
debkafile's diplomatic sources note that it is also a challenge.
It indicates that Obama is willing to respect the Syrian ruler's responsibility for Lebanon provided he respects the policy limits Washington has laid down for that country. This challenge would require him to break ranks with the Iranian president and Hizballah's leader and pull out of the trilateral plans they have drawn up for undermining the Hariri government. By doing so, Assad would prove that his influence over Nasrallah outweighs that of Iran.
The coming week will show if the US president's ultimatum has hit the mark and Lebanon and the region are saved from impending outbreaks of violence. He did not spell out the nature of the consequences to Assad for disobedience.

Ahmadinejad’s target audience
By CAROLINE B. GLICK
J.Post
10/08/2010 16:17
By Iranian and Hizbullah accounts, Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon next week set to be a splendid affair.
By Iranian and Hizbullah accounts, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon next week will be a splendid affair. The man who stole his office and then killed his countrymen to protect his crime will be greeted as a conquering hero. Billboards bidding him welcome and Iranian flags will line the roads from the Beirut airport down to the border with Israel. Ahmadinejad’s visit to southern Lebanon will be the highlight of his two-day visit. In preparation for his arrival, in the border town of Maroun a-Ras, Hizbullah has built a replica of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem festooned with an Iranian flag. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to stand outside the structure and throw stones at IDF forces patrolling what he has reportedly referred to as “Iran’s border with Israel.”  Many Israelis are rattled by Ahmadinejad’s trip to our neck of the woods. It is unsettling that the man who personifies the Islamist goal of eradicating the Jewish people will be standing at our doorstep, provoking us.
Before we lose our composure, it is far from clear that Israel is Ahmadinejad’s primary audience. By throwing stones at Israel, Ahmadinejad will not be telling us anything we don’t already know about his sentiments towards the Jews and our state. He won’t be signaling anything we don’t already know about his proxy force Hizbullah’s capacity to make war on us.
So what new message is Ahmadinejad bringing with him? Who is he communicating with? AHMADINEJAD’S VISIT must be seen within the regional context. Specifically, it must be seen against the backdrop of Lebanese politics. It must also be seen in the context of waning US power and influence in the region. Finally, it should be evaluated in terms of Iranian domestic affairs and Ahmadinejad’s ongoing struggle with his people who reject his leadership. While Iran’s ill-intentions towards Israel remain static, all of the other developments in the region are dynamic. One aspect of Ahmadinejad’s visit is abundantly clear. It is the diplomatic equivalent of a victory lap. Iran’s ruler is using his trip as an opportunity to flaunt his position as the colonial overlord of Lebanon.
That means that Iran now believes it is in its interest to expose that Lebanon today is nothing more than an Iranian colony. Lebanon’s independence is a mirage that Iran no longer believes it is in its interest to maintain. Moreover, not only does Ahmadinejad’s triumphalist visit show that Lebanon has lost its independence and serves as an Iranian vassal state. It exposes as a myth the popular Western tale that Hizbullah is an independent Lebanese political and military force. Ahead of Ahmadinejad’s visit, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have deployed in force throughout Lebanon. Hizbullah is operating openly under the Revolutionary Guards Command. This is not the behavior of an indigenous Lebanese entity. It is the behavior of a wholly owned and operated franchise of Iran. Over the past week, many regional commentators and officials have warned that Ahmadinejad’s visit may be the prelude to the consolidation of Hizbullah’s control of Lebanon. Recent events lend credence to these warnings.
Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri has not had a day of peace since he bowed to Hizbullah pressure and formed a government in November 2009 in which the Iranian proxy was given a veto over all government decisions. Hariri’s move put him into the unenviable position of having to bow and scrape before the Syrian and Hizbullah assassins who murdered his father, former prime minister Rafik Hariri.
Syrian and Hizbullah culpability for Hariri Sr.’s murder in February 2005 has been the focal point of the UN investigative tribunal charged with investigating the crime. The latest reports indicate that the UN’s investigators will name Hizbullah officers as responsible for the hit. The UN tribunal is scheduled to announce its findings in the coming weeks.
So Ahmadinejad’s visit comes just before his Lebanese proxy force is set to get some serious egg on its chin. A UN pronouncement of Hizbullah culpability would diminish both Hizbullah’s standing in Lebanon and its international reputation.
Iran has a clear interest in neutralizing the impact of the expected announcement.
TO THIS end, Syria and Hizbullah have steadily escalated their demands that Hariri and his associates in the March 14 movement disown the UN investigation and denounce all their colleagues who implicated Syria and Hizbullah in the 2005 hit. Ratcheting up the pressure, on Monday Syria issued arrest warrants against 33 senior Lebanese officials allied with Hariri for what Damascus alleges are their false testimonies before the UN commission. Hizbullah and its underlings in Lebanese politics have followed suit, demanding that the government disown the UN tribunal and refuse to fund it.
As of the end of this week, Hariri and his allies are refusing to bow to this newest round of pressure.
They recognize that if they submit, it will destroy the March 14 movement as an independent political force in Lebanon.
Unfortunately for the March 14 forces, the fact of the matter is that if they take a last stand, it will likely be an exercise in futility. Arabic media reports this week claimed that Hariri and his allies may be seeking Saudi and Egyptian support for Christian and Sunni militias that may be attacked by Hizbullah in the anticipated post-Ahmadinejad visit showdown.
But the official responses to these stories indicate that no one is willing to do more than express rhetorical support for the Lebanese. On Thursday, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit denied that Egypt is aiding the militias, but he also pointed an accusatory finger at Iran. After calling the reports “a lie,” Aboul Gheit added, “Some people in Lebanon want to have a single control over the country and this issue is linked to Iran.”
This lack of Arab support for Hariri and his allies is a direct consequence of the US’s effective abandonment of the March 14 forces. While the Bush administration arguably did the most damage when it forced Israel to seek a cease-fire in 2006 and then did nothing to defeat Hizbullah’s coup in May 2008, the Obama administration has exacerbated the damage with its abject fecklessness.
First there is the administration’s stubborn maintenance of its massive support for the Lebanese military, despite overwhelming evidence that today the Lebanese army acts as a Hizbullah proxy. In order to maintain that support, the administration faced down a wave of congressional pressure after the Lebanese military’s assassination of IDF Lt.-Col. Dov Harari (res.) on the border in August.
Then there is the US administration’s preening and scraping before Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration’s obsession with the so-called peace process between Israel and its neighbors has made it impossible for Washington to take a concerted stand against Syria, which it hopes to convince to negotiate with Israel. Even as Assad visited Teheran and declared his undying devotion to Iran, the administration hosted his deputy foreign minister, Faisal Moqdad, in Washington and cooed that Syria is “absolutely essential” for “comprehensive peace” and regional stability.
And on the subject of US strategic incompetence, there is US President Barack Obama’s senior counterterrorism adviser John Brennan’s laudatory comments on Hizbullah from this past May to consider. In a public lecture, Brennan referred to Hizbullah as “a very interesting organization.”
Ignoring completely the fact that Hizbullah is controlled by Iran, Brennan said that the US seeks to “build up the more moderate elements” of Hizbullah at the expense of those “elements of Hizbullah that are truly a concern to us.”
The US descent into strategic imbecility has convinced Arab leaders that they should avoid getting on Iran’s bad side. With the US even standing aside as Iran paralyzes Iraq’s post-election government, no one can take US guarantees seriously anymore. And if anyone had any doubts about this state of affairs, the fact that the US has no leverage with which it can compel the Lebanese government to cancel Ahmadinejad’s visit reinforces the glum reality.
The last target audience for Ahmadinejad’s visit is the Iranian people. As some commentators have noted, his victory lap in Bint Jbail and Maroun a-Ras is a message to his own people.
On the one hand, it shows the Iranian people, who seek the overthrow of their despotic regime, that Ahmadinejad is a rising star regionally.
On the other hand, Hizbullah’s expected violent consolidation of its control over Lebanon is a signal that the Iranian people should be very afraid. Just as its Lebanese proxy will not hesitate to murder its fellow Lebanese to advance the interests of the Iranian regime, so the Iranian regime will not hesitate to use all force necessary to quell any domestic opponents.
IF INDEED, Ahmadinejad’s target audiences are Lebanese, pan-Arab and Iranian, then should Israel be concerned about his visit? The answer to this is yes, and not because his visit, in and of itself, increases the likelihood of war. With its complete control over southern Lebanon and its 40,000 missiles, Hizbullah can open a war with Israel at any time. Ahmadinejad’s visit neither adds nor detracts from this grim reality.
The reason that Israelis should be concerned is because Ahmadinejad’s visit can negatively impact perceptions of the likely political outcome of a war with Israel.
In October 1973, Egypt knew that it did not have the wherewithal to defeat Israel militarily.
Israel’s strategic advantage over Egypt was clear.
But events preceding that war – including Egypt’s move from the Soviet to the US side of the Cold War – convinced president Anwar Sadat that he could use a limited military victory to gain a strategic political victory against Israel.
His gamble paid off as a year later, the US forced Israel to withdraw from much of the Sinai Peninsula.
The insecurity of the Arab states, the rise of Iran in Lebanon and throughout the region, the waning of US regional power, and the voices of sympathy for Hizbullah in the Obama administration all form a political climate that increases the likelihood that Iran will wage another war against Israel though Hizbullah.
Israel’s options in this context are limited.
Obviously, it must prepare for war and commit itself to defeating Hizbullah as a fighting force and delivering a paralyzing blow to Syria in the event that war breaks out. Israel must also take what political steps it can to impact the political calculations of various regional actors.
Having Ahmadinejad on the border is unsettling.
But to properly prepare and contend with the threat he poses, we must understand what he is doing there.
caroline@carolineglick.com

Question: "What is the meaning of life?"
Answer: What is the meaning of life? How can purpose, fulfillment, and satisfaction in life be found? How can something of lasting significance be achieved? So many people have never stopped to consider these important questions. They look back years later and wonder why their relationships have fallen apart and why they feel so empty, even though they may have achieved what they set out to accomplish. An athlete who had reached the pinnacle of his sport was once asked what he wished someone would have told him when he first started playing his sport. He replied, “I wish that someone would have told me that when you reach the top, there's nothing there.” Many goals reveal their emptiness only after years have been wasted in their pursuit.
In our humanistic culture, people pursue many things, thinking that in them they will find meaning. Some of these pursuits include business success, wealth, good relationships, sex, entertainment, and doing good to others. People have testified that while they achieved their goals of wealth, relationships, and pleasure, there was still a deep void inside, a feeling of emptiness that nothing seemed to fill.
The author of the biblical book of Ecclesiastes describes this feeling when he says, “Meaningless! Meaningless! ...Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless” (Ecclesiastes 1:2). King Solomon, the writer of Ecclesiastes, had wealth beyond measure, wisdom beyond any man of his time or ours, hundreds of women, palaces and gardens that were the envy of kingdoms, the best food and wine, and every form of entertainment available. He said at one point that anything his heart wanted, he pursued. And yet he summed up “life under the sun”—life lived as though all there is to life is what we can see with our eyes and experience with our senses—is meaningless. Why is there such a void? Because God created us for something beyond what we can experience in the here-and-now. Solomon said of God, “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men...” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). In our hearts we are aware that the “here-and-now” is not all that there is.
In Genesis, the first book of the Bible, we find that God created mankind in His image (Genesis 1:26). This means that we are more like God than we are like anything else (any other life form). We also find that before mankind fell into sin and the curse of sin came upon the earth, the following things were true: 1) God made man a social creature (Genesis 2:18-25); 2) God gave man work (Genesis 2:15); 3) God had fellowship with man (Genesis 3:8); and 4) God gave man dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). What is the significance of these things? God intended for each of these to add to our fulfillment in life, but all of these (especially man's fellowship with God) were adversely affected by man's fall into sin and the resulting curse upon the earth (Genesis 3).
In Revelation, the last book of the Bible, God reveals that He will destroy this present earth and heavens and usher in the eternal state by creating a new heaven and a new earth. At that time, He will restore full fellowship with redeemed mankind, while the unredeemed will have been judged unworthy and cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). The curse of sin will be done away with; there will be no more sin, sorrow, sickness, death, or pain (Revelation 21:4). God will dwell with them, and they shall be His sons (Revelation 21:7). Thus, we come full circle: God created us to have fellowship with Him, man sinned, breaking that fellowship, God restores that fellowship fully in the eternal state. To go through life achieving everything only to die separated from God for eternity would be worse than futile! But God has made a way to not only make eternal bliss possible (Luke 23:43) but also life on earth satisfying and meaningful. How is this eternal bliss and “heaven on earth” obtained?
Meaning of life restored through Jesus Christ
Real meaning in life, both now and in eternity, is found in the restoration of the relationship with God that was lost with Adam and Eve's fall into sin. That relationship with God is only possible through His Son, Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12; John 1:12; 14:6). Eternal life is gained when we repent of our sin (no longer want to continue in it) and Christ changes us, making of us new creations, and we rely on Jesus Christ as Savior.
Real meaning in life is not found only in accepting Jesus as Savior, as wonderful as that is. Rather, real meaning in life is when one begins to follow Christ as His disciple, learning of Him, spending time with Him in His Word, communing with Him in prayer, and in walking with Him in obedience to His commands. If you are not a Christian (or perhaps a new believer), you might be saying to yourself, “That does not sound very exciting or fulfilling to me!” But Jesus made the following statements:
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30). “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10b). “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it” (Matthew 16:24-25). “Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart” (Psalm 37:4).
What all of these verses are saying is that we have a choice. We can continue to seek to guide our own lives, which results in emptiness, or we can choose to pursue God and His will for our lives with a whole heart, which will result in living life to the full, having the desires of our hearts met, and finding contentment and satisfaction. This is so because our Creator loves us and desires the best for us (not necessarily the easiest life, but the most fulfilling).
The Christian life can be compared to the choice of whether to purchase the expensive seats at a sporting event that are close to the action, or pay less and watch the game from a distance. Watching God work “from the front row” is what we should choose but, sadly, is not what most people choose. Watching God work firsthand is for whole-hearted disciples of Christ who have truly stopped pursuing their own desires to pursue instead God's purposes. They have paid the price (complete surrender to Christ and His will); they are experiencing life to its fullest; and they can face themselves, their fellow man, and their Maker with no regrets. Have you paid the price? Are you willing to? If so, you will not hunger after meaning or purpose again.(GotQuestions.org)
**Recommended Resource: Cure for the Common Life: Living in Your Sweet Spot by Max Lucado.

Feltman to Riyadh and Cairo to Discuss Situation in Lebanon
Naharnet/U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffery Feltman is expected to head to Riyadh and Cairo next week to hold a series of meetings with Saudi and Egyptian officials that will primarily tackle developments in Lebanon, reported As Safir on Saturday. The talks will also address Palestinian-Israeli peace efforts and attempts to form an Iraqi government. Feltman is also scheduled to visit Morocco and Libya. His tour comes shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's talks with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem in New York City, which focused on the situation in Lebanon and U.S. peace efforts. Beirut, 09 Oct 10, 10:24

Connelly after Meeting Hariri: We are Worried about Any Action that May Destabilize Lebanon
Naharnet/U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly stressed Friday the United States' commitment to Lebanon's sovereignty and independence and the importance of strong and effective institutions. She said after holding talks with Prime Minister Saad Hariri in the Center House that the United States is worried about any action that may destabilize Lebanon and its sovereignty. She reiterated the positions of the U.N., France, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in supporting the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which she said should be allowed to continue its functioning without external interference. The talks between Connelly and Hariri also focused on bilateral ties, on which she stated that the U.S.'s security and economic aid to Lebanon will bolster partnership with the Lebanese government and help build strong state institutions and a vital civil society. Beirut, 08 Oct 10, 14:16

Washington Calls on Americans to Avoid Traveling to Lebanon
Naharnet/ashington advised on Friday Americans to avoid traveling to Lebanon over security fears in the country, reported As Safir on Saturday. A State Department statement said that even though Lebanon is experiencing relative calm, the possibility of sudden violence erupting is a serious matter, adding that Lebanese authorities are incapable of guaranteeing the safety of citizens and visitors. Furthermore, it noted that Lebanese officials themselves have warned that an indictment in the investigation in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri may lead to civil unrest and other acts of violence in Lebanon. U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly had stated on Friday that the United States is worried about any action that may destabilize Lebanon and its sovereignty. Beirut, 09 Oct 10, 09:18

Citizens to Issue Tens of Lawsuits against a Number of March 8 Figures on Monday
Naharnet/A large number of citizens are expected to present lawsuits against a number of March 8 security and political figures on Monday, reported the daily An Nahar Saturday.
The figures include former General Security chief Major General Jamil Sayyed, former Internal Security chief General Ali al-Hajj, and former MP Nasser Qandil.It reported that efforts had been made in the past to postpone these lawsuits, but given recent developments, it was decided that several of those who were harmed during the period prior to 2005 would be allowed to follow through with their legal action. An Nahar added that developments in Lebanon may either head towards calm before Tuesday's Cabinet session, will discuss the Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar's false witnesses report, or they may witness the March 14 forces' submission of a report detailing all aspects of the false witnesses issue. Beirut, 09 Oct 10, 10:45

Official Internal Interest in Ahmadinejad's Visit While West is Apprehensive
Naharnet/Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon has garnered full official interest on the country's internal scene as Prime Minister Saad Hariri is expected to hold a luncheon banquet in his honor. Quarters in the Mustaqbal bloc have meanwhile noted that "Ahmadinejad's political team, Hizbullah, does not address Lebanon's prime minister with the same interest that his position requires as Hariri does with Ahmadinejad as protocol between nations requires."Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat meanwhile told As Safir Saturday that the Iranian president's visit to Lebanon is beneficial in that it represents clear support to the Resistance. Meanwhile, spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry Ramin Mehmanparsat denied claims that the president would throw rocks at Israel during his tour of southern Lebanon, saying that such reports are Israeli media attempts to prevent Ahmadinejad from visiting Lebanon. In addition, he said that statements issued by Israel and some western countries about the visit "demonstrate their weakness and concern over bolstering stability in the region, as well as the rise in Ahmadinejad and Iran's power in the area." Mehmanparsat added that improving ties between Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran will bolster the front against conspiracies targeting the region's stability and security. "Iran has great interest in Lebanon and its foreign policy," he stated. The daily An Nahar Saturday highlighted American and British officials' cautionary tone over the possibility of Lebanon signing any arms agreement with Iran during Ahmadinejad's trip. Western ambassadors were reported as saying, "As a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, Lebanon should not violate its decisions related to sanctions imposed on Iran." U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly had warned President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister Hariri of what the United States called a "provocative visit" by Ahmadinejad. As Safir predicted that the U.S. State Department would continue its conservative positions towards the visit. It added that a number of foreign ambassadors in Lebanon had requested from presidential palace quarters not to be invited to official meetings in Ahmadinejad's honor so that they would not be forced to leave the room in case he made remarks they would condemn. In the meantime, Energy Minister Jebran Bassil had signed memorandums of understanding with his Iranian counterpart in the electricity, water, and oil fields. Beirut, 09 Oct 10, 13:59

Mashnouq Calls on Hariri to Resign: Syrian Arrest Warrants are a Political Assault on Lebanon
Naharnet/Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc MP Nouhad al-Mashnouq condemned on Saturday the recent Syrian arrest warrants against Lebanese figures describing them as a "blatant political assault" on the country. The MP called on Prime Minister Saad Hariri to resign because the warrants are an attack against the dignity of the prime minister, urging him not to form a new government except based on an understanding on major issues. Mashnouq told LBC television that the real problem in Lebanon are the assassinations that have taken place, and not the "lie" of false witnesses as some individuals are trying to make it seem. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was formed to protect the living and not to take revenge, he continued.
Furthermore, he urged those who are threatening the eruption of strife to commit and approve Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar's report on the false witnesses file. The MP rejected talk of the possibility to assassinate Hariri, saying they are only political statements and that Syria is concerned with Lebanon's stability and preventing any security unrest. Beirut, 09 Oct 10, 12:50

Jumblat: I'm Worried about the Frightening Internal Tension, Ahmadinejad's Visit Beneficial
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat voiced on Saturday his concern with the "frightening" tensions in Lebanon, calling all sides to be diligent in realizing its dangers.Commenting on the U.N.'s recent remarks on the false witnesses, he told As Safir Saturday: "This is a local issue, the details of which should be uncovered."Opportunities to end tensions in Lebanon are still available "and if I say that there are no positive signs so far, that does not mean that there are negative ones," the MP stated. Addressing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon, Jumblat said: "It represents clear support for the Resistance and it is beneficial to maintain contacts with him." Beirut, 09 Oct 10, 09:38

Sfeir Says Bkirki Doors Open to Hizbullah and Tells Franjieh: You are More Honest than the Others
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir was reported to have expressed to Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh his "disgust" with the situation in Lebanon, reported As Safir Saturday. Addressing Franjieh, the paper quoted Sfeir as saying: "You are more honest than the others … at least you are a man of principle and you don't lie like others." It was reported that the patriarch also spoke at length about the situation in Lebanon during which he expressed his disappointment with how some individuals had shifted their stands. He had also repeatedly told his visitors that Hizbullah is a part of Lebanese society like all political parties, the only difference is that it possess weapons. He stressed that he stands at an equal distance from all sides. As Safir reported that Sfeir's clearest message before his quest was towards Hizbullah in that Bkirki's doors are always open to all, especially Hizbullah.
Beirut, 09 Oct 10, 12:16

Sayyed Hussein: Contacts to Restore Matters to Institutions Underway, Difficult Issues are Resolved in Cabinet
Naharnet/Minister of State Adnan al-Sayyed Hussein revealed that efforts are underway by President Michel Suleiman, in coordination with other concerned officials, to reach calm in Lebanon, reported the daily An Nahar Saturday. He told the daily that the officials are keen to maintain the achievements of the Lebanese-Syrian-Saudi summit, adding that they have faith in the army and security forces to exercise their duties under all circumstances. The efforts are aimed at restoring matters to institutions, while difficult issues can be resolved in Cabinet and parliament under national consensus, said the minister. He stressed that the national dialogue session is still scheduled for October 19. Beirut, 09 Oct 10, 11:15

Lebanese-Syrian Summit in Damascus ahead of Ahmadinejad Visit
Naharnet/Semi-official sources revealed to the Kuwaiti al-Anbaa newspaper on Saturday that President Michel Suleiman and the Syrian leadership are conducting daily consultations over various developments. The sources did not rule out the possibility of holding a Lebanese-Syrian summit in Damascus ahead of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's upcoming visit to Lebanon next week. Beirut, 09 Oct 10, 09:54

Is Hizbullah trying to take over Lebanon with Iran's help?
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH /J.Post
10/08/2010 02:49
Analysis: The Lebanese guerrilla group is about to have its true face unmasked by the UN Hariri investigation - of course it's panicking.
Hizbullah and Iran now have a common interest in escalating tensions in the Middle East: Hizbullah, with the help of Iran, may be planning to stage a coup in Lebanon to cover up and divert attention from its role in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s plan to visit Lebanon in the coming weeks should be seen in the context of Hizbullah’s plot to take over the country.
Some Lebanese have gone as far as condemning the visit as a “provocation,” noting that it would also raise tensions between Lebanon and Israel because of Ahmadinejad’s plan to tour the border between the two countries.
The UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon is about to publish the results of its investigation into the killing of the former prime minister. According to reliable sources, the report is expected to hold Hizbullah responsible for the assassination.
Now that its true face is about to be unmasked, Hizbullah is, of course, panicking and searching for ways to get out of the sinkhole.
Hizbullah’s rhetoric and actions in recent weeks suggest that the Shi’ite organization is up to no good.
Statements issued by Hizbullah leaders in the past few days indicate that the organization has evil plans.
Nawwaf al-Moussawi, a Hizbullah MP in the Lebanese parliament, warned that any Lebanese who accepted the international tribunal’s indictment findings would be killed as a “collaborator” with Israel and the US.
According to reports from Lebanon, Hizbullah militiamen have been deployed in several “sensitive” locations throughout the country in preparation for overthrowing the government and taking over the entire country. Hizbullah’s message to the world is: If you publish the truth – that we killed Hariri – we will seize control of Lebanon and turn it into another Iran.”
A few weeks ago, Hizbullah militiamen stormed their way into Lebanon’s international airport in Beirut to escort a former security official, Jamil al- Sayyed, from the plane to the VIP lounge.
Sayyed has accused the international tribunal on Lebanon of being biased. He has also accused Hariri’s son, Sa’ad – the current prime minister – and other Lebanese security officials, of misleading the tribunal into concluding that Hizbullah was behind the assassination.
The incident at the airport shows once again that Hizbullah is in fact a statewithin- a-state in Lebanon.
The Shi’ite organization has its own security forces, intelligence services and communications system.
“Hizbullah does not acknowledge the Lebanese state as sovereign,” said Michael Young, an opinion editor at Beirut’s The Daily Star and author of The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle. Young pointed out that Hizbullah had already staged something similar to a coup two years ago.
“The armed takeover of Beirut in May 2008 confirmed that Hizbullah would fire on its fellow citizens and regarded state authority and the rule of law as thin veneers to be swept away when necessary,” he said.
Ahmadinejad would of course welcome the opportunity to export the “Islamic Revolution” to Lebanon.
Instability in the region would divert attention from his nuclear ambitions and allow him to fulfill his dream of wiping Israel off the map.
A victory for Iran and Hizbullah in Lebanon would also be a victory for Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad – and al-Qaida

Ahmadinejad Throws Dangerous Stones in Lebanon
Why the Iranian president’s bark will have more bite on the border with Israel.
Seth Wenig / AP
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the United Nations on Sept. 21, 2010.
In New York at the United Nations last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spouted his usual conspiratorial vitriol, announcing that the U.S. government may have carried out the 9/11 attacks. Now he’s bringing the road show to Lebanon. An official two-day state visit next week, the first since he was elected president in 2005, has Lebanon’s fractured political parties up in arms. It would be controversial enough if Ahmadinejad were just going to do a round of meet-and-greets in Beirut, but he’s reportedly planning to head south and visit the Fatima Gate, one of the border posts with Israel.
Ahmadinejad’s press adviser refused to confirm the details of his itinerary. But Manouchehr Mottaki, the country’s foreign minister, recently said that it would be normal for Ahmadinejad to visit South Lebanon because of the reconstruction projects that his government funded there after the 2006 war with Israel. So what does Ahmadinejad plan to do there?
Unlike in the U.S., where his inflammatory provocations are now met with an exasperated shrug, in southern Lebanon, Ahmadinejad has the potential to actually spark a fury. There are reports in the Arabic press that he may throw a few rocks over the border into Israel as a symbolic gesture. Tensions between Tehran and Tel Aviv are at an all-time high over Iran’s nuclear program, and just two months ago, Lebanese soldiers clashed with the Israeli Defense Forces at the same border. “Ahmadinejad, through this visit, is saying that Beirut is under Iranian influence and that Lebanon is an Iranian base on the Mediterranean,” Fares Soueid, a coordinator for the March 14 Alliance, a coalition of political parties often critical of Iranian and Syrian influence in the country, told Agence France-Presse. “The message is that Iran is at the border with Israel.”
What Took the UN So Long?
A Newsweek Starter Kit explains why it took the Security Council so much time to sanction Iran.
But Ahmadinejad is not only stoking tensions with Israel: the controversial visit comes at a pivotal moment in Lebanese politics. In the past month, tensions have reached a boiling point over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which is investigating the murder of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. Leaks from the tribunal’s proceedings have hinted that Hizbullah operatives may be indicted for the murder; a handful of the party’s members were recently summoned for questioning. U.S. officials have long accused Iran of being a sponsor of Hizbullah.
Ahmadinejad has criticized the tribunal in the past, and some Lebanese observers see his visit as part of a broader push, led by Hizbullah, to discredit and perhaps dissolve the tribunal. Hizbullah leader Seyed Hassan Nasrallah has blasted the tribunal as an “Israeli project” and claimed that the investigation has become politicized because of Israeli and American pressure. The group’s members have even threatened to block funding for the tribunal in cabinet meetings where a government budget vote is looming.
Squared off against Hizbullah are Prime Minister Saad Hariri and a handful of his political allies. They’ve vowed to push the tribunal as far as it needs to go to uncover the details of the assassination. The tribunal issue hits not only Lebanon’s political fault lines but its sectarian fault lines as well: Hizbullah supporters are primarily Shiite, and Hariri’s supporters are primarily Sunni. The two partisan groups clashed in fierce street battles in May 2008. Ahmadinejad’s government is thought to have donated millions of dollars to Hizbullah since 2005, something that has surely not gone unnoticed by Lebanon’s Sunni community.
Ahmadinejad’s visit in the middle of this tense standoff, observers worry, could push one side or the other over the edge. And the Iranian president, once again, will be exactly where he wants to be: in the spotlight.

Dual court
Ayman Jezzini, October 7, 2010
Now Lebanon/
The martyr has remained the same but the court looking into his assassination turned into two. We should be thankful to those activating the second court for maintaining the martyrdom, though having a clear tendency to incriminate the other martyrs, and they could succeed. This is part of our bloody legacy and should not cause any astonishment.
Is there any remaining space for a political debate? Many of us do not believe there is, but still, there is no harm in insisting on maintaining the dialogue. But what dialogue to pursue with a party refusing to acknowledge the simplest and most obvious rule: the death of the dead. There is a reigning debauchery that does not value any logic, wants to decide that the dead were lying when their bloods washed the streets and they killed themselves just to embarrass their opponents.
The message today has never been clearer. There is an international tribunal that some consider politicized and part of a plot, and would only accept an immoral judiciary that does not recognize the crimes in the first place. The truth is that this very screaming is a lost crime by itself. Nevertheless, retired Major General Jamil as-Sayyed rushed into declaring that the family of the deceased should be mourning him at home only. What is being asked today is the trial of those who dare express their grief loudly.
And if the weapon of the victims is an international tribunal, or any other kind, we are able to create an opposite tribunal. This is how we respond to the verdict with an opposite one, but the ability to execute remains in question. To be more precise, the international tribunal accusing anybody in Lebanon could issue an indictment. But, regardless of this fact, is there anyone able to bring any accused to justice? Definitely not, as the accused decided to create his own court, without trying the suspects and without looking for the killer, but is simply looking for holding the victims accountable, and he is capable of that.
That said, there are now two courts and two judges, and between them hangs a whole country that could turn out innocent but only after being ruined, and the court could find it guilty and punish its remains.
The opposition team has overreacted in its attack against the tribunal. This is a politicized court, aiming to besiege the Resistance and achieve what the Israeli enemy was incapable of doing during the July War. What did the enemy fail to do? Destroy the country? He succeeded in destroying all his targets. Displace Lebanese? He did. Blood shedding? Well he succeeded in making us pay a very dear price. What did he fail in doing then? Destroy the infrastructure of the Resistance? There is little doubt, and that is apparently what the resistant camp is trying to prove. And this time again, the Lebanese will be the ones to pay.
Hezbollah has repeatedly stated that it is not concerned with the international resolutions. What makes it so touchy against a looming indictment from the Special Tribunal for Lebanon? What is it trying to prove by declaring that it will treat the Lebanese who will read the indictment as enemies? Is shelling the Lebanese going to hurt Israel and the US?
Those are fruitless questions. If the purpose behind them is to prove the injustice that some of the Lebanese are sustaining, those who possess proof and evidence. But if the purpose is to avoid the looming disaster, we certainly acknowledge that for some time now, nobody in Lebanon hears but an echo. All the realities and evidence of the world would not convince anyone but what his leader tells him. Lebanon is asking today: Is there any room for breathing?
**This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on October 7, 2010


Fouad Siniora
October 8, 2010
On October 7, the Lebanese National News Agency (NNA) carried the following speech delivered by Future bloc leader MP Fouad Siniora during a lunch organized by the Rotary Club in Saida to honor a delegation from the “International Rotary Club” visiting Lebanon:
“You have come from 12 different countries to the oldest Lebanese city which enjoys a long history in tolerance and openness to the world. It is a great opportunity for me to stand here today and talk about the city of Saida among other things. I am looking at the maritime fort which witnessed years of invasions and years of defending the independence, freedom and dignity of its people… The political, democratic and free economy system known in Lebanon during the last few decades gave the country strength and allowed it to face the challenges, thus quickly overcoming the different shocks to which it was subjected. The challenges never left this troubled region and they are constantly threatening our sovereignty and independence, either by placing our sovereignty in the face of our Arab belonging or by placing our freedom in the face of our stability. Finally, we saw attempts to trade justice with security in addition to other predicaments that are continuously put forward.
It is important that we dot the i’s in defining our identity. We want our country to remain free and sovereign and will continue to work for the enhancement of democracy and stability and for the establishment of a strong, just and capable state. There is no doubt that the democratic model in Lebanon is – under the current circumstances – put to the test once again. The Lebanese must support the establishment of a strong and centralized democratic state and the enhancement of our democratic institutions.
Differences are only resolved through dialogue, openness, settlements and the acceptance of the other. This has proven efficient in the past and will definitely do the same today and tomorrow… Despite the numerous internal, regional and international challenges we have faced, we have achieved extraordinary results. During the last four years, we upheld out commitment to the principles of a unified Lebanon and a free and democratic country, thus overcoming the challenges of the global financial crisis and securing one of the highest economic growth rates in our modern history and around the region. This all happened in light of domestic political and security incidents through wise and preemptive economic, financial and monetary policies.
Palestinian problem constitutes the main reason behind many problems seen in the Arab and Islamic worlds. The resolution of this problem will eliminate many obstacles standing in the face of reform in the Arab world and separating the hearts and minds of the Arabs and Muslims of the world from the West. This resolution will also constitute a main tool for the destruction of the psychological barrier standing between the East and the West and eventually marks the biggest test for the West’s credibility and the extent of its commitment to the values of freedom, justice, democracy and human rights which should be implemented all around the world and without double standards. It is not only unfair but also unacceptable for a population to remain without an independent state, without hope and without any horizon. It is no longer acceptable for the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to remain hijacked by the Israeli right-wing war Cabinet and the West’s feeling of guilt toward the Jewish people, in the context of the international policies game and the Arab paralysis and divisions.
Allow me in conclusion to talk about Lebanon. Let it be clear that stability and justice are not contradictory and justice must be secured but not at the expense of peace and stability. We cannot deny the challenge represented by our deep commitment to Lebanon’s stability and have sought the achievement of justice which would put an end to the dodging of the sanctions, thus deterring whoever thinks about committing such crimes [in the future]. This would consequently lead us to true reconciliation. We are completely aware of the fact that seeking justice will secure stability, at a time when any form of violence and especially any sectarian violence will increase the existing divisions and threaten our unity as well as the existence of the state itself. However, warning against this violence or strife as we call it, is not enough. We are invited to work together to avoid it, since no acts of sectarian violence will erupt unless we allow them to.
You, the Lebanese immigrants, must deliver this important and vital message in a clear way to your colleagues and friends in Lebanon and in the states you are currently living. You must all play a role and help build a bright, just and prosperous future for your homeland Lebanon, considering that the Lebanese have always dreamed of seeing that. Do not allow the difficult moments to shake your beliefs and ideas and act as ambassadors for peace, tolerance and Freedom. [In other words,] be Lebanese [end of speech].”

Geagea to NOW Lebanon: I see a real danger that could take the country back to before 2005
Hanin Ghaddar and Bassam Nunu, October 9, 2010
In an exclusive interview with NOW Lebanon, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea discusses the current political and security situation in Lebanon. (Aldo Ayoub)
Let’s start with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) and the issue of false witnesses. Why do you think Speaker Nabih Berri has brought up the issue of the false witnesses and threatened that his ministers will boycott voting [in the government] in case that issue was not discussed during the next cabinet session?
Samir Geagea: What is so odd is that some things are quite clear: the cabinet has already appointed Justice Minister [Ibrahim Najjar] a month and a half ago to prepare a study on what we should do in the so-called issue of “false witnesses.” The justice minister did the study, and it was submitted to President [Michel Sleiman] and Prime Minister [Saad Hariri] 15 days ago. They were going to address the issue before, but the situation was aggravated and they found it best to wait for things to cool down, because we cannot discuss the subject in a tense atmosphere.
Amid this tension – and funny as he is – Speaker Berri said we should address the issue of the false witnesses, “or else.” But the study has already been [concluded]! In any case, we do not mind giving Speaker Berri credit, because he knows that the study is ready and that the issue of the false witnesses will be addressed in a session any time now.
Does the fact that [Berri raised the issue] before [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon has any significance?
Geagea: I personally do not think so. And allow me to [represent] the so-called issue of “false witnesses” from this angle. It is used as an excuse to mix everything up and to destroy the STL. Nobody can talk about false witnesses as long as the indictment has not been issued, because no one can tell if [the false witnesses] exist or if their testimonies were true or false. What will happen if it turns out that the indictment did not take into consideration the testimony of those who are considered as false witnesses? Those people will be free of all the accusations and will have the right to sue those who accused them, because the real false witness is the one who misleads the STL’s investigation.
I am saying this to show that the issue is being handled in all of its facets, therefore, no one can accuse anybody of being a false witness before the indictment is issued and the investigation [results] are made public. I stress on this particular point because it is being blown out of proportion. If, for example, it turns out that the STL judges did not take into consideration any of the [testimonies] of Mohammad Zuhair Siddiq, Hussam Hussam, [Akran Shakib] Murad, or [Ibrahim Michel] Jarjoura, will we still be interested in them as false witnesses?
[Former General Security chief] Jamil as-Sayyed says that he was arrested based on the false witnesses’ testimonies. That is not true. How can he tell? We should inquire with the investigative magistrate about that, because he is the only one who has the answer. In [civilized] societies, serious issues like that of the assassination of former PM Rafik Hariri demand serious investigations, where the investigative magistrates are the ones who decide if a person is a false witness or not, based on whether or not they did something to mislead the investigation. The investigative magistrates themselves are saying that there is nothing worth looking into, but Sayyed disagrees, as if he knew why he was arrested, and whether or not he is actually innocent.
The main problem is that there is a swarm of hornets attacking the STL from all sides, and the STL cannot say anything, thus, no serious, scientific, logical research can be made into this subject before the tribunal’s indictment is issued.
This being said, if we were to consider the Lebanese judicial system as having any authority, on what basis will the judiciary determine who are the false witnesses before the indictment is issued? All it can do is wait for the indictment. Unfortunately, we will have yet another “excuse” that we will call the “witnesses excuse.”
How are you dealing with the Syrian arrest warrants?
Geagea: In the simplest judicial logic, no one can take action regarding the false witnesses before the STL’s indictment is issued, and the investigations are made public. As I have already said, Justice Minister [Najjar] was assigned [to deal with the matter] two months ago, and it was known that he will submit [his findings] to the cabinet on Monday. So the day before, [Syria] issued the arrest warrants, as if it was trying to bypass the process. The reason is because they do not care about the false witnesses issue; they want “the witnesses excuse.”
Legally speaking, these arrest warrants are extremely flawed. Even a 12th grader would not do this kind of mistake, be it with regard to the timing, the authority, the immunity or the people these warrants were addressed to, for a number of legal considerations that cannot be meddled with.
As for the political point of view, I picture President Sleiman and PM Hariri stretching their [arms] toward the Syrians, eyes closed, only to be surprised with a punch in the face.
So what are they concocting through it all?
Geagea: The theory of a state-to-state relationship turned out to be a figment of our imagination. This dream is still on its way to Damascus, where [the Syrian leadership] is acting in a completely different manner. It reminded me of the old times.
Is it an announcement of the end of the agreement between Syria and Saudi Arabia, or is it “a small problem” like PM Hariri said? How do you explain it?
Geagea: In my opinion, this is now up to the Syrians, meaning, if the Syrians realize the gravity of the mistake they made and they decide to revoke the warrants—although they do not qualify as real warrants—then the Syrian-Saudi agreement has not ended. If [the Syrians] decided to go forward with the warrants, then I do not know if Saudi Arabia will be able to put up with this kind of behavior.
What do you think is most likely to happen?
Geagea: I think that the Syrians have made up their minds on the strategic level to go in the opposite direction.
Based on [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad’s visit to Iran?
Geagea: Based on many things: [on the Syrians’] clear position toward the STL, and the fact that they unleashed their men in Lebanon against the government, and more specifically against Saad Hariri and the whole system. What more can you ask for? In my opinion, the Syrians have made their strategic choice.
How does this translate in the domestic Lebanese arena?
The way I see it, it translates with Sayyed’s first press conference. You could disagree with Sayyed in politics, but you cannot deny the fact that he knows what is going on. Sayyed’s words reflect what he is experiencing in the closed rooms. This, unfortunately, confirmed the first impression I had of Sayyed’s allegations. It is a general atmosphere that he is basing his moves on.
What do you expect and how do you plan on coping with such an atmosphere?
Geagea: We intend to do so by sticking to our position, adhering to our convictions and never wavering from our reality. I sincerely tell you that during the past two weeks, some things happened that provoked us all, and made us work not 10, not 12 but 16 hours a day, because honestly, I see a real danger lurking that could take the country back to what it was before 2005. This is a step back for all of us as Lebanese. It is no longer a matter of politics, but that of sovereignty. Every Lebanese citizen has the choice: we either follow through with the journey we started in 2005, regardless of its flaws; or we go back to the position we were in before 2005.
What are the tools of resistance?
Geagea: political tools par excellence as you can see.
So will you behave like General [Michel] Aoun asked you to?
Geagea: (Laughs) I have not been behaving since 2005, and I will never behave. The troublemaker is the one who has the arms, not the one who doesn’t. So General Aoun better tell that to himself and to his allies.
There is a government today, however minimal, that is in charge of the security of Lebanon and the Lebanese. I honestly tell you that we are not responsible of the internal security nor can we afford the repercussions of such a thing, and we are not willing to. Besides, it would be undermining our theory that we should all be in favor of the country and its institutions. Only then will we continue our political mission, gathering political tools in order to make some dream of ours come true, not more. What more can we ask for, in the presence a government, however minimal which still reassures us every day though [the presence] of the president, the army commander and the PM, that it is the one responsible of national peace?
In your opinion, is there a difference between what Hezbollah wants and what Syria wants, or is it all the same?
Geagea: No, it is all the same, because Syria is not asking Hezbollah for its fair share of influence in Lebanon. On the contrary to what some may think, they are both trying to take the influence we have so that they both become more powerful. This is what they are trying to do.
Can they do that?
Geagea: No they can’t.
Why not?
Geagea: Because there is a reality that no one can change. In a metaphorical way, I would say that they can intimidate a lot of people, but they cannot intimidate them all the time.
But they did change the facts on the field after the 2008 May 7 events.
Geagea: I disagree. There have been some tactical, political steps to overcome a given period, but that does not mean that they have changed the facts on the field, and the biggest proof is the results of the 2009 parliamentary elections.
They have changed exactly that: they were able to absorb the results of the political process.
Geagea: Through a political maneuver they have done with [Progressive Socialist Party leader MP] Walid Jumblatt, sure. We respond to this maneuver by doing another with another party. As long as the game is this way, it is excellent.
But the scary thing is that May 7 caused 100 causalities.
Geagea: Yes, unfortunately.
That means it was not a political game.
Geagea: Many scenarios are being prepared. What will we witness? On the short term, we will see some moves that are all on the political level. In my opinion, they will first try to get what they want by exerting pressure on the political level.
You mean overthrowing the government?
Geagea: That’s one way of putting it, or changing the government through re-creating power. They work a little, we work a little.
Are there guarantees that things will not be [settled on] the streets?
Geagea: Up until now, this seems to be the only constant side of the Syrian-Saudi agreement; there is no street violence. And think about it: according to their calculations, this time, stirring things up in the streets might not be possible; it might not be to their advantage, it might not give results or it may give counter results. They made all these calculations, and I still however think that the minimal government will not allow armed Lebanese to attack other Lebanese this time around.
Is there data other than the public statements issued by President Sleiman and Lebanese Army Commander [Jean Kahwaji]? What do you know about this through your deliberations?
Geagea: Yes of course, the president, the PM and the ministers have the intention of keeping things under control. They consider themselves highly responsible for the national peace, and they will take all necessary measures in order to keep any armed Lebanese from attacking other Lebanese. The statements express that, anyway.
Perhaps the statements are merely to provide reassurance, especially after September’s airport incident .
Geagea: What happened in the airport was not without a price. We addressed the cabinet with the subject, and it led to launching investigations into the matter. This is not Switzerland, but at least, there was an official political reaction as there should be, in a way that the other party started defending itself.
But they have admitted that they did that, they are proud of doing it, and they will do it again whenever they want.
Geagea: It is true that some said that once, but they never said it again. This is not an expression of a strategy or of a complete policy. This is an expression of a grouchy person that said it as a challenge. Otherwise, we would have heard it from other people the next day. A few days ago [Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General] Sheikh Naim Quassem said, “We will not let them drag us into strife”. (lLaughs) Were we dragging them into strife or were they the ones saying that we are heading toward it? This is a scale too. Didn’t you notice what the only joint statement that was published after the Assad-Ahmadinejad meeting in Tehran said? “We hold on to Lebanon’s stability”… There are some quite important indicators.
But Assad said later that the situation in Lebanon is not reassuring.
Geagea: Yes, but that doesn’t keep him from sending messages
You talk of political pressure and that it will suffice in the upcoming period, whether it fails or succeeds?
Geagea: I will simplify it for you, it will not succeed.
And what will happen if it fails?
Geagea: I still do not have a clear picture regarding the matter for the simple reason that the other party has not chosen a clear direction yet. It is still looking into all options. But I think that in the light of the data given to the other party—especially the official, legal, political and popular data—I think that it is slowly [rejecting] the option of using violence domestically. At least, I hope it is.
What if some political pressure, such as resignations, was to take place?
Geagea: We will never go back to that.
MP Walid Jumblatt is saying that he will not resign, but he may be obliged to at some point. What do you think about that?
Geagea: In politics, everything can either come true or be suppressed. I do not know if Walid Jumblatt would go against Saad Hariri on such a personal level, as if nothing happened during these past years. I honestly doubt it.
What is, in your opinion, the message behind Ahmadinejad’s visit and what are its consequences on the Lebanese?
Geagea: First of all, I hope that it will be a serious international visit, a president visiting his counterpart, coming to see Lebanon as a country. If this is the case, then he is most welcome! But if it goes beyond that, I say that it’s a shame for President Ahmadinejad to pick Lebanon in order to send messages to the East and to the West. In that case, the visit will be going out of its formal context and out of international formalities. This is all I can say at this moment.
The agenda of his visit is still not final. It looks like it will be formal for a day and a half and informal for a day. I understand if he goes sightseeing, shopping or visiting some friends informally, but I do not understand when he undertakes political activity [then]… Things are still unclear, but I wish that President Ahmadinejad acts as the president of a country and that he takes into consideration Lebanon’s situation, its foreign policy, the different opinions in it and the diversity of the Lebanese people.
Will the Lebanese Forces participate in the formal ceremony?
Geagea: We do not have any problem with the formal context—i.e. the cabinet, the parliament and the presidency. Everything outside this context is an issue, of course.
There is a feeling that the Christian [public] is lost, especially young Christians who follow Aoun without approving his policy. What is your opinion on the matter, having invited this particular group for dialog?
Geagea: There are in fact some people who joined the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) based on personal convictions. I remember very well in the first years of my imprisonment, all the people arrested and brought to prison were in the Lebanese Forces (LF). After that period, they would alternate between LF and FPM partisans. So the people that were being thrown in prison were there because of certain convictions that were translated in the FPM’s orange book in 2005. I believe in these FPM partisans, for if those young men and young ladies were not defending a cause, they would not have suffered what they have suffered. And I will always have great faith in them.
However, I honestly have no hope whatsoever for the small group comprising of General Aoun and his small circle They have gone a different way and believe in completely different things. As for that first group of people, I have great expectations for them and that is why I called upon them. Let them read once more their book, and we will do the same.
As for the Christian [public] in general, I believe that there is no such thing anymore. The Christians have the principles of March 14 in their hearts. This was proven more than once by the continuous elections. The Christian street is mainly March 14.
Did you get any feedback regarding your invitation?
Geagea: Yes we did, from those who were originally a little distant. Some mysterious things are still happening with those who are still in the FPM, but there is a lot of give and take in the matter.
You forgot that at least from 2000 until 2005 we talked about it, solved our problems and agreed that it was water under the bridge. We fought side by side in universities, in the streets and in Qurnat Shehwan.
Aoun said he visited you in prison? Is that correct?
Geagea: Yes, and I have previously talked about. It was personal. Now I can say that then, Aoun was giving himself the position of going into battle in the name of all the Christians. And, of course, he cannot do so without visiting Samir Geagea in prison. This means he took this step to say that beyond personal differences, he is still with Samir Geagea. The visit came in this context, and we did not discuss politics during the visit.
This is what General Aoun meant: if I liked his orange book so much and if believed in his principles, why didn’t I agree to ally myself with him? The reason is because his alliances in 2005 went against the orange book. They were all with Syria and Hezbollah. His excuse was the quadripartite alliance… Well, the quadripartite alliance was in one or two regions only, and it was only for the elections. Our great alliance was with March 14. He was against March 14. So from that moment on, we took opposing sides.
While I was still in prison, I was offered to be released before the elections—just like Aoun was brought in from France—on the condition of changing my alliances and not becoming an ally with Jumblatt and Hariri. [Aoun] is now reproaching me, because I didn’t do so. Wasn’t this against his convictions?
You received an offer?
Geagea: Of course. They wanted me to form an alliance with Karami’s list in the North, and they would release me before the elections. But I had learned my lesson, and I said no.
There are rumors about the LF being armed.
Geagea: They are not true. These rumors are being spread by the other team’s security apparels, everyday and in a premeditated fashion. None of it is true; otherwise, it would have been given as data to the security apparels.
Rumors also say that they gave maps to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) showing the LF’s armament.
Geagea: Where are they? Let them publish the maps. Do they want to accuse the LAF of collusion? Ten days ago, in the first cabinet meeting, the president said that he asked the security apparels about parties’ armament, but nobody had any information regarding the matter.
What is the goal spreading these rumors then?
Geagea: General Aoun, if you may, has been having the same dream for four or five months now. He dreams about trying to push Hezbollah to enter the Christian regions in order to strike the LF. Sort of like what happened to the Druze in 2008. Hezbollah entered the Druze regions, and Walid Jumblatt had to hurry over to Talal Erslan’s. General Aoun has been having this picture of Hezbollah storming in here, so I would have to seek shelter in him along with everybody, because he is Hezbollah’s ally. But of course, Hezbollah knows better than anyone else that the LF does not have arms. Of course, if the official security apparels had any information on the matter, they would have searched us. One single armed individual was caught in Oyoun Orghosh, and a whole legend was written about drill camps. Do you seriously think that the security apparels hold information and maps, and they are hiding them? Never.
Is March 14 still [significant]? What can it do to return to the streets and the people?
Geagea: If you want to see where March 14 is, just remember March 12 or 13, 2005. Nothing was visible. It is the largest movement in the history of Lebanon. It represents the silent majority next to the political parties that were in it. That is why I tell you that it is present. Some people are waiting for it, wishing for it to act, to do something. These people exist. On the political level, after Saad Hariri became prime minister, there was of course a certain limitation to March 14’s movement, but that does not mean it is [dead]. It all depends on the circumstances. As you saw in the past three weeks when things went in a certain direction and crossed a certain line, March 14 came back stronger than ever. I am very optimistic about March 14, regardless of the ongoing political situation.
You once said, “The presidency is in danger because it is put in the way of a herd of elephants.” Where are we today?
Geagea: We have been put in the elephants’ way to be crushed. But we have not been crushed yet. We have to help ourselves, so that God helps us too.

Abolishing the Tribunal…Is Abolishing the Settlement
Fri, 08 October 2010
Walid Choucair/Al Hayat
Lebanon finds itself today in the midst of a political turmoil that threatens further inevitable and gradually escalating aggravation, based on the indications that the Lebanese political scene betrays in this direction.
The debate that is taking place in political circles or among ordinary citizens in Beirut is no longer about whether the country is teetering between calm and political tensions. Instead, it is about whether the country is teetering between a political crisis that would lead to a power vacuum – where the opposition would seize control of the government by dismantling the national unity government from within – and the scenario where this crisis would spread into the streets. This would take the form of a deployment by Hezbollah and its allies in several Lebanese regions, in protest of the issuance of the indictment by the prosecutor of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), or in anticipation of it, in order to put pressure on the international community to abolish it, or push Prime Minister Saad Hariri to reject such an indictment prior to his departure...
The first scenario above – the teetering between calm and tension – was prevalent a few weeks ago, assisted by the sense of reassurance in Lebanese political circles regarding the Saudi-Syrian accord which considers stability and security a red line. However, a large segment of public opinion and even of politicians began to rule out the possibility of having calm, and to conclude instead that [Lebanon] will henceforth teeter between political tension and tensions on the ground. This conviction was then further substantiated when Hezbollah’s militants entered the premises of the Rafik Hariri International Airport, under the pretext of defending one of the four generals against the possibility of a judicial summons involving him. This took place after this general went on the offensive, with Syrian support, and after some figures in the opposition, most notably Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, changed their positions regarding the STL: Hitherto, they were distinguishing between the indictment and the STL itself. Then the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party Walid Jumblatt, Damascus’s new ally, joined this new position in abandoning this distinction, and rejecting the STL itself. While Berri did so by refusing to allow Lebanon to contribute to the funding of the STL under the guise of the unconstitutionality of Lebanon’s [initial] request for the tribunal’s establishment, Jumblatt has rejected the STL under the pretext that the choice between it and civil peace is an easy one.
There is also another development that increased the conviction of the Lebanese that their choice between calm and political tension has been replaced by the choice between political tension and the possibility of that spreading into the streets and causing security incidents in the upcoming period: It is the Syrian arrest warrants issued against members of Hariri's team, under the pretext of prosecuting false witnesses, but with the actual aim being the escalation of the campaign against the credibility of the STL prior to the issuance of its indictment.
These warrants have added more credibility to Hezbollah’s assertion that anyone who believes there is a dispute between Syria and Hezbollah is delusional. The warrants were also an additional proof of the shakiness of the Saudi-Syrian accord regarding Lebanon, as signs to this effect have started to emerge through the opposition's fierce attacks against Hariri since early last month.
Hariri refused to comply with the demands for him to withdraw from the STL in his capacity as the avenger of blood, and to announce that the indictment that will be issued by it was made in Israel – according to the dictates that were leaked in this regard. Instead, he announced his full support of the STL, because the opposite would mean the end of his political life. Given this, ending political calm was a natural response. But in truth, this is something that Hezbollah has anticipated for months now, by refusing Hariri's request to meet with the party's Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah since last July, as Hezbollah rejects any dialogue before Hariri declares what the party believes he should declare.
Hariri’s declaration on September 6 that he is dropping the political accusation against Syria of having assassinated his father, and that he condemns the false witnesses, were a sign that a compromise regarding the repercussions of the assassination is possible, after the issuance of the indictment. However, demanding him to abolish the STL abolishes the possibilities of such a settlement, and subsequently, abolishes the prospects of having calm…and the dialogue that many incessantly call for in order to address the tension caused by the battle over the tribunal.
As a result of all this, the Lebanese will at minimum face a scenario of political tensions that may escalate up to dismantling the government and replacing it with another that includes those who want to eliminate the STL, a government that will ask the Security Council to abolish it (but the Council will not respond). However, the Lebanese remember a great deal of things about a previous government that excluded substantial elements, and waged a war against the latter’s figures in the state and the political scene at large. For instance, what happened in 1998 when Rafik Hariri was excluded backfired and increased his popularity many times over.
Meanwhile, if the possibility of escalation in the street and at the security level increases in likelihood, then this is a different matter.

Hezbollah Mobilize to Welcome Iranian President
06/10/2010
By Paula Astatih
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat – Active preparations are underway for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's forthcoming visit to Lebanon which is expected to take place sometime next week, from the corridors of the Baabda Presidential Palace to the streets of the southern villages, where posters of the Iranian president and banners welcoming him are being put up, particularly in the border areas of Bint Jbeil and Maroun al-Ras.
The people of southern Lebanon, who are enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's forthcoming visit, have said that "what we did to welcome the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa al Thani was just the dress rehearsal for President Ahmadinejad's visit."
More than one itinerary has been issued for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's forthcoming trip to Lebanon, however highly informed sources at the Iranian embassy in Beirut have informed Asharq Al-Awsat that "the Iranian president will lead a large and high ranking delegation [during the visit to Lebanon] that includes ministers, parliamentarians, and businessmen." The Iranian embassy sources also said that "Ahmadinejad will propose to provide Lebanon with assistance in oil exploration, as well as [assistance] in providing Lebanon with energy, establishing industrial cities, and equipping the Lebanese army."
Although the Iranian embassy sources refused to confirm or deny whether President Ahmadinejad was intending to visit southern Lebanon, other sources confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat that "southern Lebanon and its border villages is the most prominent stop on Ahmadinejad's itinerary, and he is most enthusiastic to stand on the battlefields where the blood of martyrs of the resistance have been shed."
The source also informed Asharq Al-Awsat that "Hezbollah is mobilizing a large number of people to welcome the high-ranking Iranian guest who will visit the villages of Qana, Bint Jbeil, Maroun al-Ras, and Mlita." The source stressed that "the importance of this visit lies in its form rather than its content; for the Iranian President standing on the border represents a direct provocation to the Israeli enemy."
The upcoming visit adds fuel to the fire of the conflict that has been taking place between the Lebanese factions, for while a large section of the March 14 Alliance consider the visit to be provocative, the March 8 Alliance have welcomed this and described Ahmadinejad's visit to Iran as "historic."
In a previous interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Future Movement deputy leader, Antoine Andraous described President Ahmadinejad's visit as being "a provocative visit for two thirds of the Lebanese people." He also referred to the "immorality of the Hezbollah movement that wants to implement a truce until Ahmadinejad's visit to Beirut, and then [afterwards] resume the war and return to fighting us."
MP Okab Sakr, who is a member of the "Lebanon First" bloc that is led by Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri told Asharq Al-Awsat that Hariri's position – and that of his electoral bloc – towards the Iranian President's visit to Lebanon is one that stresses "the necessity of separating between the visit itself and the Future Movement's position towards Ahmadinejad's policies."
He added that "we have our negative position towards Ahmadinejad's politics, and this is a position that exists even within Iran. However this is one thing; and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting Lebanon is another. We welcome this visit and we hope to strengthen ties between the state of Lebanon and Iran; we also hope that Ahmadinejad takes a position to counter the challenges that Lebanon is facing internally, especially as he has clear influence on a large section of the March 8 Alliance."
Sakr stressed to Asharq Al-Awsat that "we, as Lebanese, do not care if this visit raises Israeli concerns, for such concerns reassure us so long as the visit does not violate the Lebanese norms and UN resolution 1701." Sakr also said that "MPs and senior members of the Future Movement will participate in the meetings with the Iranian President for there is no enmity or hostility between Prime Minister Hariri and the Iranian President."
Sakr added that "given the chance, Prime Minister Hariri will not hesitate to explain the perspective of a large section of the Lebanese people towards the policies of the Iranian President, however we welcome this visit and Hariri's meeting with Ahmadinejad will take place naturally according to protocol." Sakr also revealed that "Hariri has received an invitation to visit Iran, and he will undertake this when the time is right."
MP Sakr also stressed to Asharq Al-Awsat that "the worst abuses that could take place with regards to Ahmadinejad's visit is by those who will use this as a platform [for their own views] or those who leak details of the visit or suggest that this will be a watershed moment, and that the period following the visit will be different from what went before, which will harm the Lebanese, as well as the end of the visit will being akin to an announcement of zero hour and a return of the series of security – military [conflicts] which will mean that we have taken a 20-year step backwards."
Sakr added that "we hope to hear clear talk from Ahmadinejad in this regard to put an end to everything that is being leaked." As for the expected assistance that will be offered to Lebanon by Iran, Sakr said that "we hope that the talk of this assistance is transformed into a reality, and we even hope that [Iran] assists Lebanon in obtaining peaceful nuclear energy."
MP Ayoub Hmayed of the Liberation and Development bloc that is led by Lebanese parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri said that "the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad's visit to Lebanon will represent addition support for Lebanon and its issues" adding that "Iran has been Lebanon's partner in its victories against the Zionist enemy."
Hmayed also said that "Ahmadinejad's visit will also represent an opportunity in an official framework to increase cooperation in a number of areas of mutual benefit to both Lebanon and Iran, in addition to the fundamental issue which is supporting the Lebanese military, which Iran expressed a readiness to begin [providing support], and it only remains for Lebanon to find out what it needs."
Hmayed also criticized some countries "that claim to be concerned with Lebanon and its sovereignty and claim to support the Lebanese army to allow it to carry out its duties to defend Lebanese territory" adding that "these claims are false and a mirage, and limited to some simple things that do not prevent hunger." He also confirmed that "everything that Lebanon will officially ask for from Ahmadinejad during this visit will be welcomed by the brothers in Iran."
Lebanese Energy Minister Gebran Bassil has also attacked the criticisms made by some figures of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon, saying that he was surprised by this, stressing that "Iran wants to help Lebanon and the people of Lebanon." Bassil added that "we see that this [visit] is welcomed by the government, whilst outside of the government some people have taken a different position."

Will Ahmadinejad Be in Danger in Lebanon?
09/10/2010
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/AlSharqAlAwsat
Next week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected – in front of photographers – to throw stones at the Israeli border in a scene that is intended to be utilized for political propaganda. Nevertheless, Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon will be significant, and it is brave of the Iranian president to visit the southern-most point of the country, Bint Jbeil, where he will be standing in the cross-hairs of Israeli rifles; so this is an adventure that is not necessarily safe.
I do not expect the Israelis to dare target the Iranian president or any other leader the Lebanese authorities may receive regardless of their hostility [towards Israel]…for this is one of the complex rules in the relations between enemies. Although the Israelis will be the last party to dare to target Ahmadinejad, his visit will not be a stroll in the park, for the enemies of Iran, and particularly Ahmadinejad's own enemies, are numerous, making this the most dangerous [political] visit that Lebanon could sponsor. This is due to the presence of the Al Qaeda organization, the radical Sunni groups in Lebanon, armed Iranian opposition groups like "the People's Mujahedin of Iran" and [Iranian] forces who are competing for power [with the government] in Iran, international intelligence agencies who think that getting rid of Ahmadinejad will change the regional situation, as well as other forces that are looking to change the situation.
It is expected that Hezbollah, rather than the Lebanese army or security forces, will protect the Iranian president during his first official visit to Lebanon. Iran spent hundreds of millions of dollars arming Hezbollah and training its cadres, so it trusts the Hezbollah movement's abilities. It is no coincidence that Hezbollah chose Bint Jbeil for the Iranian president to visit, for this is a town that is controlled by Hezbollah, and Ahmadinejad is safer in this Lebanese town than he is in any city in his own country, where he has survived more than one assassination attempt.
In fact, it is not the Iranian president who will be in danger but rather the people of Lebanon who will pay the price in the escalations that are bound to take place following this visit. The difference between this visit and other state visits, such as that of the Saudi King or the Emir of Qatar [to Lebanon] is clear; as the latter visits have positive goals, such as political reconciliation, or helping the Lebanese people with projects and initiatives, or providing the Lebanese state with financial aid. Most of the southern Shiite villages that were destroyed during the 2006 war were reconstructed thanks to Qatari aid, and roads have been paved thanks to Kuwaiti aid, whilst Saudi Arabia supported the Lebanese lira with approximately 1 billion US dollars to ensure that the Lebanese currency did not collapse. As for the Iranian funding, most of this – if not all – was spent on the Hezbollah militia, doubling its fighting capabilities. This is why the Iranian president was able to announce last week that Lebanon has become the first line of defence against Israel; this is true for Lebanon has become the Iranian frontline with regards to its conflict with Israel. This visit is the embodiment of this confrontational mentality that has seen Lebanon experiencing a state of proxy war for three decades. As for the Iranian-sponsored projects and initiatives that will help all of Lebanon, there are still no signs of these.
The latest such claim was the Iranian Minister of Petroleum's statement that Tehran would assist Lebanon in off-shore oil exploration in the Mediterranean Sea. However we are all aware that Iran is unable to produce its oil quota after western companies refrained from doing business with it as a result of economic sanctions, so how can Tehran possibly be in a position to assist anybody else?
Iran has been successful in exploiting Lebanon for its own political objectives, and this is unlucky for the Lebanese people who only want to lead an ordinary life, rather than always being concerned for their own future and the future of their children. Everybody would prefer to use a cat's paw to fight their enemy.

War and Tehran's Illusions
08/10/2010
By Amir Taheri/AlSharqAlAwsat
For the past four years, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone around reassuring people that his provocative foreign policy would not lead to military confrontation with adversaries in the region and beyond.
Earlier this week, Ahmadinejad recalled Ayatollah Khomeini's dictum ' America cannot do a damn thing!' and promised that the US would be ' thrown out of this region with a kick on its back.'
The president's riposte came in response to remarks by the United States Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen that a contingency plans had been drawn up for military action against the Khomeinist regime.
But do Iran's military, who would have to deal with any conflict, share the president's optimism?
The short answer is: no.
Last month, commanders of the regular army used routine official ceremonies to drop hints that they believed that the possibility of an attack on the Islamic Republic could not be ruled out. They also made it clear that their forces, under-equipped as they are, would not be able to face a superior enemy using advanced weapons.
Those musings led to press reports that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and not the regular army, had been assigned the task of dealing with any possible attack.
This week, it became clear that the IRGC, too, does not share Ahmadinejad's illusions.
'Those who rule out an attack are wrong,' General Hussein Hamadani, IRGC Commander for Tehran, said in an interview. 'We think that an attack is possible.'
In thinly veiled criticism of Ahmadinejad's penchant for provocative remarks, the general warned against ' adventurism' and insisted that no adversary should be underestimated.
Judging by Hamadani's remarks and statements by other commanders as reported in the official media in Tehran, the IRGC which originally sponsored Ahmadinejad and propelled him into the presidency may be cooling towards its protégé.
The IRGC's support for Ahmadinejad is now described as a matter of necessity not choice.
'We would have to protect the system even if Bani-Sadr were president,' Hamdani said.
In the current Khomeinist discourse, comparing Ahmadinejad to Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, a protégé of the ayatollah who briefly acted as President of the Islamic Republic before felling into exile, is no compliment.
How do IRGC commanders envisage a military conflict and how do they hope to deal with it?
Judging by their public statements, they do not believe that the United States would go for a full-scale invasion as it did in Iraq or Afghanistan.
They see the crisis coming in five stages.
The first stage would consist of internal riots possibly triggered by the nation's worsening economic situation. This is called ' economic fitna'. Coming in the wake of last year's uprising against Ahmadinejad's re-election, riots by the poorest sections of society could further undermine the regime's legitimacy.
In the second stage, the IRGC would have to spread its forces across the country to protect the regime. With a total of 125,000 men, plus 300,000 Bassij ( Mobilisation) paramilitary, the IRGC would be hard put to protect a vast country such as Iran.
In the third stage, the IRGC's resources would be further stretched to cope with armed uprisings by some of Iran's ethnic minorities.
In the fourth stage, the US would use its superior air power to destroy the IRGC's command and control systems and knocking out its elite units, especially the Quds Brigade located close to the Iraq border.
In the fifth stage, the internal opposition would try to seize power in Tehran by promising to stop the conflict and avert a full-scale war. The regular army which has been carefully spared in American attacks would enter the stage to back a provisional government led by former Prime Minister Mir-Hussein Mousavi and former President Muhammad Khatami.
But how does the IRGC hope to deal with the situation?
The answer coming from the commanders is simple: asymmetric warfare outside Iran's frontier, presumably designed to discourage the US from expanding initial attacks on Iranian installations.
But how would this be done?
The commanders' answer is hazy.
They claim that Tehran's assets abroad, especially the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza,, would be ordered to open new fronts, presumably by attacking Israel with rockets. Under a contingency plan, IRGC officers would assume full command of Hezbollah units in Lebanon for the duration of the crisis.
The IRGC also controls the Badr Brigade and the Army of Mahdi in Iraq which boast a combined force of 15,000 men. In Afghanistan, the IRGC counts on a 5000-strong force of Hazara Shi'ite fighters a day's march from Kabul.
The Tehran media have also evoked he possibility of ' emergency cooperation' with non-Shi'ite groups in the region. The IRGC has been financing Gulbudin Hekmatyar's Hizb Islami, an Afghan Sunni outfit, for years and could presumably count on it to take some action against NATO forces. Since Hekmatyar is in contact with the Taliban, he could also act as a bridge between the IRGC and Mullah Omar's forces in Afghanistan.
The IRGC's analysis suffers from several defects.
It assumes that the conflict would take long enough for the effects of asymmetric warfare to impact public opinion in the United States. However, the conflict could be shortened if Iran's internal situation changes to the detriment of the IRGC and its political façade.
It is also far from certain that the Lebanese Hezbollah would risk committing suicide in the forlorn hope of saving a doomed regime in Tehran. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is ready to take orders from Tehran as long as the ' Supreme Guide' is in place and capable of signing fat cheques.
The Badr Brigade and the Mahdi Army may also prove to have been fair weather friends. In any case, their ability to take on the new Iraqi army and its American allies remains in doubt. Though commanded by IRGC officers at the time, the Mahdi Army was roundly defeated in the Battle of Basra by Iraq's new military units led by Prime Minster Nuri Ali-Maliki.
As for the Hazara force, its leader Abdul-Karim Khalili is now Vice-President of Afghanistan thanks to American support.
President Ahmadinejad is wrong in ruling out any possibility of an attack on Iran. And the IRGC commanders are wrong in counting on others to help the regime out of a tight spot when, and if, there is an attack.
The wisest policy for Iran is to take measures needed to avoid a conflict.
For Iran has no interest in provoking a war for which it is far from prepared.