LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 28/2011
Bible Quotation for today/love
one another, just as I love you.
John 15/12-17: "My commandment is this: love one another, just as I love you.
The greatest love you can have for your friends is to give your life for them.
And you are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants
any longer, because servants do not know what their master is doing. Instead, I
call you friends, because I have told you everything I heard from my Father. You
did not choose me; I chose you and appointed you to go and bear much fruit, the
kind of fruit that endures. And so the Father will give you whatever you ask of
him in my name. This, then, is what I command you: love one another.
Latest analysis,
editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
The crescent of minorities/By: Hazem al-Amin/December
27/11
The Al-Assad regime’s wild imagination!/By Hussein
Shobokshi/December
27/11
Iraq is lucky to have
al-Maliki/By Tariq Alhomayed/December 27/11
Iran's Nukes and Israel's Dilemma/By:
by Yoaz Hendel/Middle East Quarterly/December 28/11
Are Egypt's Islamic
Parties Planning to Nullify the Peace Treaty with Israel?/By: Jonathan D.
Halevi/ December 27/11
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for December
27/11
Chemi Shalev/Will a U.S. attack on Iran become Obama’s
‘October Surprise’?
Iran: We will cut oil flow if West imposes economic
sanctions
ElBaradei: U.S., Egypt in secret talks on fate of Israel
peace treaty
Qatar builds Sunni intervention force of Libyan, Iraqi terrorists against Assad
70,000 Rally in Homs as Arab Monitors Meet Governor
Mass anti-Assad protest
in Syria's Homs as monitors visit
Assad cannot outsmart
the Arab League, he will fall hard: Hariri
Damascus undergrad
kills fellow student, wounds 4
Statement by Canada on the Situation in Syria
Lebanon will not send observers to Syria
Arsal Delegation Presses Miqati to Deploy Army Along
Border with Syria
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea meets Saudi crown
prince, Hariri
Geagea Holds Talks with Hariri in Riyadh on Local,
Regional Developments
Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai , Future bloc call for
weapons-free country
Future bloc MP Khaled Daher slams defense minister over
Al-Qaeda statement
Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai meets with
Syrian ambassador
Sleiman calls for urban arms collection
Arsal residents demand Lebanon Army deployment
France warns Syria against “manipulation” as monitors
visit
Miqati Meets Beirut MPs, Orders Security Forces to Set
Plan on Reaching Arms-Free Beirut
Imam Musa Sadr died in Libya jail, kept 12 years in
morgue: report
Charbel says Ghosn's
claims to be discussed in Cabinet
Miqati to Discuss Bilateral Ties during Visit to Paris in
January
70,000 Rally in Homs as Arab Monitors Meet Governor
by Naharnet /Some 70,000 Syrians took to the streets of Homs as Arab League
observers visited the protest hub on Tuesday after reports that at least 34
people had been killed in 24 hours of a crackdown on dissent. "More than 70,000
demonstrators tried to enter al-Saa square in the center of the city of Homs,
while the security agents used tear gas to disperse them," said the
Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The protest comes as Arab
League observers visited the flashpoint central city to monitor a deal to end a
deadly nine-month crackdown on anti-regime protests.
On its Facebook page, the Observatory said separate demonstrations were held
elsewhere in the city, aimed at "exposing the ill practices and crimes of the
regime" to the visiting Arab League delegation.
Following the killings of civilians in Baba Amr on Monday, residents held a
funeral in the nearby Kefer Ayia for some of those who died, but were fired on
by security services, according to the Observatory.
Activists said the military pulled its tanks back from one district ahead of the
Arab League team's arrival, only to hide them inside government zones from where
they could be redeployed within minutes.
The demonstrators appeared to have been emboldened by the presence of a team of
Arab League observers headed by veteran Sudanese military intelligence officer
General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi. "Till now, they have been very
cooperative," Dabi told Agence France Presse by telephone before holding talks
with governor Ghassan Abdel Al.
A video posted by the Observatory on YouTube showed residents of Baba Amr
pleading with Dabi to go in and see the devastation.
Syria's pro-regime Dunia television reported that the observers also visited the
Bab Sebaa neighborhood of Homs, where they "assessed the damage carried out by
terrorist groups."
"They also met with relatives of martyrs and a person who had been abducted" by
these groups, said Dunia, adding that many people decried the "conspiracy
against Syria" to the monitors. The observers are also due to travel to two
other protest hubs -- the central city of Hama and Idlib in the northwest, close
to the border with Turkey, the television added, without giving a timetable.
Ahead of the observers' arrival in Homs, the army pulled back heavy armor from
the Baba Amr neighborhood of the city, scene of much of the violence, the
Observatory said.
Eleven tanks pulled out around 7:00 am (0500 GMT), its chairman, Rami Abdul
Rahman, told AFP.
The Observatory added, however, that armored military vehicles including tanks
and troop carriers had "repositioned inside the government centers in Baba Amr,
al-Inshaatt and Brazil Street in Homs."
It cited an activist as saying on its Facebook page that "it only takes over
five minutes" for the vehicles to return.
The Observatory said the withdrawal was part of the regime's "deception" and
showed its attempt to "deny the crystal clear fact" that Syrians were trying to
"regain power, freedom and dignity" in a popular revolt. The observer mission is
part of an Arab plan endorsed by Syria on November 2 that calls for the
withdrawal of security forces from towns and residential districts, a halt to
violence against civilians and the release of detainees. Since signing the deal,
the Syrian regime has been accused of intensifying a bloody crackdown on
anti-government protests, which have shown no signs of abating since they
erupted in mid-March. The United Nations says more than 5,000 people have lost
their lives. The bloodshed in Homs has sparked a mounting international outcry
and opposition calls for foreign intervention.
The leader of opposition umbrella group, the Syrian National Council, Burhan
Ghalioun, urged U.N. and Arab League intervention "to put an end to this
tragedy," and called on the U.N. Security Council to "adopt the Arab League's
plan and ensure that it is applied."
"It is better if the U.N. Security Council takes this (Arab League) plan, adopts
and provides the means for its application," Ghalioun said. "That would give it
more force."
The Arab "plan to defuse the crisis is a good plan, but I do not believe the
Arab League really has the means" to enforce it, he said.
"The observers are working in conditions that the Arab League has described as
not being good ... I think we have not properly negotiated the working
conditions of the observers," Ghalioun added.
Syrian foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdisi said the observer "mission has
freedom of movement in line with the protocol" Syria signed with the Arab
League.
Under that deal, the observers are banned from sensitive military sites. The
Observatory charged that the authorities had changed road signs in Idlib
province to confuse the observers, and urged them to contact human rights
activists on the ground. Opposition groups have said the observers must stop
their work if they are blocked by the authorities from traveling to places like
Homs.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem has said he expects the observers to
vindicate his government's contention that "armed terrorists" are behind the
violence.
Western governments and human rights watchdogs blame Assad's regime for the
bloodshed. Opposition leaders charge that Syria agreed to the mission after
weeks of prevarication in a "ploy" to head off a threat by the 22-member League
to go to the U.N. Security Council over the crackdown. The observers will
eventually number between 150 and 200, Arab League officials say.
SourceAgence France Presse.
Qatar builds Sunni intervention force of Libyan, Iraqi terrorists against Assad
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report/December 27, 2011/ The Qatar oil emirate, encouraged
by its successful participation in the campaign to overthrow Libya's Muammar
Qaddafi, has established a Sunni Arab intervention force to expedite the drive
for Syrian President Bashar Assad's ouster, debkafile's military sources report.
The new highly mobile force boosts the anti-Assad Free Syrian Army, whose
numbers have jumped to 20,000 fighters, armed and funded by Qatar and now
forming into military battalions and brigades at their bases in Turkey.
When they saw the Syrian massacre continuing unabated this month, the Qatari and
Saudi rulers approved a crash program for the Qatari chief of staff Maj.-Gen
Hamas Ali al-Attiya to weld this mobile intervention Sunni Muslim force out of
al Qaeda linked-operatives for rapid deployment on the Turkish-Syrian border.
A force of 2,500 has been recruited up until now, our sources report. The hard
core is made up of 1,000 members of the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya-IFGL,
which fought Qaddafi, and 1,000 operatives of the Ansar al-Sunna, the Iraqi
Islamists which carried out 15 coordinated bomb attacks in Baghdad last Thursday
killing 72 people and injuring 200.
Qatar has just had them airlifted from Libya and Iraq to the southern Turkish
town of Antakya (Antioch) in the border province of Hatay.
It is in this town of quarter-of-a- million inhabitants that the new Sunni force
has located its command center and separate camps for the two main contingents
to undergo intensive training for combat missions in the embattled Syrian towns
and provinces of Idlib, Homs, Jabal al-Zawiya, scenes of the fiercest clashes
between Syrian troops and rebels.
debkafile also reveals that the man appointed top commander of the Sunni
intervention force headquartered in Antioch is none other than Abdel Hakim
Belhaj, whose militia last August seized control of Tripoli after it was
captured from Qaddafi by NATO and Qatari forces. He has picked his deputies -
Al-Mahdi Hatari, former head of the Tripoli Brigade and loyal crony Kikli Adem.
Qatari officers have set up communication links between the Libyan and Iraqi
camps and since last week are coordinating their operations with the Free Syrian
Army.
This flurry of military activity is taking place under the watchful gaze of the
Turkish military and its intelligence services but they are not interfering.
debkafile's military and counter-terror analysts stress that the rise of a new
Qatari-led Sunni Muslim rapid intervention force breaks fresh strategic ground
with ramifications for the United and Israel as well as for the Gulf Arab
countries, Syria, Libya and Iraq. 1. A year has gone by since the Arab Revolt
first broke out in December 2010. Yet this is the first time a Sunni Muslim
power has established an intervention force - one moreover which is composed
almost entirely of fighting men drawn from the ranks of al Qaeda and its
extremist Islamist affiliates and allies.
2. The new Sunni force, funded by the Persian Gulf oil states, is silently
backed by the US and NATO members, with Turkey in the forefront of this support
group. This means that the Sunni-Shiite divide is spiraling into overt conflict
with Western support afforded to one side. 3. Despite finding itself
increasingly isolated by its Arab neighbors, Tehran has so far not intervened
directly in conflicts in which it owns an interest – such as Gulf Cooperation
Council-GCC intervention against a Shiite-led uprising in Bahrain, and now Sunni
militias and terrorists enlisted to battle the Allawite regime of Iran's closest
ally, Bashar Assad in Damascus. 4. Iran's Lebanese proxy. Hizballah's Hassan
Nasrallah, must also be feeling an uncomfortable draft coming from a Sunni
fighting force near his strongholds and carrying out raids against his closest
ally, Bashar Assad. He can't ignore the possibility of that force conducting
similar excursions against his own Shiite militia.
5. Israel too must find cause for concern in the rise of a Sunni military
intervention force capable of moving at high speed from one arena to another and
made up almost entirely of Islamist terrorists. At some time, Qatar might decide
to move this force to the Gaza Strip to fight Israel.
France warns Syria against “manipulation” as monitors visit
December 27, 2011 /France warned Syria on Tuesday against attempts at
concealment or manipulation as Arab League monitors arrived in the protest hub
of Homs after reports that dozens of protesters had been killed. "So far the
Damascus regime has spared no effort to disguise the reality" of repression in
Syria, French Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bernard Valero told journalists.
"The international community will be particularly watchful for any attempt at
concealment or manipulation that the Damascus regime might try," he said.
The observer mission is part of an Arab plan endorsed by Syria on November 2
that calls for the withdrawal of security forces from towns and residential
districts, a halt to violence against civilians and the release of detainees.
Since signing the deal, President Bashar al-Assad's regime has been accused of
intensifying a bloody crackdown on anti-government protests, which have shown no
signs of abating since they erupted in mid-March. The United Nations says more
than 5,000 people have lost their lives. The bloodshed in Homs has sparked a
mounting international outcry and opposition calls for foreign intervention. "We
call for vigilance and ask that the Arab League observers be allowed to carry
out their mission without hindrance," Valero said, noting that "as the first
observers arrived in Homs, the tanks left the city." "The observers must have
access to the entire city and be able to clearly and independently establish
what the situation is and bring about an end to the violence," he said.
-AFP/NOW Lebanon
Lebanon will not send observers to Syria
December 27, 2011 /Now Lebanon/Lebanon will not send observers to Syria as part
of an Arab League mission in order to avoid "negative repercussions" in Lebanon
from the Syrian crisis, a government official told AFP on Tuesday. "Following
consultations between President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister Najib Mikati,
the decision was made that Lebanon will not participate in the mission," the
official said, requesting anonymity. He said Sleiman and Mikati had jointly
decided not to send 10 Lebanese observers to Syria as part of the Arab League
team, a move aimed "dissociating" Lebanon from the crisis in Syria. "Lebanon
does not want to isolate itself from other Arab League members or the
international community, but at the same time we are trying to avoid allowing
the Syria crisis to have negative repercussions on Lebanon," the official said.
Lebanon's political scene is bitterly divided between a Hezbollah-led majority
coalition, which backs embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and dominates
the Mikati government, and a Western-backed anti-Assad opposition. In November,
Lebanon voted against suspending Syria's membership in the 22-state Arab League
and opposed the group's decision to impose unprecedented sanctions on Damascus.
The Arab League mission kicked off its Syria tour Tuesday in the protest hub of
Homs following reports that 34 people had been killed in 24 hours in and around
one of the main hubs of nine months of protest. The mission is part of an Arab
plan endorsed by Syria on November 2 that calls for the withdrawal of security
forces from towns and residential districts, a halt to violence against
civilians and the release of detainees. Since signing the deal, the Assad regime
has been accused of intensifying a bloody crackdown on anti-government protests,
which have shown no signs of abating since they erupted in mid-March. The United
Nations says more than 5,000 people have lost their lives.-AFP/NOW Lebanon
Arsal Delegation Presses Miqati to Deploy Army Along Border with Syria
by Naharnet /A delegation from the eastern border town of Arsal visited Premier
Najib Miqati on Tuesday to condemn accusations that the village is harboring al-Qaida
militants.
The delegation to the Grand Serail, led by Municipal Council chief Ali al-Hujairi,
urged Miqati to deploy troops near the town along the border with Syria.
Al-Hujairi also said that he will hold a meeting with Army chief Gen. Jean
Qahwaji on Thursday.
The delegation's visit comes against the backdrop of controversy that erupted
over statements made by Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn over alleged al-Qaida
activity in the area. But Ghosn issued a statement on Monday stressing that his
announcement was not based on speculation. “It came as a result of information
we received, which we thought was prudent to reveal to the public.”
His new remarks came amid other statements made by Foreign Minister Adnan
Mansour and Interior Minister Marwan Charbel who denied the presence of
terrorists or al-Qaida fighters in Lebanon.
President Michel Suleiman also said during his visit to Bkirki on Sunday that
Lebanon rejects terrorism. “I am certain that no Lebanese town would harbor
terrorists.”
These statements that contradicted with Ghosn’s remarks drew speculation about
the integrity of the government.
Ministerial sources told An Nahar that the cabinet should have a united stance
on the issue and “speak in one language.”
Political sources stressed that Arsal, which stands 15 kilometers away from the
nearest border crossing with Syria, had been the area where the kidnappers of
the seven Estonian tourists were operating.
“Where were the sides that are claiming about the presence of al-Qaida members
in Arsal when the abductors of the Estonians were operating on the town’s
border?” the sources wondered in remarks to al-Liwaa newspaper. The tourists
were kidnaped at gunpoint in March while cycling near the eastern town of Zahle.
The seven were freed unharmed in July. It is widely believed a ransom was paid
for their release but the Estonian government has refused to confirm the
reports.
Arsal residents demand Lebanon Army deployment
December 27, 2011/ The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Residents from the Bekaa border town
of Arsal urged Tuesday Prime Minister Najib Mikati to deploy the Lebanese Army
in their area in the wake of accusations that Al-Qaeda members had infiltrated
their village. The call was made on behalf of a delegation headed by Arsal mayor
Ali Mohammad al-Hujeiri that visited Mikati at the Grand Serail in Beirut.
The visit came in the wake of recent statements by Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn
in which he said Al-Qaeda members were taking shelter in Arsal under the guise
that they belong to the Syrian opposition.
“We reject Ghosn’s remarks about the presence of Al-Qaeda members in our
region,” one delegation member said following the meeting with Mikati.
He said town residents were opposed to extremist groups, a reference to Al-Qaida.
Ministerial sources said Monday that the Cabinet would uphold at its meeting
Wednesday Ghosn’s clarification on Al-Qaeda, while President Michel Sleiman
would renew his confidence that the Lebanese, with their different sects and
political affiliations, would not defend or accommodate terrorists in their land
and houses.
Assad cannot outsmart the Arab League, he will fall hard:
Hariri
December 27, 2011/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri said Monday Syrian President Bashar
Assad will fall and called for putting an end to “massacres” carried out by
Syrian authorities in Homs and other Syrian cities. “Bashar thinks he can
outsmart the Arab League and the world, he will fall so hard,” Hariri wrote on
micro blogging website Twitter.
Tweeting in the evening, Hariri lashed out at the Syrian authorities and
described the Syrian President as a “liar.”“From now on I am not going to be
diplomatic about the Syrian regime or anyone that supports them,” he wrote.
Hariri said the Syrian government should be stripped from all powers, suggesting
that a no-fly zone be imposed and called on Arab countries to join forces with
Turkey to oust it. “This Syrian regime has no respect for any holiday in Ramadan
the killing increased and now Christmas the same [thing happened],” he added.
Hariri is one of the most prominent people on Twitter in the Middle East,
according to the pan-Arab newspaper Ash-Sharq al-Awsat. With 63,206 Twitter
followers, Hariri, the only Lebanese mentioned in the report, came in eighth
place.
The recently published list puts the Future Movement leader in the company of
well-established Twitter users, such as Jordan’s Queen Rania, who topped the
list with nearly 1.8 million followers, Egyptian activist and IT executive Wael
Ghonim, coming in second, with nearly 3 million followers and Queen Noor – the
former queen of Jordan – in third place, with nearly 124,000 followers.
This report comes less than two months after Hariri started engaging in live
Twitter sessions with his followers, discussing everything from sensitive
political issues – such as violence in Syria and the Special Tribunal for
Lebanon – to his personal daily life in Saudi Arabia, where he currently
resides. “Well it’s about time to make this more up close and personal, you’ll
be hearing from me more often and I’ll be around as much as I can,” the former
prime minister tweeted in his first live Twitter session on Nov. 5. This was
followed by at least a week of nearly daily live Twitter sessions. Since then,
Hariri has engaged with his followers nearly daily. Ayman Itani, a Beirut-based
social media consultant, said that assuming the public figures were the ones
really posting messages on their Twitter accounts, “this gives them a way to
have further insights. Usually they get reports from aides and other sources.”
Speaking to The Daily Star Monday, Itani said: “It is a good way for [public
figures] to get feedback.”
Over the past several years, Twitter has become an important political tool,
particularly in the Middle East, where ordinary citizens have used the micro-blogging
site to break news and organize demonstrations. Other Lebanese politicians have
also embraced Twitter, allowing their constituents unprecedented personal
contact with them.
Hariri Monday said National Dialogue sessions if revived will not bear fruit and
will not come up with a solution concerning Hezbollah’s arsenal. “I think
dialogue about the defense strategy is a joke because you are talking to someone
who doesn't listen,” he said in reference to the armed group.
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea meets Saudi crown prince, Hariri
December 27, 2011/The Daily Star /BEIRUT/:Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea
ended an official visit to Saudi Arabia Tuesday after meeting high-ranking Saudi
officials and Future Movement chief Saad Hariri. An LF statement said Geagea,
who left to the Arab kingdom Monday, met with a number of high-level officials,
including Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdel-Aziz al-Saud, Foreign Affairs Minister
Prince Saud al-Faisal, Defense Minister Prince Salman bin Abdel-Aziz and the
head of the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate Prince Muqran bin Abdel-Aziz.
Geagea, a leading member of the March 14 coalition, also met with former Prime
Minister Saad Hariri. The LF statement said the two discussed “the situation in
Lebanon from all its angles as well as the regional developments given the
current events.” Hariri, leader of the Future Movement, heads the opposition
March 14 alliance.
Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai , Future bloc call for weapons-free country
December 27, 2011/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Politicians and religious leaders took
to the Christmas stage to tout their messages with Maronite Patriarch Beshara
Rai reiterating his call for a weapons-free Lebanon.At a Sunday Mass in Bkirki,
Rai urged the government to work toward a Lebanon where all weapons are under
the control of the Lebanese government. “It is the duty of the state alone,
entrusted with the security of its citizens and peace in the country, to collect
weapons and place them under the sole control of legitimate Lebanese forces so
that Beirut and all of Lebanon can become weapons-free,” Rai said. “[The state]
has to bring the tasks of defense and security under the sole authority of
political power and bolster confidence in its armed forces,” Rai continued. The
patriarch also called on the government to grant amnesty for Lebanese who fled
to Israel in 2000 following the Israeli army’s withdrawal from the south –
Parliament passed an urgent draft law in November allowing those who fled to
return. Rai’s comments about weapons come days after Beirut MPs from the March
14 coalition began campaigning for an arms-free capital after a spate of
security incidents in Beirut, including a gunfight in Zeidanieh and clashes,
denied by the Lebanese Army, reported in Burj Abi Haidar.
Future Movement MPs began calling last year for a “de-militarized” Beirut
following armed clashes between Hezbollah and the Association of the Islamic
Charitable Projects that left three people dead in Burj Abi Haidar. The National
News Agency reported that in a Christmas meeting with Rai, President Michel
Sleiman spoke about the need to rid the country of illegitimate arms, and Future
Movement MP Ahmad Fatfat said in a Sunday radio interview that Rai’s statements
on weapons are in keeping with Sleiman’s sentiments. “We’ve entered an important
path, perhaps similar to that of bishops’ call in 2000 for Syrian withdrawal
from Lebanon,” Fatfat said. “Rai’s statements express a Lebanese consensus that
has been emerging gradually about the importance that the Lebanese state is the
only party that controls the country’s security,” he added.
Fatfat said that Rai’s comments present a challenge to Hezbollah, asking whether
“it intends to review the issue of withdrawing arms and meet the Lebanese
halfway.”
Speaking about the Cabinet’s future, Fatfat said it is “not in the hands of its
prime minister, but is connected to the decision that established it [the
Cabinet], [that is] Syria and Hezbollah ... As long as these two have an
interest in the Cabinet remaining, it will continue, regardless of the
difficulties it faces domestically,” he continued. Fatfat said the Cabinet “does
not have any Lebanese future” and has not provided “anything serious to the
Lebanese,” noting that the wage increase proposal could still be rejected by the
Shura Council.
In a Sunday statement, Hezbollah wished Christians well and said that it hoped
“that our country and region are filled with unity, cooperation and [will] to
overcome the series of crises facing the world and especially the region.” The
statement said all religions should be united against “unjust Israeli occupation
backed by arrogant powers, especially the United States of America.”
At a Christmas Mass in Downtown Beirut, Greek Orthodox Archbishop Elias Audi
generally avoided politics but said “let each of us work according to his
conscience and duty, instead of launching theories and slogans without acting
upon them and expecting others to implement them.” Grand Mufti Mohammad Rashid
Qabbani Monday called both Rai and the Maronite Church’s former patriarch,
Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, to extend his Christmas greetings, the NNA reported.
Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai meets with Syrian ambassador
December 27, 2011 /Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai met on Tuesday with
Syrian Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Abdel Karim Ali to discuss latest developments,
the National News Agency reported. The NNA said that the meeting was held in
private at the Maronite Patriarchate in Bkirki. However, it did not elaborate
further. -NOW Lebanon
Future bloc MP Khaled Daher slams defense minister over Al-Qaeda statement
December 27, 2011 /Future bloc MP Khaled Daher on Tuesday slammed Defense
Minister Fayez Ghosn who has warned of the presence of Al-Qaeda cells in a
Lebanese town near the Syrian border.
The MP told the Voice of Lebanon (100.5) radio station that Ghosn’s statement
was made “as a service to the Syrian regime,” which blamed suicide attacks in
Damascus on Al-Qaeda groups few days after Ghosn’s remarks. Daher also said that
“if there were violations across the [Lebanese] border, they should be legally
dealt with.”Last Friday, 44 people were killed by suicide bombers in Damascus.
President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has blamed the attacks on “terrorist
organizations,” including Al-Qaeda, although it has not said how it reached such
a conclusion. The bombings were the first against the powerful security services
in the heart of the capital since an uprising against Assad began in March.-NOW
Lebanon
Sleiman calls for urban arms collection
December 27, 2011 03:29 AM The Daily Star
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman has called for the collection of arms from
cities, voicing hope about resuming national dialogue which has been stalled
since last year because of sharp differences between rival factions over what
topics to discuss. “Dialogue will resume on the basis of the proposal I made
previously to study a national strategy for defense and discuss the issue of
arms, firstly with regard to implementing the previous decisions on the
Palestinian arms, and secondly, the resistance’s arms in order to benefit from
it positively to defend Lebanon and to know how, where and when to use it,”
Sleiman told reporters after holding a closed-door meeting with Maronite
Patriarch Beshara Rai at the Maronite patriarchate in Bkirki, north of Beirut,
Sunday to congratulate him on Christmas Day.
Sleiman said another topic to be discussed by the National Dialogue Committee,
which comprises top leaders from the Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance and the
opposition March 14 coalition, is the proliferation of arms in Lebanese cities.
“The arms present in cities should be collected. This issue has become a
collective Lebanese demand,” he said.
MPs from the parliamentary Future bloc of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri met
in Parliament last week to reiterate their demand for an arms-free Beirut. Their
call came following a renewal of street clashes between rival gunmen in
residential areas in west Beirut that wounded some people and terrorized
residents.
Asked what was holding up the revival of dialogue, Sleiman said: “The proposal I
made did not gain acceptance from the two sides due to bets [on the ‘Arab
Spring’].”
Sleiman is seeking to resume national dialogue between rival political leaders
in an attempt to protect Lebanon from the reverberations of the current popular
upheavals in the Arab world.
Last week, Sleiman chaired a meeting of a preparatory body of the National
Dialogue Committee at Baabda Palace that assessed the outcome of the committee’s
previous meetings and the current developments that require the relaunching of
the committee’s sessions, according to a statement released by the president’s
office. The meeting also examined what other topics the committee could discuss,
in addition to a national defense strategy for Lebanon. The committee held its
last session of dialogue in November last year which was boycotted by most March
8 leaders amid divisions over the U.N.-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The
dispute eventually led to the collapse of Hariri’s Cabinet on Jan. 12.
The STL is investigating the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik
Hariri. Sleiman has recently renewed his call for national dialogue, warning
that Lebanon was facing difficulties and challenges as a result of the popular
uprisings in the Arab world. He stressed that dialogue was the only way for the
country’s salvation. Both sides have apparently set conditions for attending the
proposed dialogue. While Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Najib Mikati
have generally endorsed Sleiman’s call for national dialogue, Hezbollah has
declared that its arms will not be the topic of any dialogue and is ready to
discuss a national defense strategy to protect Lebanon against a possible
Israeli attack. March 14 leaders, including Hariri, have voiced skepticism about
the proposed dialogue, insisting that Hezbollah’s arms should be the only topic
for discussion, or else they will not attend. Asked to comment on the agreement
reached recently by top Maronite leaders on an election law during their meeting
chaired by Rai in Bkirki, Sleiman said: “The Maronite meeting has laid the
foundations to discuss an election law. In my view, we must find an election law
that addresses all concerns and remains under the ceiling of the Taif [Accord],
that is, to ensure equality between the citizens in the right to elect.”
Imam Musa Sadr died in Libya jail, kept 12 years in morgue: report
December 27, 2011/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Imam Musa Sadr – who went missing
during a visit to Libya in 1978 – died 20 years later in a prison in Tripoli, a
source from the Libyan National Transitional Council has revealed. “Imam Musa
Sadr died in his prison cell where he was being held since his disappearance at
the hands of [security] members of the Gadhafi regime in 1978,” the source told
local Al-Liwaa newspaper in an interview published Tuesday. The source said Sadr
died from natural causes in the summer of 1998. He was being detained in an
underground cell at Tripoli’s central prison, the source added. His body was
kept at the prison’s morgue until the early days of the outbreak of the Libyan
revolution, according to the source.Sadr, the founder of Amal Movement, now
headed by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, went missing during a visit to Libya
on Aug. 31, 1978, along with his two companions – Sheikh Mohammad Yacoub and
journalist Abbas Badreddine. In response to a question about the whereabouts of
Sadr’s body, the source said initial investigation conducted by the Libyan
interim national council showed that the corpse may have been taken out of the
morgue by Gadhafi’s forces to “cover up the crime.” According to some evidence
and accounts of a number of witnesses, the source said Sadr’s body is likely
buried in a mass grave that had been recently discovered in a Tripoli suburb.
The Libyan source said the Council has no clue on the whereabouts of Sadr’s two
companions.
The Al-Assad regime’s wild imagination!
By Hussein Shobokshi/Asharq Alawsat
Syria has produced a number a number of talented directors and filmmakers like
Moustapha Akkad, Haitham Haqqi, Rasha Sharbatji, Najdat Anzour and Seif al-Seba'ei,
amongst others. However all of these big-name directors are not as creative or
innovative as the Syrian regime and its wild imagination. With the arrival of
the first group of Arab League observers in Damascus to examine the atrocities
committed by the Syrian regime over the past nine months and which claimed
thousands of lives – and this represents an incontrovertible fact that several
human rights and humanitarian organizations agree on, based upon concrete
evidence and the testimony of eye-witnesses – the al-Assad regime announced to
the world that “twin suicide blasts” had occurred at the heart of Damascus, and
instantly blamed the Al Qaeda terrorist organization of responsibility. This
announcement was made around just one hour after the explosions took place! This
reminds us of the farcical show that the regime put on following the
assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, namely the video
confession of radical terrorist “Abu Adas”, who falsely claimed responsibility
for the Hariri assassination, whilst we have not heard anything about him since!
So now, we are expected to believe that Al Qaeda suddenly decided to wake up and
carry out this terrorist attack in Damascus on the same day that the Arab League
observers were scheduled to arrive.
What a coincidence! The reality on the ground indicates that Iran and Syria have
infiltrated and indeed directed Al Qaeda over the past few years, whether we are
talking about the terrorist operations in the Arabian Peninsula or Iraq. This
fact has become an open secret, namely that Al Qaeda today is like a tap of
terrorism, which can be turned on or closed, according to the wishes or needs of
others.
The situation on the ground in Syria represents compelling evidence and proof
that the Syrian regime is in a state of political delusion, whilst the country
is experiencing a state of complete lawlessness. Even the two major cities,
which the al-Assad regime boasted were safe and secure, have joined the
revolution. Protests have broken out in Aleppo and Damascus, and there have been
numerous detainees and casualties there. This brought on a regime-wide fit of
hysteria, and the Syrian forces continue to kill their own people. Over the past
few days the death toll has reached terrifying proportions, whilst the al-Assad
regime also reportedly systematically evacuated detainees being held in Homs,
Hama, Deir Ezzor and Idlib prisons, transferring them by night to Latakia. This
is not to forget the increasing number of defections from the Syrian military
and security apparatus, which is a problem that the regime is now encountering
on a daily basis. Add to this, the enormous number of young men "refusing" to
join the army in the first place, and the al-Assad regime’s crisis is
compounded. We must also not forget the collective civil disobedience campaign
that is still occurring in most Syrian cities, whilst the Syrian economy is
collapsing on all levels.
Whilst Syrian state media presented hilariously specific information and details
about the Damascus explosions, such as claims that both cars had pictures of Bin
Laden in them, as well as reports that both attacks were carried out by two
“suicide bombers” [as opposed to car bombs], and even that one of the
perpetrators had been arrested. In this context, it seems clear that the
statement given by the Lebanese Defense Minister, who is a Hezbollah affiliate –
which of course is one of the close allies of the Syrian regime – two days prior
to the explosions, in which he said that Lebanon had information that Al Qaeda
elements infiltrated Syria via Lebanon, was nothing more than preparation for
the attack itself and its media repercussions. We should also not overlook the
comment made by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem in his last press
conference, where he said “any armed terrorist act taking place before the
[Arab] observers won't be a crime on our part. In fact, it would add credibility
to our assertions that armed gangs exist."
All accusations, evidence, proof and documentation point to the existence of one
“criminal gang” and that is the al-Assad regime. As we can see, all of Syria has
risen up to fight for its rights and gain its freedom from the grip of this
suppressive regime. We have seen the Arab and Muslim World rise up against a
sacrilegious cartoonist, and then again against a base pastor who threatened to
burn the Holy Quran, therefore it is a shame today that thousands of our Syrian
brothers are being killed without any genuine or real endeavour on our part to
rush to their rescue. Isn't it high time we did something?
Mentality: The opposition’s most important tool
By Bilal Hassan/Asharq Alawsat
According to the statements of unnamed [political] activists, the Arab regimes
have begun to adopt a new policy. This policy is one whereby these regimes
themselves are responsible for driving the political opposition movements, and
indeed any accompanying terrorist acts and social unrest, utilizing this as a
pretext to accuse others.
According to this logic, political opposition has completely declined and
decayed, to the point where it is no longer able to elicit popular sympathy or
support, whilst bombs are exploding in our streets. As for the opposition media,
this is also weak and incapable, whilst the regime is solely concerned with
defending itself and remaining in power, taking increasingly stringent security
measures in order to do so.
Historically speaking, opposition parties would begin political operations by
announcing their opposition [political] program, and continue to inform the
public regarding their views and activities, in order to gain popular loyalty
and support. However when the opposition is prevented, or unable, to do so, the
only result is chaos, and there is no chance of changing the situation in the
country, whilst the opposition become increasingly extremist and isolated.
This is a strange situation, based on strange logic that results in a strange
and estranged [political] opposition. There is no use here in saying that the
reason for the regime’s isolation of the opposition is to ensure it does not
have to take harsh security measures against the people, for the regime is the
first to know who its opponents are! In this case, the opposition might ask,
what is the point of political operation and participation if our views must
remain secret and our activities underground? Particularly as during such cases,
the people remain neutral, neither supportive of the government, nor of the
[outlawed] opposition.
As for popular opposition, and particularly oppositional political parties, the
most effective party is the one that announces its [political] program and
promotes its oppositional activities in order to win popular support for itself.
As for when the opposition is denied this avenue, this only results either in
chaos and unrest, or the inability of the opposition parties to increase their
support. This is indeed the strangest mentality in political operations, whether
public or underground. If there is a popular tendency to accuse and criticize
the regime, then this may create a new popular tendency to accuse and criticize
the opposition, and the most prominent criticism is this respect is that the
opposition is not effective, and this is an accusation that is most often made
by the opposition groups themselves.
Those groups that oppose regimes, and particularly those regimes that are
accused of being dictatorships, must announce their [political] program and
explain the reasons for their opposition and their objectives. When they fail to
do so, it is the opposition parties themselves that suffer the most, whilst the
only alternative to this is to resort to clandestine violence. This is something
that has a long history in international political operations, beginning with
assassinations, for example, and ending with such groups becoming purely
underground movements, as they soon find themselves unable to interact with the
public, or obtain popular support. Such groups end up outside of the game of
politics, carrying out underground and often terrorist operations.
There is a long history of political parties undertaking clandestine terrorist
operations, and anybody who proof of this need only look at the period of
violence and assassination carried out by the opponents of the Russian Tsarist
Empire, prior to the formation of the Soviet Union. One can also look at the
writings of political ideologues who have long explained the difference between
popular political action and terrorism. When political groups undertake
terrorist operations, this is almost always met with popular revulsion and
retreat; in other words the political group is obliged to hide from the eyes of
the state and its security apparatus. Such groups often eventually disappear
from popular consciousness altogether after they lose touch with the people, and
they are no longer able to rejuvenate their ranks.
Arab opposition parties and groups suffer from a number of negative phenomenon,
including:
Firstly, they often put forward theoretical goals that are impossible to achieve
on the ground. For example, if the opposition group is made up of a small number
of people, let us say dozens or even hundreds, it announces that its primary
objective is to completely oust the regime! It does not call for reform, or even
gradual work towards an objective, but rather it immediately goes to the final
objective, which it is inherently incapable of achieving on its own strength or
merits, and so it moves from failure to failure.
Secondly, many such groups lack leadership figures that can convince the public
that the opposition group can achieve its objectives, and that they will be
better than the present leadership.
Thirdly, there is their means of political operations and activities. In the
history of politics, the dissemination of political opposition views and
information has played a prominent role, whilst modern technology grants
political opposition today an even greater capability to reach the public,
almost on an international level. The most important thing here is for the
opposition to have something to say, and for it to have a clear political
program, otherwise all that is left is empty accusative slogans. As for the
online activists, they are now capable of reaching thousands of people at the
touch of a button, the question is: do they have anything informative or
interesting to say? That is the question, and the challenge.
The most dangerous thing that can occur as a result of the negative political
phenomenon outlined above is for the political opposition to feel as if they are
incapable and ineffective, in which case they might think of resorting to other
means, namely violence. Many political parties and popular groups, in many
countries around the world, reached this cross-road and occasionally followed
the path of resorting to violence. However the results of this are always
negative; for popular political operations, by their very nature, have lasting
impact, whilst violence only has short-term impact. In addition to this,
violence harms the reputation of a group, and so the ultimate effectiveness of
this is always in question.
Political participation requires discipline and hard-work, not to mention the
creation of an organized and popular leadership, and this is something that
requires a great deal of patience. However sometimes, a small group of people
might get together to achieve what they can, and upon seeing their
joint-weakness and ineffectiveness to bring about the political changes they
desire, they move immediately towards the antithesis of all they previously
believed in, namely violence. In the beginning, such violence might be
attractive to those practicing it, but in the end it represents a wall they
cannot surmount [to reach power].
The most prominent and important point remains: what is the program of change
that we want? Do we want to express a state of anger and rage, or do we want to
reach the greater objective, namely serving the people’s interests?
I will now put forward the conditions that are required for this, and there is
no point beginning political work if these are not in place.
Firstly, the call for reform must be made, and this must be successful, because
this represents engaging with people’s needs and providing services to the
general public. The opposition party must speak out about the interests of the
people in a way that is attractive to the general public, not in a manner that
they find unappealing. This is where the role of the political party’s mentality
comes in. Mentality is the catalyst, and so the political opposition’s mentality
must be positive and sincere, otherwise they will not achieve anything. This is
why political operation and participation is so difficult, and it explains the
importance of looking at the kinds of people who are involved in politics; not
every angry youth is capable of leadership, and anybody who seeks such
responsibility must have the requisite political awareness and maturity. As for
the other political mechanisms and means, most notably violence, they may create
a great tornado, but this tornado will destroy everything in its path without
consideration.
Iraq is lucky to have al-Maliki
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
Perhaps the extremists, or the ideologues, are not the only ones who are lucky
with regards to the presence of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, rather
everyone who is committed to the unity of Iraq, the survival of the political
process there, and the avoidance of sectarianism, is lucky to have Nuri al-Maliki
as a prime minister. This is because Nuri al-Maliki has moved away from the
political game, and instead resorted to using force against his opponents,
immediately following the withdrawal of US troops. This represented a red flag
to all those who are concerned about the future of Iraq.
Al-Maliki is a man who has not mastered the political game, and it seems that he
does not even believe in politics at all, or at least not as much as he believes
in the power of force. Therefore, he has over-used what he terms “the law”, and
we now see him seeking to arrest Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, and fire
his own deputy, Saleh al-Mutlaq, whilst he is also clashing with Iraqi
Parliamentary Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi. The common denominator between these
three individuals is that they are all Sunnis, and this is clear evidence of
Nuri al-Maliki’s lack of political awareness! This is not all, for now we see
the Kurds confronting al-Maliki, by mediating [on behalf of al-Maliki’s
opponents] – or call this what you like – and the same goes for the Sadrists,
whilst the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq [ISCI] has also entered the fray. One
might say: how can al-Maliki be sectarian, when the [Shiite] ISCI, the Sadrists,
and others, are not supporting him? This is the crux of the matter, for al-Maliki
has even embarrassed his political partners in the political alliance that he
heads and which allowed him to secure a second term in government, thanks to
Iranian pressure; this is because he has not played the political game, but
rather resorted to force. Therefore, al-Maliki has become the opponent, the
rule, the security, the judiciary, and the media [in Iraq]. In this case, there
is no difference whatsoever between al-Maliki and Saddam Hussein. When we say
that the Iraqis – and not just the Iraqi extremists – are lucky to have Nuri al-Maliki,
not, this is because al-Maliki is no good at playing the political game, and he
quickly revealed the true dictatorial face of his regime immediately following
the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, not weeks or months later! Iraq would
have been in even more trouble – not to mention the outside world – if instead
of this, al-Maliki were the Mohammad Khatami of Iraq. However al-Maliki does not
enjoy good relations with the Arab world; he is no Iyad Allawi or Jalal Talabani,
for example. Al-Maliki has also not succeeded even in providing a reassuring
impression to the West, and so we have seen one US official ridiculing al-Maliki’s
political position, according to the New York Times. The US official reportedly
stated that al-Maliki is not someone who cares about reaching a settlement or
compromise. If al-Maliki were the Khatami of Iraq, he would have been able to
deceive many of the politicians there, and a huge section of the Iraq people,
and even regional countries and the West, in the same manner that Khatami did
during his time in power in Iran. If this were the case, al-Maliki would be able
to complete his project to transform Iraq into a sectarian nation where he is
solely in control, and whose only party is his Islamic Dawa party, which would
take the place of the Iraqi Baathist party [during the Saddam era]. However al-Maliki’s
security performance, and his lack of political awareness, may now spare the
Iraqis from a future stage of de-Dawaification!
For Mr. al-Maliki’s lack of political awareness has served as a red flag for the
Iraqis, of all different trends and backgrounds, regarding the necessity of
paying attention to the future that now awaits them, should al-Maliki succeed.
Ultimately, this is a good thing for Iraq, namely for the crisis to be resolved
today, and with the least possible damage. This is far better than this crisis
being resolved after years, causing far greater damage. Therefore, perhaps Iraq
and its people are lucky that al-Maliki’s plans have been exposed early, namely
just one day after the US withdrawal
The crescent of minorities
Hazem al-Amin, December 27, 2011
The threat represented by Al-Qaeda on Arab uprisings and revolutions is no less
resourceful than the dangers represented by Arab regimes in their drive to ban
revolutions and change.
The two threats united yesterday in Baghdad. On the one hand, the decision to
arrest Iraqi Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi was an expression of the Iraqi
official involvement in protecting the regime in Syria. On the other, Al-Qaeda’s
response to the decision met Iran’s endeavors halfway.
There is blood in Baghdad and blood in Damascus. Other capitals may join this
reemerging blood pool since the “crescent of minorities” is likely to expand
given the lack of national immunity plaguing almost all regional forces and
powers.
The Iraqi government did not collude against its own self and order the blasts.
However, equating political trouble to blood has become a constant fact in Iraq
and still, the cabinet did not think twice about urging things in the direction
of trouble and, of course, Al-Qaeda did not think twice before retaliating.
The whole region is changing against the backdrop of events in Syria. The new
Iraq is slaughtering itself for the sake of the regime in Syria. Hezbollah is
staggering under the weight of successive losses on the inside and outside in
order to save whatever can be saved of this regime. Hamas is looking for another
haven to replace Damascus and the Lebanese government “steers away” from the
Syrian regime at times and, at other times, steers away from the Syrian people.
Rational forces are rare – if not inexistent – in the wretched crescent of
minorities. Al-Qaeda’s response to the call of blood echoed to a great extent
the thunderous sound of death in Damascus. These facts make good material for a
bleak literary text. When death roams alternately the two capitals of the
Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, linking both eras through the unbroken chain of
the Baath Party, one sees an undeniable amount of truth in the words of an Iraqi
official about two years ago in the wake of a visit on which he accompanied
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to Damascus and following which a blast
targeted al-Maliki’s headquarters in Baghdad. Back then, the man said that
following the meeting, he felt as though he had been in the presence of Yazid
Ibn Muaawiya. The Umayyad comparison was lethal malevolence in 2009 but at the
end of 2011, it amounts to necessary resourcefulness in order to live in the
crescent of minorities. This is what that same Iraqi official said to the author
of these lines.
The events in the two capitals cannot be understood according to regular
political interpretation, as politics does not go hand in hand with such an
amount of clarity. Al-Maliki (who is a Shia) decided to punish Tariq al-Hashimi
(a Sunni) against a backdrop of their conflict over the stance regarding the
Syrian revolution. Al-Qaeda retaliated by killing Shia citizens in Baghdad. Is
there anything clearer than that? Is there anything so utterly unrelated to
politics than that?
Politics here is represented in the fact that al-Maliki punished al-Hashimi for
standing against a regime he had accused of attempting to assassinate him in
2009, and that Al-Qaeda avenged a man it, too, had attempted to assassinate in
2009 as well.
How wonderful this crescent of minorities is. How wonderful our confessions,
party and mass grave are, and how wonderful the Baath Arab Socialist Party is in
both Syria and Iraq.
**This article is a translation of the original, which was posted on the NOW
Arabic site on Friday December 23, 2011
Statement by Canada on the Situation in Syria
(No. 393 - December 26, 2011 - 4:10 p.m. ET) Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
today issued the following statement after reports that the Syrian military
killed dozens more people in Homs—in advance of the arrival of Arab League
observers:
“We urge an immediate end to the regime’s violence and unfettered access for
international observers so that the real reforms Syrians are demanding can
finally begin.
“Reports that security forces have continued their oppressive and murderous ways
inHoms, even with observers at the doorstep, are very disturbing.
“Assad and his backers are delaying the inevitable. He has lost all credibility
and soon will lose power. He must step aside and let justice be done.”
On December 15, 2011,Canada announced a voluntary evacuation of its citizens
inSyriaand expedited efforts to help them leave the country as soon as possible.
We continue to urge all Canadians in Syria to leave immediately, while
commercial means are still available.
Canadaon Friday expanded its sanctions against the Syrian regime and those
backing it.
For more information please visit Regulations Amending the Special Economic
Measures (Syria) Regulations.
Are Egypt's Islamic Parties Planning to Nullify the Peace Treaty with Israel?
Jonathan D. Halevi
•The prevailing optimism in media reports concerning the Egyptian Muslim
Brotherhood and the Salafist party's readiness to adhere to the peace treaty
with Israel is based on general statements made by senior officials in both
parties. These statements maintain that Egypt must honor the international
treaties that it signed.
•Yet a more rigorous examination of the two parties' stances identifies a
markedly different tendency. Both seek a way to cast off the Camp David
agreement in a manner that will incur minimal diplomatic and economic damage to
Egypt, and restore Egypt to its leading role in the circle of states confronting
Israel.
•The Muslim Brotherhood has set a number of criteria for examining international
agreements, including the Camp David agreement: the considerations of Islamic
canon law (Sharia), the position of the Egyptian people, and the degree of
Israel's compliance with the agreement from Egypt's perspective.
•The strategic objective of the Egyptian Islamic movements is to transform Egypt
into a prime regional force that will lead the diplomatic and military battle
against Israel. This means re-examining the Camp David agreement and submitting
it to the decision of the new parliament that will be controlled by the Islamic
parties or to a referendum - thereby alleviating the responsibility of any
future Egyptian government for cancelling the peace treaty.
•These developments can be averted if the U.S. and its allies take a firm
position against any initiative to undermine the Treaty of Peace between Israel
and Egypt, and all echelons of the Egyptian establishment are made to understand
the implications of any such action.
The revolution in Egypt, followed by elections to the parliament, has elevated
the Islamic parties to a position of power as they enjoy an absolute
parliamentary majority after the two initial stages of the parliamentary
elections. The Muslim Brotherhood movement's Freedom and Justice party won 49
percent of the total seats that it contested (73 out of 150) in the first stage
of the elections and the Salafist al-Nur party won about 20 percent of the seats
(30 seats). In the second stage of the elections the Muslim Brotherhood won
about 40 percent of the votes and al-Nur about 35 percent. The final stage of
the elections will take place in January 2012. However, we can already form the
distinct impression that the Egyptian parliament will be controlled by the
absolute majority retained by these two extreme Islamic parties.
In recent journalistic reports we repeatedly hear the claim that the Freedom and
Justice party and the al-Nur party will continue to honor the Camp David peace
agreement with Israel after the new regime has been consolidated under their
leadership. These reports are essentially based on general statements made by
senior officials in both parties to the effect that Egypt must honor the
international agreements that it signed. However, a rigorous examination of the
two parties' stances indicates a totally different tendency: namely, the two
parties seek to cast off the Camp David accords in a manner that will cause
Egypt the minimal possible diplomatic and economic damage.
The issue of Egyptian adherence to the Camp David agreement was brought up
during discussions that Senator John Kerry conducted together with the American
Ambassador to Cairo, Anne Patterson, with leaders of the Freedom and Justice
party on December 10, 2011. Dr. Mohammed Morsi, the party chairman, referred to
the issue in general terms. A report on the meeting by the official website of
the Muslim Brotherhood stated:
Morsi noted that Egypt is a large country with a deep-rooted history that
fulfills an important role in the Arab, Islamic and international arenas and
therefore it honors the agreements and contracts which it has signed. He
demanded that the American administration listen directly to the people rather
than listen to what is said about them, while emphasizing that the United States
could play a role in facilitating economic stability and prosperity for all
peoples should it choose to do so.1
New Egyptian Conditions
The Muslim Brotherhood set a number of criteria for examining international
agreements, including the Camp David agreement. First, there is Islamic canon
law (Sharia); second, one must take into account the Egyptian people's position
which Morsi mentioned in his talk with Senator Kerry; and third, one must weigh
the degree of compliance by the other party to any agreement that was signed
with Egypt.
The platform of the Freedom and Justice party determines that it will honor
international human rights agreements, provided that they do not contradict the
Islamic Sharia. Regarding the peace agreement with Israel, the platform states
that agreements between countries must be acceptable to the people and conform
to the principles of justice and the interests of the parties. Respect for these
agreements is conditional upon an obligation by the parties to fulfill them in
full, as is the norm in international relations. "Therefore, the party considers
it obligatory to reappraise many of the agreements that were signed in various
fields by the old regime."2
Calls to Re-examine the Treaty with Israel
Senior leaders of the Freedom and Justice party have on numerous occasions in
recent months favored amending or abrogating the Camp David accords and severing
diplomatic and economic relations with Israel. On August 25, 2011, party
chairman Dr. Mohammed Morsi demanded a re-examination of the Camp David
agreement, and contended that Israel's "attack" on an Egyptian army border
position (that was in response to terrorist fire at the IDF from this position)
exemplified Israel's systematic violation of the agreement.3
Dr. Ahmed Abu Baraka, the Freedom and Justice party's legal advisor and a senior
leader of the party, said on August 28 that it was necessary to re-examine all
the clauses of the Camp David agreement to see whether its abrogation was
mandated. He emphasized the importance of deploying Egyptian army forces in the
Sinai, equipped with heavy and advanced weaponry, in order to deter Israel.4
Dr. Mohammed Gamal Hismat, a senior leader of the Freedom and Justice party and
a former parliament member, proposed on August 24 to establish a legal committee
that would examine the Camp David agreement in light of Israel's "continued
violation" of the agreement.5
Dr. Essam El-Arian, the deputy leader of the Freedom and Justice party, on
August 23 minimized the importance of American threats to terminate assistance
to Egypt if it were to disown the Camp David agreement, and contended that
Israel was violating the agreement "in a blatant fashion."6
Dr. Hamdy Ismail, the party secretary in the Ismailiya district, explained on
October 31 that the issue of the Camp David agreement directly affected the
Egyptian citizenry, and therefore raised a proposal within the party to submit
the decision on the issue to a referendum.7
Dr. Ahmed Rami, a senior Freedom and Justice party leader in the Qalyubiya
district, called on August 27 for a re-examination of the Camp David agreement,
noting that the revolution in Egypt marked the outset of a journey to liberate
Jerusalem in view of the fact that the "Zionist entity is near collapse."8
These positions received additional validation from the leader of the Muslim
Brotherhood, Dr. Mohammed Badie, who in his weekly letters to movement activists
elaborates his doctrine and positions with regard to the United States and
Israel following the revolutions in Egypt and the Arab world. Badie terms the
Camp David accord "a surrender" agreement and he presents a list of demands on
this issue. In his letter of May 5, 2011, Badie wrote:
We vociferously call for the termination of normalization, that provided our
enemy [Israel] with stability, putting an end to securing the Zionist borders
and the killing of infiltrators into the enemy's [territory], the abrogation of
the issues of economic interests such as the QIZ,9 a [halt] to gas exports that
wrought damage to our national security, urgent action to complete the opening
of the Rafah crossing on a permanent basis and a re-examination of the Camp
David agreement so it can be presented to the National Assembly elected in free
elections, thus allowing it to have its say after it was denied this for
years.10
Badie defines Israel and the United States as Egypt's principal adversaries. In
his weekly letter of October 6, 2011, he reaches the clear conclusion that "our
main enemy is the Zionist-American plan, which aspires to take over the entire
region in order to establish Greater Israel and the New Middle East."11
Badie does not mention any option for cooperation with Israel or the United
States, but, on the contrary, in his evaluation these two countries, that
represent the most dangerous threat to Egypt, are currently in a state of
historic decline:
The global forces, the Zionists and Americans, are absorbing a succession of
debacles and defeats, commencing with Israel's isolation and loss of its
regional supporters, and the American failures in the military realm (in Iraq
and Afghanistan), and in the economic arena that threaten the collapse of the
capitalist regime as a result of failed policy and the huge expenses and wars
prosecuted under the pretext of liquidating what they call terror. They've
forfeited their credibility among peoples and now they've lost their financial
sources, and we do not rule out the possibility that their fate will approximate
the Soviet Union's fate....At the same time the blessed revolutions of the Arab
Spring presage a total change in the Arab national map.12
The irrelevance of the Camp David agreement finds expression in the Muslim
Brotherhood movement's overt aspiration to bring about the "liberation" of the
entire territory of "Palestine," a concept that dovetails with its Islamic
ideological platform, and which finds expression in the current optimistic
assessment by the Muslim Brotherhood leader on the prospects for realizing this
vision in practice. In his weekly letter of June 9, 2011, Badie writes:
Victory is near with the help of Allah, it is definite and there can be no doubt
about it. The restoration of Palestine, al Quds [Jerusalem], the Golan, and all
the lands that Israel conquered is no longer feverish imagination, but a hope
that will soon be realized after the [Arab] nations have revolted....The era of
"Israeli" superiority has ended and "Israel" has begun to doubt its continuity
and survival.13
The official position of the Salafist al-Nur party resembles that of the Muslim
Brotherhood. Dr. Emad Abdel Ghafour, the party leader, says:
It is obligatory to honor the agreements to which Egypt is affiliated, and we
demand that they be met. There are many passages in the peace agreement that
were not implemented [by Israel], such as a solution to the Palestinian problem,
the right of self-determination [for the Palestinian people], and the autonomy
of a Palestinian state on Palestinian soil. There are many issues that must be
implemented so that the Palestinian people will sense that it has benefited from
the peace process....The peace agreement of Camp David requires a
re-examination.14
Dr. Yousry Hamad, the spokesperson for the al-Nur party, explained that the
party's position on the Camp David agreement would be adopted on the basis of
Sharia,15 and vigorously denied journalistic reports that the party was
ostensibly prepared to maintain contacts with the Israeli ambassador in Cairo.16
Unfounded Optimism
The optimism regarding a radical change in the positions of these extreme
Egyptian Islamic movements regarding Israel grasps at the straws of general
statements that do not attest to an ideological reversal, but convey the tactics
for obtaining the strategic objective: casting off the Camp David agreement and
transforming Egypt into a prime regional force that will lead the diplomatic and
military battle against Israel.
The Muslim Brotherhood, as well as the al-Nur party, is seeking a convenient
exit point from the Camp David agreement, due to an awareness of the
implications of violating a binding diplomatic treaty under international law
and the immediate damage that the Egyptian economy is likely to absorb as a
direct result of an initiated abrogation of the Camp David accords.
Egypt receives $1.3 billion annually in U.S. military assistance, while in 2010
American economic assistance totaled $250 million. The Egyptian army's main
strength is predicated on American weapons systems including F-16 and F 14
aircraft, Apache helicopters, M1A1 and M60A3 tanks, surface-to-air missiles, spy
planes, and more. In the framework of bilateral military cooperation, the armies
of the two countries customarily conduct joint training and maneuvers.
How to Nullify the Peace Treaty
Yet the die has been cast and the strategic choice has already been made. The
only question on the agenda is how to implement this decision at a minimal
diplomatic and economic cost. We can infer from comments by senior Muslim
Brotherhood members that they are interested in playing the "democratic game" to
the hilt on this issue as well. This means re-examining the Camp David agreement
and submitting it to the decision of the new parliament that will be controlled
by the Islamic parties or to a referendum - thereby alleviating the
responsibility of any future Egyptian government for cancelling the peace
treaty. The immediate pretext will be Israel's noncompliance with clauses in the
agreement, in order to attribute to Israel the blame for the treaty's
abrogation.
It would appear that the Muslim Brotherhood's appraisal is that following their
seizure of power and additional achievements of the Arab Spring, the U.S. will
be compelled to accept the new reality, just as it has made peace with the
situation up to now. American leaders have even reiterated their praise for the
democratic process, although this process has elevated the radical Islamic
forces to new positions of power. These forces aspire to drain democracy of
content and gradually (the Muslim Brotherhood strategy) or immediately (the al-Nur
party approach) implement Islamic religious law.
From Israel's standpoint, the revolution in Egypt and its translation at the
ballot box into the Islamic Revolution carries the serious potential for
transforming Egypt in the foreseeable future into an enemy and restoring it to
the circle of confrontation states. Israel is doing its utmost to preserve the
Camp David agreement even for appearances sake. However, developments in Egypt
will inevitably lead to the creation of a serious security challenge on Israel's
southern border. The new Egypt will try to exercise its full sovereignty in
Sinai and deploy regular forces there, employing various pretexts, beginning
with Israeli "violations" of the Camp David agreement, proceeding with the need
to defend itself against an Israeli attack, and concluding with Egypt's
obligation to protect its Palestinian brothers in Gaza.
Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt, the parent movement of
Hamas, provides ongoing assistance to Hamas and furnishes it with strategic
backing that is growing more potent due to the Brotherhood's increased strength
in the recent elections. A high proportion of Izzedine al Qassam Brigade
activists who were killed in recent years in Gaza were simultaneously Muslim
Brotherhood activists and Hamas members. The plausible assumption is that one of
the Muslim Brotherhood's first objectives after it assumes the reins of power
will be to guarantee an open border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, and to
provide comprehensive economic and military assistance to Hamas that will pose
new security risks for Israel.
Furthermore, the strategic alliance between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas may
constrain Israel's freedom of military action in Gaza (as well as in the West
Bank) because this could provoke an Egyptian military response, including the
transfer of aid, weapons, and intelligence to Hamas, the deployment of Egyptian
forces in Sinai and/or in Gaza, stationing Egyptian antiaircraft systems on the
border of Gaza, and threats of direct military action.
These developments can be averted if the U.S. and its allies take a firm
position against any initiative to undermine the Treaty of Peace between Israel
and Egypt, and all echelons of the Egyptian establishment are made to understand
the implications of any such action.
Notes
1. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?ArtID=96953&SecID=0
2. http://www.hurryh.com/Party_Program.aspx
3. http://www.hurryh.com/Provinces/Our_news_Details.aspx?News_ID=1933&ID=23
4. http://www.hurryh.com/Provinces/Our_news_Details.aspx?News_ID=2000
5. http://www.hurryh.com/Party_Article_Details.aspx?News_ID=1872
6. http://www.hurryh.com/Our_news_Details.aspx?News_ID=1850
7. http://www.hurryh.com/ar_print.aspx?print_ID=4579
8. http://www.hurryh.com/Our_news_Details.aspx?News_ID=1954
9. The QIZ Agreement (QIZ-Qualified Industrial Zones) was signed in 2005 between
the governments of the United States, Israel and Egypt. The agreement defined
industrial zones whose factories would receive a customs exemption on their
exports to the United States if a certain percentage of the raw materials
originated in Israel.
10. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?ArtID=83759&SecID=0
11. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?SecID=213&ArtID=92523
12. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?SecID=213&ArtID=92523
13. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?ArtID=85754&SecID=0
14. http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/News/PoliticalNews/ar-LB/salafi-egypte-pb-5363323219.htm
15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tCfUs6upxQ&feature=youtu.be
16. http://www.facebook.com/AlnourParty/posts/211082628974957
* * *
Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi is a senior researcher of the Middle East and
radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is a co-founder of
the Orient Research Group Ltd. and is a former advisor to the Policy Planning
Division of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Iran's Nukes and Israel's Dilemma
Israeli Defense
by Yoaz Hendel
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2012, pp. 31-38 (view PDF)
http://www.meforum.org/3139/iran-nuclear-weapons-israel
While the Obama administration has not reconciled
itself to the futility of curbing Tehran's nuclear buildup through diplomatic
means, most Israelis have given up hope that the international sanctions can
dissuade the Islamic Republic from acquiring the means to murder by the
millions. Israel's leadership faces a stark choice—either come to terms with a
nuclear Iran or launch a preemptive military strike.
The Begin Doctrine
Ahmadinejad delivers his "Wipe Israel from the map" speech at Tehran's The World
without Zionism conference, October 26, 2005. Iran's genocidal intentions have
been repeatedly spelled out by current and former leaders in Tehran, and it is
wise for the Israeli leadership to take the rhetoric—combined as it is with the
hard facts of Iran's nuclear subterfuge—seriously.
When the Israeli Air Force (IAF) decimated Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor thirty
years ago, drawing nearly universal condemnation, the government of prime
minister Menachem Begin declared Israel's "determination to prevent
confrontation states … from gaining access to nuclear weapons." Then-defense
minister Ariel Sharon explained, "Israel cannot afford the introduction of the
nuclear weapon [to the Middle East]. For us, it is not a question of balance of
terror but a question of survival. We shall, therefore, have to prevent such a
threat at its inception"[1]
This preventive counter-proliferation doctrine is rooted in both geostrategic
logic and historical memory. A small country the size of New Jersey, with most
of its inhabitants concentrated in one central area, Israel is highly vulnerable
to nuclear attack. Furthermore, the depth of hostility to Israel in the Muslim
Middle East is such that its enemies have been highly disposed to brinksmanship
and risk-taking. Given the Jewish people's long history of horrific mass
victimization, most Israelis find it deeply unsettling to face the threat of
annihilation again.
While the alleged 2007 bombing of Syria's al-Kibar reactor underscored
Jerusalem's willingness to take military action in preventing its enemies from
developing nuclear weapons, its counter-proliferation efforts have relied
heavily on diplomacy and covert operations. The raid on Osirak came only after
the failure of Israeli efforts to dissuade or prevent France from providing the
necessary hardware. Likewise, the Israelis have reportedly been responsible for
the assassinations of several Iranian nuclear scientists in recent years.[2]
They reportedly helped create the Stuxnet computer worm, dubbed by The New York
Times "the most sophisticated cyber weapon ever deployed," which caused major
setbacks to Iran's uranium enrichment program in 2009.[3] However, such methods
can only slow Tehran's progress, not halt or reverse it.
The Iranian Threat
Tehran has already reached what Brig. Gen. (res.) Shlomo Brom has called the
"point of irreversibility" at which time the proliferator "stops being dependent
on external assistance" to produce the bomb.[4] Most Israeli officials believe
that no combination of likely external incentives or disincentives can persuade
the Iranians to verifiably abandon the effort. The Iranian regime has every
reason to persevere in its pursuit of the ultimate weapon. While the world
condemned North Korea's development of nuclear weapons, it was unwilling to
apply sufficient penalties to dissuade Pyongyang from building the bomb.
The regime has an impressive ballistic missile program for delivering weapons of
mass destruction. The Iranians began equipping themselves with SCUD missiles
during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.[5] Afterward, it turned to North Korea for
both missiles and the technology to set up its own research and production
facilities. Tehran has produced hundreds of Shahab-3 missiles, which have a
range of nearly 1,000 miles and can carry a warhead weighing from 500 kilograms
to one ton.[6] In 2009, Tehran successfully tested a new two-stage, solid
propellant missile, the Sejil-2, which has a range of over 1,200 miles, placing
parts of Europe within its reach.
There is some disagreement as to how long it will take Tehran to produce a
nuclear weapon. While the government of Israel has claimed that Iran is within a
year or two of this goal, in January 2011, outgoing Mossad director Meir Dagan
alleged that Iran will be unable to attain it before 2015.[7]
Iranian Intentions
Much of the debate in Israel is focused on the question of Iranian intentions.
The fact that Tehran has poured staggering amounts of money, human capital, and
industrial might into nuclear development—at the expense of its conventional
military strength, which has many gaps, not to mention the wider Iranian
economy—is by itself a troubling indicator of its priorities. Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu and many other leading Israeli political and security figures
view the Islamic Republic as so unremittingly hostile that "everything else
pales" before the threat posed by its pursuit of nuclear weapons.[8]
Proponents of this view draw upon repeated threats by President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel off the map[9] and Iranian support for radical
Palestinian and Lebanese groups seeking its destruction. They also point to
Ahmadinejad's radical millenarian strand of Shiite Islamism.[10] Shiites believe
that the twelfth of a succession of imams directly descendant of the Prophet
Muhammad went into hiding in the ninth century and will one day return to this
world after a period of cataclysmic war to usher in an era of stability and
peace.
Ahmadinejad appears to believe that this day will happen in his lifetime. In
2004, as mayor of Tehran, he ordered the construction of a grand avenue in the
city center, supposedly to welcome the Mahdi on the day of his reappearance. As
president, he allocated $17 million for a mosque closely associated with the
Mahdi in the city of Jamkaran.[11] Rather than seeking to reassure the world
about Tehran's peaceful intentions during his 2007 address before the U.N.
General Assembly, Ahmadinejad embarked on a wide-eyed discourse about the
wonders of the Twelfth Imam: "There will come a time when justice will prevail
across the globe ... under the rule of the perfect man, the last divine source
on earth, the Mahdi."[12]
The fear in Israel is that someone who firmly believes an apocalyptic showdown
between good and evil is inevitable and divinely ordained will not be easily
deterred by the threat of a nuclear war. "There are new calls for the
extermination of the Jewish State," Netanyahu warned during a January 2010 visit
to Israel's Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem. "This is certainly our concern, but it
is not only our concern."[13] For Netanyahu, a nuclear Iran is a clear and
present existential threat.
Those who dissent from this view point out that the Iranian people are not
particularly hostile to Israelis; indeed, the two countries enjoyed close
relations before the 1979 Iranian revolution. They argue that the Iranian
regime's militant anti-Zionism is a vehicle for gaining influence in the
predominantly Sunni Arab Middle East but not something that would drive its
leaders to commit suicide. "I am not underestimating the significance of a
nuclear Iran, but we should not give it Holocaust subtext like politicians try
to do," said former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff Dan Halutz, who
commanded the Israeli military during the war in Lebanon in 2006.[14] Defense
Minister Ehud Barak said in a widely circulated September 2009 interview that
Iran was not an "existential" threat to Israel.[15]
The question of whether Iran is an existential danger is more rhetorical than
substantive. Even if Iranian nuclear weapons are never fired, their mere
existence would be a profound blow to most Israelis' sense of security. In one
poll, 27 percent of Israelis said they would consider leaving the country if
Tehran developed nuclear capabilities. Loss of investor confidence would damage
the economy. This could spell the failure of Zionism's mission of providing a
Jewish refuge as Jews will look to the Diaspora for safety.[16] This is
precisely why Israel's enemies salivate over the possibility of an Iranian bomb.
Even if the prospect of mutually assured destruction effectively rules out an
Iranian first strike, Tehran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would still shift
the balance of power greatly. Iran projects its power throughout the Middle East
mainly by way of allies and proxies, such as Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army in
Iraq, Hamas in Gaza, the Assad regime in Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The
Iranian nuclear umbrella will embolden them. The next time an Israeli soldier is
abducted in a cross-border attack by Hezbollah or Hamas, Jerusalem will have to
weigh the risks of a nuclear escalation before responding. There is also the
possibility that Tehran could provide a nuclear device to one of its terrorist
proxies.[17]
A successful Iranian bid to acquire the bomb will set off an unprecedented
nuclear arms race throughout the region. Arab countries such as Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates will want to create their own
nuclear insurance policies in the face of Tehran's belligerence and regional
ambitions. Turkey has passed a bill in its parliament paving the way for the
construction of three nuclear reactors by 2020.[18]
Most of Israel's decision-makers believe that Israel cannot afford the risks of
living with a nuclear Iran. Those who publicly differ with Netanyahu on this
score seem mainly concerned that he is exploiting popular fears for political
gain, but they are likely to fall in line with public opinion at the end of the
day. The large majority of Israelis support a military strike on Iran's nuclear
facilities as a last resort, and a small majority (51 percent according to a
2009 poll) favor an immediate strike on Iran as a first resort.[19]
The Military Option
The general assessment is that the IDF has the ability to knock out some of
Tehran's key nuclear facilities and set back its nuclear program by a couple of
years but not completely destroy it—at least not in one strike.[20] Several
factors make Iran's nuclear program much more difficult to incapacitate than
that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Whereas most of Iraq's vital nuclear assets were concentrated at Osirak, "Iran's
nuclear facilities are spread out," notes former IDF chief of staff Ya'alon,[21]
some of them in close proximity to population centers. The distance to targets
in Iran would be considerably greater than to Osirak, and its facilities are
better defended. Iran has mastered nuclear technology much more thoroughly than
Iraq and can, therefore, repair much of the damage without external help.
Of the known Iranian nuclear sites, five main facilities are almost certain to
be targeted in any preemptive strike. The first is the Bushehr light-water
reactor, along the gulf coast of southwestern Iran. The second is the
heavy-water plant under construction near the town of Arak, which would be
instrumental to production of plutonium. Next is the uranium conversion facility
at Isfahan. Based on satellite imagery, the facility is above ground although
some reports have suggested tunneling near the complex.[22]
Fourth is the uranium enrichment facility at Qom, which the Iranians concealed
from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) prior to September 2009 and
well after major Western intelligence agencies knew about it. The facility,
which can hold about 3,000 centrifuges, was built into a mountain, making it
difficult to penetrate. Israeli defense minister Barak called it "immune to
standard bombs."[23]
The fifth and most heavily fortified primary target is the main Iranian uranium
enrichment facility in Natanz. The complex consists of two large halls, roughly
300,000 square feet each, dug somewhere between eight and twenty-three feet
below ground and covered by several layers of concrete and metal. The walls of
each hall are estimated to be approximately two feet thick. The facility is also
surrounded by short-range, Russian-made TOR-M surface-to-air missiles.
Military planners may also feel compelled to attack Tehran's centrifuge
fabrication sites since their destruction would hamper the efforts to
reestablish its nuclear program. However, it is believed that the Iranians have
dispersed some centrifuges to underground sites not declared to the IAEA. It is
by no means clear that Israeli intelligence has a full accounting of where they
are.
The Israelis may also choose to bomb Iranian radar stations and air bases in
order to knock out Tehran's ability to defend its skies, particularly if
multiple waves are required. Ya'alon estimates that Israel would need to attack
a few dozen sites.[24]
The Operation
The Israeli Air Force is capable of striking the necessary targets with two to
three full squadrons of fighter-bombers with escorts to shoot down enemy
aircraft; however, most of the escorts will require refueling to strike the
necessary targets in Iran.[25] In addition, the Israelis can make use of
ballistic missiles and cruise missiles from their Dolphin-class submarines.
The IAF has carried out long-range missions in the past. In 1981, Israeli F-16s
struck the Osirak reactor without midair refueling. Refueling tankers were
activated for Israel's longest-range air strike to date, the 1985 bombing of the
Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) headquarters in Tunis, 1,500 miles
away. The IAF's highly publicized 2009 flyover over Gibraltar was widely
perceived as a dress rehearsal for a strike against Iran.[26] In 2009, the IAF
instituted a new training regimen that included refueling planes as their
engines were on and sitting on the runway with fuel nozzles disconnected seconds
before takeoff.
The IAF has specialized munitions designed to penetrate fortified targets,
including GBU-27 and GBU-28 laser-guided bunker buster bombs and various
domestically produced ordnance. Israeli pilots are skilled at using successive
missile strikes to penetrate fortifications. "Even if one bomb would not suffice
to penetrate, we could guide other bombs directly to the hole created by the
previous ones and eventually destroy any target," explains former IAF commander
Maj. Gen. Eitan Ben-Eliyahu, who participated in the strike on Osirak.[27]
Israel's advanced electronic-warfare systems are likely to be successful in
suppressing Iran's air defenses although these were significantly upgraded by
Moscow during the 2000s.[28] Moreover, whereas thirty years ago, Israeli pilots
needed to fly directly over Osirak to drop their bombs, today they can fly at
higher altitudes and launch satellite or laser-guided missiles from a safer
distance. Nor are Tehran's roughly 160 operational combat aircraft, mostly
antiquated U.S. and French planes, likely to pose a serious threat to Israeli
pilots.
Possible Attack Routes
The main problem Jerusalem will encounter in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities
results from the long distance to the main targets. Since greater distance
always means that more things can go wrong, Israeli losses and efficacy will
likely depend on which of three possible routes they take to Iran.
The northern route runs along the Turkish-Syrian border into Iran and is
estimated to be about 1,300 miles. This route entails several risks and would
need to take into account Syrian air defenses and Turkish opposition to
violating its airspace. Israeli planes flew over Turkey when the IAF bombed al-Kibar
in 2007 and even dropped fuel tanks in Turkish territory. However, the recent
deterioration in relations between Ankara and Jerusalem makes it extremely
unlikely that the Turkish government will allow such an intrusion.
The central route over Jordan and Iraq is the most direct, bringing the distance
to Natanz from the IAF's Hatzerim air base down to about 1,000 miles, yet it
entails serious diplomatic obstacles. Jerusalem would have to coordinate either
with the Jordanians and the Americans or fly without forewarning. While Israel
has a peace treaty with Jordan, Amman will not want to be perceived as
cooperating with Israeli military action against Tehran and thus possibly face
the brunt of an Iranian reprisal. Washington may not want to be involved either,
as it needs Tehran's acquiescence to withdraw its forces from Iraq successfully.
While Jerusalem could limit the risk of hostile fire by notifying its two allies
of the impending attack, there would be considerable diplomatic costs.
The southern route would take Israeli planes over Saudi Arabia and then into
Iran. While this is longer than the central route, there have been reports that
the Saudis have given Jerusalem permission to use their airspace for such an
operation.[29]
The difficulties also depend on the precise goal of the air strike. A
short-term, financially costly degradation of Iran's nuclear program can be
achieved in one wave of attacks, but Israeli defense analysts have estimated
that a decisive blow could require hitting as many as sixty different targets
with return sorties lasting up to two days.
Estimates in Israel vary regarding the losses the IAF might suffer in such an
operation.[30] Some estimates claim that with their advanced, Russian-supplied
air defense systems, the Iranians might be able to shoot down a small number of
aircraft. But even just a few pilots shot down and captured by Iran would be a
heart-wrenching tragedy for Israelis. To prepare for this, in 2009 the IAF began
increasing mental training for its airmen with an emphasis on survival skills.
Many former, high-ranking generals and intelligence chiefs have cast doubt on
whether Jerusalem can succeed in decisively setting back Tehran's nuclear
program. Addressing an audience at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in May
2011, Meir Dagan said that the idea of attacking Iranian nuclear sites was "the
stupidest thing" he had ever heard and that such an attempt would have a
near-zero chance of success.[31]
The Fallout
The strategic fallout from an Israeli attack will likely be significant.
Hezbollah will probably initiate hostilities across the Lebanese-Israeli border.
During the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, the Shiite Islamist group fired more than
4,000 rockets into Israel, causing extensive damage and killing forty-four
civilians.[32] Today, its arsenal is considerably larger and includes many more
rockets capable of reaching Tel Aviv. Dagan estimates that the Iranians can fire
missiles at Israel for a period of months, and that Hezbollah can fire tens of
thousands of rockets.[33] Hamas may also attack Israel with rockets from Gaza.
It is not inconceivable that Syrian president Bashar Assad would join the fight,
if still in power, in hope of diverting public anger away from his regime.
Iran has also developed an extensive overseas terrorist network, cultivated in
conjunction with Hezbollah. This network was responsible for two car bombings
against the Jewish community in Argentina that left 114 people dead in the early
1990s.[34]
Last year, Israel distributed gas masks to prepare for the possibility that Iran
or Syria would deploy chemical or biological weapons[35] while the IDF's Home
Front Command received an increased budget to prepare bomb shelters and teach
the public what to do in case of emergency.[36] C4I systems were improved
between early-warning missile detection systems and air sirens, including
specially designed radars that can accurately predict the exact landing site of
incoming missiles. Since no one is certain how accurate Iran's Shahab and Sajil
missiles are, Jerusalem began strengthening defenses at its Dimona nuclear
reactor in 2008.[37]
Jerusalem will not sit back and allow its citizens to be bombed mercilessly.
Since Lebanon will probably be the main platform of any major Iranian attack,
Israeli retaliation there is sure to be swift and expansive. Should Syria offer
up any form of direct participation in the war, it too may come under Israeli
attack. The Israelis may go so far as to bomb Iran's oil fields and energy
infrastructure. Since oil receipts provide at least 75 percent of the Iranian
regime's income and at least 80 percent of export revenues, the political shock
of losing this income could lead the regime to rethink its nuclear stance, as
well as erode its public support, and make it more difficult to finance the
repair of damaged nuclear facilities.[38]
On the other hand, Tehran may double down by sending its own ground troops to
Lebanon or Syria to join the fight against Israel. This could draw in the
Persian Gulf Arab monarchies, particularly if the Alawite-led Assad regime is
still facing active opposition from its majority Sunni population.
How long such a war will last is impossible to predict. Israel's defense
doctrine calls for short wars, so it will likely launch a diplomatic campaign
with Western backing to end the war as soon as possible. However, the Iranians
may hunker down for the long haul, much as they did during the 8-year Iran-Iraq
war.[39]
If a military solution cannot guarantee success at an acceptable price, some in
Israel argue that the best hope for countering the threat posed by Iranian
nuclear weapons is regime change. "The nuclear matter will resolve itself once
there is a regime change," says Uri Lubrani, Israel's former ambassador to Iran
and a senior advisor to the Israeli defense minister until last year. According
to Lubrani, the highest priority for Israel and the West should be to strengthen
the Iranian masses that rose up in protest following the fraudulent June 2009
elections.[40]
"A military strike will at best delay Iran's nuclear program, but what's worse,
it will rally the Iranian people to the defense of the regime," says Lubrani. He
argues that it is better to let sanctions eat away at the regime's legitimacy
even if they do not lead to a stand down on its nuclear program.[41]
However, it is not clear whether Lubrani is correct in his assessment that war
will benefit the regime. While most Iranians are generally supportive of their
country's nuclear ambitions, devastating Israeli air strikes may drive home the
folly of their government's reckless provocations just as they did during the
later stages of the Iran-Iraq war. It is unlikely that many are willing to
sacrifice their country's well-being in pursuit of the bomb.
Whether an Israeli attack will unite the public for or against President
Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i is anyone's guess. Much will depend
on whether the air strikes produce significant collateral damage. The Bushehr,
Isfahan, and Natanz facilities contain uranium hexafluoride (UF6) and even some
low-enriched uranium, the release of which into the environment would almost
certainly raise public health concerns.
Conclusion
The Israelis will ultimately have to choose between launching an attack likely
to spark a large-scale regional conflict and allowing Iran to go nuclear with
dire long-term implications. Notwithstanding some disagreement about the
immediacy of the threat and possible repercussions, the large majority of
Israelis favor military action over living with the ubiquitous threat of nuclear
annihilation.
With a U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood threatening to erode Israel's
international standing still further, attacking Iran could prove dangerously
isolating for Israel even with Washington's blessing—to proceed without it would
be a step into the unknown. Much, therefore, depends on whether policymakers in
Washington will stand by Jerusalem when push eventually comes to shove.
The American people have increasingly come to recognize the threat to world
peace posed by Iran. Whereas 6 percent of Americans named Iran as the country
that poses the greatest threat to the United States in 1990, in 2006, Iran led
the field with 27 percent.[42] However, though Washington's official stance is
that all options remain on the table, Obama is unlikely to undertake direct
military action to stop Tehran from building the bomb and may prove reluctant to
tacitly support Israeli action.
That is why the decision will ultimately be left to Israel, or rather to its
prime minister, who will be faced with a Churchillian dilemma, unprecedented in
the Jewish state's history.
**Yoaz Hendel, a military historian who has lectured at Bar Ilan University and
written on strategic affairs for the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, now works in the
Israeli prime minister's office. This article was written before his government
service; views expressed herein are his alone.
[1] Ariel Sharon, address, Government Press Office, Jerusalem, Dec. 15, 1981.
[2] The Sunday Times (London), Feb. 4, 2007; The Washington Post, Nov. 29, 2010;
The Observer (London), Dec. 5, 2010.
[3] The New York Times, Jan. 16, 2011.
[4] Shlomo Brom, "Is the Begin Doctrine Still a Viable Option for Israel?" in
Henry Sokolski and Patrick Clawson, eds., Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran
(Carlisle, Pa.: U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, 2005), p.
139.
[5] Yiftah S. Shapir, "Iran"s Ballistic Missiles," Strategic Assessment INSS,
Aug. 2009.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ha'aretz (Tel Aviv), Jan. 7, 2011.
[8] Ibid., Nov. 14, 2006.
[9] Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (Tehran), Oct. 27, 2005.
[10] See Mohebat Ahdiyyih, "Ahmadinejad and the Mahdi," Middle East Quarterly,
Fall 2008, pp. 27-36.
[11] Charles Krauthammer, "In Iran, Arming for Armageddon," The Washington Post,
Dec. 16, 2005.
[12] Islamic Republic News Agency, Sept. 26, 2007.
[13] Benjamin Netanyahu, speech, Jerusalem, Jan. 25, 2010.
[14] The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 15, 2010.
[15] Reuters, Sept. 17, 2009.
[16] Yossi Klein Halevi and Michael B. Oren, "Israel Cannot Live with a Nuclear
Iran," The New Republic, Jan. 26, 2010.
[17] Chuck Freilich "The Armageddon Scenario: Israel and the Threat of Nuclear
Terrorism," BESA Center Perspectives Papers (Ramat Gan), Apr. 8, 2010.
[18] See Yoel Guzansky, "The Saudi Nuclear Option," INSS Insight, Institute for
National Security Studies, National Defense University, Washington, D.C., Apr.
2010; John Bolton, "Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran," The Wall Street Journal, May
2, 2010.
[19] YNet News (Tel Aviv), May 24, 2009.
[20] Whitney Raas and Austin Long, "Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities
to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities," International Security, Spring 2007, pp.
7-33.
[21] Jane's Defence Weekly (London), Mar. 10, 2006.
[22] The New York Times, Jan. 5, 2010.
[23] The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 28, 2009.
[24] Jane's Defence Weekly, Mar. 10, 2006.
[25] Raas and Long, "Osirak Redux?" pp. 7-34.
[26] Ynet News, Mar. 5, 2009.
[27] Jane's Defense Weekly, Mar. 4, 2005.
[28] Anthony H. Cordesman, "The Iran Attack Plan," The Wall Street Journal,
Sept. 25, 2009.
[29] The Sunday Times, June 12, 2010.
[30] Brom, "Is the Begin Doctrine Still a Viable Option for Israel?" pp. 148-9.
[31] Ha'aretz, May 7, 2011; The Jewish Daily Forward (New York), May 20, 2011.
[32] Fox News, Mar. 27, 2008; The Guardian (London), Apr. 11, 2011.
[33] Ha'aretz, May 7, 2011.
[34] BBC News, Mar. 27, 2011.
[35] Ha'aretz, May 1, 2010.
[36] Ha'aretz, June 17, 2009; "Israeli Civilians Prepare for Life-Threatening
Scenarios," Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson's Unit, June 22, 2011.
[37] Pakistan Daily (Lahore), Oct. 3, 2008.
[38] Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt, "The Last Resort," The Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, Washington, D.C., June 2008.
[39] Moshe Vered, "Ending an Iranian-Israeli War," Mideast Security and Policy
Studies, Sept. 2009.
[40] David Horovitz, "Editor's Notes: Playing Chess against Tehran," interview
with Uri Lubrani, Mar. 11, 2011; The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 13, 2010.
[41] The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 13, 2010.
[42] Associated Press, July 2, 2006.