LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 30/2011

Bible Quotation for today/The Question about Fasting
Mark 02/18-22: "On one occasion the followers of John the Baptist and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came to Jesus and asked him, Why is it that the disciples of John the Baptist and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but yours do not?  Jesus answered, Do you expect the guests at a wedding party to go without food? Of course not! As long as the bridegroom is with them, they will not do that. But the day will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast.  No one uses a piece of new cloth to patch up an old coat, because the new patch will shrink and tear off some of the old cloth, making an even bigger hole. Nor does anyone pour new wine into used wineskins, because the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins will be ruined. Instead, new wine must be poured into fresh wineskins"


Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
The Arabs’ touch turns Syria to lead/By Michael Young/December 29/11
What’s Obama’s Plan B after Arab League monitors?/By: Tony Badran/December 29/11
2012: The year that could bring a U.S. strike of Iran/By Yossi Melman/Haaretz/December 29/11  
The people want the fall of the Secretary-General/By Hussein Shobokshi/December 29/11
Syria: A delegation of Arab spectators/By Tariq Alhomayed/December 29/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for December 29/11
Hezbollah's Nasrallah worth $250M?
Iranian plan to mine Hormuz puts US, NATO on Persian Gulf alert
Iran official: U.S. cannot stop us from cutting off world oil supply
Israel, U.S. discuss triggers for military strike on Iran
Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel
Iran says monitored U.S. aircraft carrier during massive naval drill
Palestinian rights group: Hamas targetting Fatah members in Gaza
Asharq Al-Awsat Profile: General Mohammed al-Dabi, head of the Arab League observers in Syria,
Activists: Syrian troops kill more protesters
US to sell F-15s to Saudi Arabia
Turkish air strikes kill 23 Kurds near Iraq
Amid bloodshed, Hamas prepares to leave Syria
U.S. Urges Syria to Allow Full Access to Monitors
More deaths reported in Syria despite monitors
Damascus says “terrorists” infiltrated Syria via Aarsal
Human rights group warns torture widespread in Lebanon
Lebanon: March 14 MPs urge protection against Syrian incursions
Nadim Gemayel: Cabinet silent over Syrian incursions
Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri denounces death of three Lebanese men in Wadi Khaled
Future bloc MP Ahmad Fatfat: No political decision to deploy army at Lebanese-Syrian border
New Year in Tatters as Bombs, Threats Shake Tyre
Lebanon's Higher Defense Council Stresses Border Control, Prevention of Arms Smuggling
Lebanon: Security Committee Probing Killing of 3 Lebanese by Syrian Army in Wadi Khaled
Lebanon to curb arms smuggling across border with Syria
Syrian Ambassador Urges Lebanon to Take ‘Strict Measures’ Against Arms Smuggling
Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji before Arsal Delegation: Army Treats All Citizens Equally Away from Political Considerations
Manila to lift deployment ban to Lebanon in Jan.

Hezbollah's Nasrallah worth $250M?
Doron Peskin/Ynetnews
American intelligence officials estimate fortune of Shiite organization's leader, senior members totals some $2 billion, which are scattered in hundreds of bank accounts across the world. Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah is worth some $250 million, a Saudi newspaper reported recently, quoting American intelligence officials. According to the report, the fortune of Nasrallah's deputy, Sheikh Naim Qassem, and other senior organization members amounts to as much as $2 billion. The anonymous intelligence sources believe the funds have been deposited in hundreds of bank accounts across the world, including in Europe, using fabricated or fake names. Two Western sources are quoted as saying that the Hezbollah leaders from time to time channel millions of dollars from their bank accounts or their wives' bank accounts to senior members of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran, who are responsible for transferring money to the Shiite organization from the office of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. According to the report, Iranian parliament members are aware of this corruption, are unhappy with it but are avoiding discussing it.
Straw companies
A British security source who worked at the embassies in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon in the 1990s is quoted as saying that the West has figured out Hezbollah's money laundering method.
According to the source, the Shiite organization's common method is setting up straw companies in Arab or African countries, which sell cars or large amounts of goods.
The organizations also operate small cells of six to 10 people who specialize in stealing cellular phones, personal computers or credit cards, and open fake bank accounts using the victims' details.
According to the report, the Hezbollah members also specialize in stealing passports, which are used by the organization operatives to travel around the world for commerce purposes, among others.
By setting up companies, mainly in Eastern European countries and in Soviet republics in central Asia, Hezbollah provides all the financial needs of the organization members in Lebanon.
According to a recent report among many on the organization's financial situation, senior Iranian officials are furious over an internal report pointing to corruption among Hezbollah's highest ranks.
Another report says the Iranians were "amazed" to learn of the flamboyant life led by the organization members, mainly during their visits abroad.
*Doron Peskin is head of research at Info-Prod Research (Middle East) Ltd.

Human rights group warns torture widespread in Lebanon
December 29, 2011/ By Olivia Alabaster/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The human rights organization Alef – Act for Human Rights released Wednesday their alternative report into Lebanon’s progress with regard to international conventions against torture, as the country has not issued a single report since signing the convention in 2000. While Lebanon signed the U.N. Convention Against Torture over 10 years ago, the government has not yet issued a report into its progress in carrying out the recommended measures. States that have ratified the convention are expected to issue reports every couple of years, and Lebanon was given a November 2011 deadline by which to do so. Civil society organizations are invited to issue shadow reports into the issues, alongside the government, to offer an alternative view the U.N. Committee on Torture and, as such, Alef has now sent its report to the committee. One of the conditions of the UNCAT was the need for each state to create a National Prevention Mechanism to monitor and prevent torture, according to George Ghali, project assistant on the torture prevention program at Alef, who helped author the NGO’s alternative report. However, an NPM has not yet been formed in Lebanon, Ghali said.
Alef has been monitoring torture in Lebanon over the last five years. “Torture is widespread,” according to the report, with over 700 cases reported to a single NGO in the period 2008-2009.Those most at risk include those in prison, non-Lebanese, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexualindividuals, drug addicts and women and children. The report urges the Lebanese government to criminalize torture in line with UNCAT’s definition, which includes the exclusion of evidence gathered under torture, and redress to all victims of torture.
The NGO’s alternative report also says that, “Since 2005, Lebanon has been experiencing increased political instability. While the overall level of human rights protection has improved, this depends on the priorities of individual ministers rather than coherent policy decisions.”Ghali said that while the government has made gradual steps in the field of human rights, including the creation of a committee for the prevention of torture, falling under the Internal Security Forces department of human rights, “they have not been concrete steps.”According to Ghali, the U.N. Committee on Torture has been continuing to pressure the government to issue its own report. “The government has said they are working on one, but we have seen no official signs of this,” he added. While the NGO’s main demands are legislative, Ghali also stressed the social aspect to the NGO’s work. “We also want to change the perceptions of the Lebanese society toward violence,” he said. “We have to create a major social breakthrough on the issue of torture,” he added. This work includes awareness campaigns, and training sessions for civil society organizations, journalists and lawyers. The report also urges the introduction of a comprehensive training for all law enforcement officials.A systemic shift was needed at all levels of society, Ghali said, before torture is seen as an extrajudicial measure. The report states that, “In a socio-cultural study conducted by Alef on the acceptance of violence in Lebanon, it was found that the population accepts violence as an instrument of power and a tool to enforce power and control over opponents.”
In a 2011 survey by the NGO, 23 percent of respondents associated violence with “political violence” and 27 percent said they knew at least one person who had been beaten by state security agents.
“On the streets, we ask people about the use of torture, and many see it as a just measure,” Ghali added.

March 14 MPs urge protection against Syrian incursions
December 29, 2011/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Lawmakers from the Future Movement-led March 14 coalition warned Thursday they would seek U.N. protection against cross-border Syrian incursions unless the Lebanese Army acts. Akkar MP Khaled Daher called on the "government to do its duty and the Lebanese Army to defend its territory and citizens.” “Otherwise, we will call for the United Nations to protect our people from crimes [being] committed against them by the Syrian regime,” Daher told a news conference in Tripoli, north Lebanon. Kataeb MP Nadim Gemayel also demanded Thursday that Lebanon file a formal complaint with the U.N. Security Council over Syrian incursions into northern and eastern border towns and for the killings of Lebanese citizens. “While we deplore the government's performance in defending Lebanon and its sovereignty ... we call on it to take immediate action to protect Lebanese civilians on the border and file an urgent complaint with the [U.N.] Security Council to condemn the targeting of innocent Lebanese and violations of national sovereignty,” Gemayel said in a statement. He was referring to Tuesday’s Syrian army incursion into the northern border area of Wadi Khaled in which troops shot and killed three Lebanese people. “How can this government not see what all Lebanese see in terms of Syrian military violations of the Lebanese border, be it in the Bekaa Valley or in Akkar,” Gemayel asked. Meanwhile, Future Movement MP Khaled Zahraman described as a “blatant assault” the recent Syrian army incursion that left three Lebanese citizens killed.

Nadim Gemayel: Cabinet silent over Syrian incursions
December 29, 2011 /Kataeb bloc MP Nadim Gemayel on Thursday voiced surprise over “the government’s silence regarding the Syrian army’s violations of the Lebanese-Syrian border.”
“Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn saw, alone, Al-Qaeda members infiltrating into Syria from the Bekaa, but tuned a blind eye and [did not comment] on the Syrian army’s flagrant violations of the Lebanese sovereignty,” Gemayel said in a statement issued by his office.Gemayel said that the government’s behavior is “unacceptable and unjustified.”Three Lebanese shot and wounded by Syrian troops as they were crossing into northern Lebanon died of their injuries overnight, a medical official said on Wednesday. In a similar incident, Syrian troops on October 6 shot and killed a farmer near the Bekaa town of Aarsal. The United Nations estimates more than 5,000 people have been killed since mid-March in the Syrian regime’s crackdown on dissent. Damascus blames the unrest on "armed terrorist groups" and has unleashed military operations against border towns and protest hubs.-NOW Lebanon

Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri denounces death of three Lebanese men in Wadi Khaled
December 28, 2011 /Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Wednesday condemned the “assassination” of three Lebanese men on Tuesday night in Wadi Khaled in northern Lebanon, according to a press statement. Three Lebanese shot and wounded by Syrian troops as they were crossing into northern Lebanon died of their injuries overnight, a medical official said on Wednesday. Hariri held the Lebanese government “responsible for what is happening to Lebanese citizens and sovereignty due to the repeating Syrian incursions into” Lebanese territory The former PM also said that “the relevant Lebanese authorities must take the necessary measures to protect Lebanese citizens and prevent such contemptible violations.” -NOW Lebanon

Future bloc MP Ahmad Fatfat: No political decision to deploy army at Lebanese-Syrian border
December 29, 2011 /Future bloc MP Ahmad Fatfat said on Thursday that “the army is present [in the northern town of Akkar], but not present directly at the border with Syria, which means that there is no [political] decision for it to be deployed there.”Fatfat told Future News TV that “the only beneficiary of the chaos [at the border] is the Syrian regime.”He also said that the residents of the North will defend themselves if the state fails to do so. “The failure of the state to defend the people in South Lebanon led to the formation of the Resistance, and if the army fails to defend the people in the North, we will have to defend ourselves,” he said. The three Lebanese who were shot and wounded by Syrian troops as they were crossing into northern Lebanon died of their injuries overnight, a medical official said on Wednesday. In a similar incident, Syrian troops on October 6 shot and killed a farmer near the Bekaa town of Aarsal.The United Nations estimates more than 5,000 people have been killed since mid-March in the Syrian regime’s crackdown on dissent. Damascus blames the unrest on "armed terrorist groups" and has unleashed military operations against border towns and protest hubs.-NOW Lebanon

Syrian Ambassador Urges Lebanon to Take ‘Strict Measures’ Against Arms Smuggling
by Naharnet/Syria's envoy to Beirut has urged the Lebanese government to prevent cross-border arms smuggling, saying the alleged trafficking was "complementary to terrorism.”In an interview with the Hizbullah-run website al-Intiqad, Ali Abdul Karim Ali called on Lebanon to take "serious, strict measures to end arms smuggling from Lebanon into Syria and... not give in to international pressure."His comments were made the same day the Higher Defense Council stressed during a meeting at Baabda palace the prevention of arms smuggling and said it asked security agencies to take stronger measures to fight terrorism.Ali, the first Syrian ambassador to Lebanon, linked the issue of suspected arms smuggling to claims that al-Qaida was operating along the Lebanese-Syrian border, made earlier this month by Lebanon's Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn. "Ghosn's exposure of al-Qaida members who are infiltrating Syria via the Lebanese border village of Arsal is an issue that must be dealt responsibly and seriously," Ali was quoted as saying. "Arms smuggling and terrorism are complementary, and measures to put an end to this matter must be clear and decisive." Syrian President Bashar Assad blames the violence in his country on "armed terrorist" groups.The Lebanese government has said it is investigating Ghosn's claims that a terrorist group was smuggling weapons into Syria through Arsal, which borders the Syrian protest hub of Homs. The March 14-led opposition has meanwhile slammed Ghosn as a "minister for the defense of the Assad regime" over his statements. Arsal, considered a stronghold of opposition leader and ex-Premier Saad Hariri, has in recent months witnessed a string of deadly incursions by the Syrian army in a bid to crack down on arms smuggling.Wounded Syrian protesters have crossed the border into Arsal to seek medical care in Lebanon as violence escalates in Homs.

Damascus says “terrorists” infiltrated Syria via Aarsal
December 28, 2011 /Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jihad Makdisi said Wednesday evening that “a group infiltrated [Syria] via the Lebanese Bekaa town of Aarsal in line with what [Syrian] Minister of Defense [Daoud Rajeh] said.” The Syrian defense minister had accused the “infiltrators” of involvement in the terrorist bombings that rocked Damascus last Friday.“Isn’t it possible for such incidents to take place between two countries that share borders?” Makdisi asked during his appearance on New TV. Last week, Lebanese Minister of Defense Fayez Ghosn warned of the presence of Al-Qaeda cells in Aarsal, which is near the Syrian border.A few days later, 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. -NOW Lebanon

More deaths reported in Syria despite monitors
December 29, 2011 /Syrian security forces killed 14 more civilians as Arab observers were set Thursday to visit protest hubs as part of a mission to halt the regime's crackdown on dissent, a rights group said. At least seven soldiers - four loyalists and three deserters - were also killed on Wednesday in separate clashes, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said in a statement received by AFP.A five-year-old was among four civilians killed by the security forces in Homs, as the Arab observers toured restive neighborhoods of the central city for a second day.
The observer mission is part of an Arab League plan accepted earlier this month by Syria after weeks of prevarication, which also calls on the armed forces to withdraw from the streets and the release of prisoners. On Thursday, monitors will tour the northern provinces of Edlib and Hama as well as Daraa further south, where unprecedented pro-democracy protests erupted in mid-March, the head of the mission said.They will also visit a flashpoint district around the capital Damascus, General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi, a veteran Sudanese military intelligence officer, told AFP on Wednesday. In the northern city of Hama, three civilians were killed by Syrian forces who opened fire on protesters rallying against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, said the Observatory.
A civilian was also killed in Aleppo, Syria's second city and economic hub, another died in Edlib province, which borders Turkey, while a third one was killed in Daraa as he returned for an anti-regime rally, it said. Four civilians were also killed Wednesday in a village near the northern Damascus suburb of Duma during a raid by security forces, the group added. According to UN estimates announced in early December, more than 5,000 people have been killed in the Syrian government crackdown on dissent since mid-March. The observers began on the weekend their month-long mission, which according to the deal endorsed by Syria can be renewed. So far some 66 monitors are in Syria but the head of the mission said their numbers should swell as they spread out to more areas of the country.
-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji before Arsal Delegation: Army Treats All Citizens Equally Away from Political Considerations
by Naharnet/Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji stated on Thursday that the Lebanese should be united in averting any negative repercussions of regional developments on their country. He said before a delegation from the Bekaa town of Arsal: “The army cooperates with all citizens equally and without being affected by the political situation.”“The army believes that maintaining the peace in Lebanon is a sacred right for all Lebanese,” he stressed.“This right should not be taken lightly under any circumstances,” Qahwaji said. For its part, the Arsal delegation thanked the army commander for the security measures that have been taken in the town, which are aimed at protecting the citizens and prevent the infiltration of individuals across the border with Syria.On Tuesday, an Arsal delegation, led by Municipal Council chief Ali al-Hujairi, urged Prime Minister Najib Miqati to deploy troops near the town along the border with Syria.The delegation's visit came 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,” he stressed. 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.

Lebanon's Higher Defense Council Stresses Border Control, Prevention of Arms Smuggling
by Naharnet /The Higher Defense Council on Thursday stressed the prevention of arms smuggling in and out of Lebanon and called for controlling the security situation in border towns.
The HDC convened at Baabda palace to contain the repercussions of allegations that the al-Qaida terrorist network was operating in Lebanon. But it did not unveil details over the issue.
A statement issued after the meeting said the Council asked security agencies to take stronger measures to fight terrorism and stressed cooperation with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.
It kept its decisions secret in accordance with the law but said in the terse statement that discussions focused on the security measures taken in the country.
It also quoted President Michel Suleiman as condemning the killing of three Lebanese men in the northern border area of Wadi Khaled by Syrian cross border fire. He stressed the importance of investigating the incident.
Suleiman and PM Najib Miqati held closed-door talks ahead of the meeting that was attended by Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn, Interior Minister Marwan Charbel, Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour, Finance Minister Mohammad Safadi, Economy Minister Nicolas Nahhas and Social Affairs Minister Wael Abu Faour. Top security officers, including Army chief Gen. Jean Qahwaji, Internal Security Forces chief Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi, the head of the General Security Department, Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim, and head of Lebanese Army Intelligence Brig. Gen. Edmond Fadel also attended the meeting. The cabinet on Wednesday tasked the HDC with convening to discuss the alleged presence of al-Qaida and other security concerns, including the Wadi Khaled incident and the bombing that targeted Tyros restaurant in the southern city of Tyre. Ghosn, who made the allegations last week, briefed the cabinet on Wednesday on the information he had obtained about the operations of al-Qaida fighters in and out of the eastern border town of Arsal. The minister slammed his critics, saying “let them give us other information to prove that what we’re saying is not true.”
Ad-Diyar daily quoted him as saying that his critics snapped back at him through a political campaign “for known reasons.”“I work in accordance with my convictions and conscience and I take full responsibility” for what I said, Ghosn said.Several ministers played down Ghosn’s information with Miqati saying that “there is no solid evidence” about the presence of al-Qaida in Arsal.

Turkish Air Strikes Kill 35 Kurds Near Iraq Border
by Naharnet /A Turkish air raid on a Kurdish area near the Iraq border killed at least 35 people, with the military apparently mistaking smugglers for separatist rebels, officials said Thursday.
The Turkish authorities said its warplanes targeted militants from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) on the Iraqi side of the border. "Thirty-five people were killed and another person wounded in an aerial operation," the local Sirnak provincial governor's office said in a statement. "A crisis center has been set up in the area and prosecutors and security officers have been sent there," Governor Vahdettin Ozkan said. Provincial officials said earlier they had found 23 bodies at the village of Ortasu in Sirnak, according to Ertan Eris, a local councilor of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BPD).
Eris told pro-Kurdish Roj TV from the bombing site that the dead were among a group of up to 40 people, ranging in age from 16 to 20, who were engaged in smuggling gas and sugar across the mountain border with Iraq. The pro-Kurdish Firat news agency said children were among the 35 people killed in the strike. The agency released photos showing bodies wrapped in blankets, lying on the snow side by side. Kurdish media and local sources close to the PKK have presented slain rebels as civilians after previous incidents in the area, where the militants are known to operate.
The PKK took up arms in Kurdish-majority southeastern Turkey in 1984, sparking a conflict that has claimed about 45,000 lives. It is labeled a terrorist organization by Ankara and much of the international community. Clashes between Kurdish rebels and the army have escalated in recent months. The Turkish military launched an operation on militant bases inside northern Iraq in October after a PKK attack killed 24 soldiers in the border town of Cukurca, the army's biggest loss since 1993. The army then killed 36 Kurdish rebels in Kazan Valley in Hakkari province, near the Iraqi border.
Media reports in Turkey and abroad, as well as the BDP, have accused Turkey of using chemical weapons against the rebels, allegations strongly denied by the military.
Iraqi officials and the BDP in August claimed Turkish warplanes killed a family of seven in northern Iraq during an operation to bomb PKK bases. Turkey denied the charges and summoned Iraq's ambassador to protest the claims. An anonymous Turkish diplomat called the allegations "a PKK game". In November Turkey bombed the Sulaimaniyah and Arbil provinces of Iraq's autonomous northern Kurdish region, wounding a civilian, Kurdish officials said.
Source/Agence France Presse.

The Arabs’ touch turns Syria to lead
December 29, 2011/By Michael Young The Daily Star
Is it remotely reassuring that the Arab League is dealing with the crisis in Syria? For a partial answer, note that the Arab observer mission in the country is headed by a Sudanese general who participated in his government’s brutal campaign in Darfur. He described his first day on the highways as “very good,” only hours after Syria’s security forces perpetrated their latest outrage in Homs.
Recall that until two months ago, the Arab states allowed the massacre to continue. There was a lack of unity over Syria, but also a hope in several capitals that the criminal enterprise that is President Bashar Assad’s regime would prevail, denying a fresh victory to those striving to change their leaders in other parts of the Arab world.
Score the latest round to Damascus. In November the tide was in the other direction. Arab sanctions had been agreed, including a cutoff of transactions with Syria’s central bank and a suspension of Syrian membership in the Arab League. Assad initially delayed accepting a five-point Arab plan, which includes withdrawing the army and security forces from Syrian cities, releasing prisoners, and deploying observers to determine if the plan is being implemented. He backed down when the Arab states threatened to go to the United Nations Security Council, buying Damascus valuable time to undercut the Arab plan. We know what will happen next. The Syrians will turn every issue into an object of exasperating negotiation, assuming the observers do their job right, which is improbable. Nor are there enough observers to make a difference. Even if the mission rises to 200-300 monitors, that remains far too low. There have been disturbances in dozens of large urban areas throughout Syria, not to mention in suburban and rural districts. That means major agglomerations will host only a handful of observers at best. The regime will run rings around them, a reality facilitated by the cynical Arab decision to allow the monitors to be transported by the very security services they are supposed to be monitoring.
Then there is the prisoner release dimension of the Arab plan. In Lebanon we well remember how difficult it was to determine the number of Lebanese in Syrian prisons, because Damascus invariably lied about the figures. The Assad regime will greatly downplay the numbers of Syrians it has incarcerated, and the observers will almost certainly not get a mandate, or display the will, to independently verify this. The regime will release prisoners here and there, in full view of the observers, and arrest new waves of victims elsewhere.
If the Assad regime is lucky, it will be able to stretch the process out long enough for Arab states to push for a start of negotiations with the opposition, another facet of the Arab plan. Why would this be to the regime’s benefit? Because if it can pursue its repression in the interim period unchallenged, agreeing to negotiations would allow it to kick off a long, fruitless phase of talks permitting it to claim it is sincere about the Arab project, even as this opens up cracks in the opposition.
But which opposition? That, too, will provoke extensive maneuvering, as the Assads will look to pick their interlocutors, and as different segments of the opposition disagree over whether to negotiate or not. The Syrian National Council will doubtless refuse to sit with the regime, which may carry political costs, as this could be portrayed by Bashar Assad as an effort to undermine the Arab plan. Here, the president and his acolytes may widen the breach in Arab ranks.
The problem is that Arab incompetence, even if it strengthens the hand of the Syrian leadership in relative terms, will make much more likely further militarization of the intifada. There is no going back in Syria, certainly not to the squalid kleptocracy that a smug Bashar Assad thought was unshakeable last January, when he boasted of his regime’s popularity to The Wall Street Journal. Either the Arab plan eases Assad out of power, or we are heading toward a struggle even more vicious than what we are witnessing today. National interest dictates that regional states, above all Turkey and Iraq, will seek to shape what is taking place on the ground and ensure that they don’t lose out when the carnage ends. If that happens, the Security Council will become the only available venue to address Syria, since we will then have a textbook threat to international peace and security.
Much will depend on how the Arab states interpret their mandate. The Arab League’s secretary general, Nabil Elarabi, has noted that the organization will issue an early assessment of whether the Syrian regime is cooperating with its plan. If that denies Syria the means to deceive its Arab brethren, fine. But rebuilding an Arab consensus against Assad rule will be difficult, and going the next step up to the Security Council is something many Arab regimes want to avert.
Qatar has taken the lead on Syria, but may find itself isolated. The Egyptian military council, which is trying to consolidate its authority, opposes the trend of transformation in the Arab world. No less so Saudi Arabia, which has had little sympathy for the upheavals all around, and would relish a Qatari reversal. Iraq has sided with Assad, while other countries, among them Turkey, may fear too sudden a Syrian collapse to firmly sponsor internationalization of the crisis.
Syrians are right to regard Arab intervention as bad news. And Assad was right to presume that a break in the Arab momentum against his regime could become a turning point in his political survival. He gains from the militarization of the intifada. In an armed conflict, Assad believes, the winner imposes his own legitimacy. Many Arab leaders, whose own legitimacy rests on intimidation, may alas agree.
*Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR and author of “The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle” (Simon & Schuster). He tweets @BeirutCalling.

What’s Obama’s Plan B after Arab League monitors?
Tony Badran, December 29, 2011 /Now Lebanon
The Arab League’s observer mission in Syria is coming under criticism a mere couple of days after its initial deployment, as the regime of Bashar al-Assad continues to gun down its opponents, seemingly unfettered.Already, France has cast doubts on the effectiveness of the mission while the US has wavered between a cautious wait-and-see attitude and an unspecific threat to consider “other means to protect Syrian civilians.”
The lack of a credible, clearly articulated Plan B has been a critical problem in the Obama administration’s Syria policy. So far, Washington has viewed the Arab League’s initiative as a possible vehicle for a peaceful transition that would require no direct foreign intervention or further US involvement.
An anonymous Arab League official explained this line of thinking, which is shared by some Arab governments. “The League wants regime change but at the lowest possible cost,” the official, who is skeptical about the monitor’s mission, said on Tuesday. He then laid out the scenario envisioned by those who supported the League’s initiative: “If the regime implements the removal of tanks and troops from the streets, 10 million Syrians will take to the streets and occupy all main squares, making the regime’s collapse a matter of time.”
This was the Obama administration’s hope as well. But as that Arab official proceeded to note, “Assad will never allow this, and the Arab League will be accused by more Syrians of complicity.” And that is precisely where we find ourselves today, with some prominent Arab commentators making that exact same argument.
Consequently, one could deduce precisely why the Russians advised Assad to sign the League’s initiative. In the weeks of haggling that preceded the signature, a group of states in the Arab League led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar were pushing to refer the Syrian case to the UN Security Council. But, according to some Arab officials, other League members remained wary of foreign intervention, and the observer mission was “their best compromise.”
There is, therefore, a divide within the Arab League that the Russians and Assad may have sensed they could exploit to prevent the emergence of a consensus calling for further, international action against the regime. If the Gulf Arab states were seeking referral to the Security Council, another camp, led by Egypt, was more invested in the success of the monitor mission, believing it could lead to more popular protests that may force Assad’s departure.
One risk now is that these states, which include the Sudan – whose former head of military intelligence is leading the mission – will hesitate to declare the monitor’s mission a failure, allowing Assad more room to maneuver. While it may be slightly premature to speculate about how this process will unfold, it is safe to say that the administration’s desire for the Arab League to take the lead on Syria simply won’t pan out as initially hoped. Which brings us to the heart of the matter: what is the Obama administration’s plan after the likely failure of the Arab League initiative?
Foreign Policy reported yesterday that top officials in the administration are “quietly preparing options for how to assist the Syrian opposition,” including “preparing for another major diplomatic initiative,” whose details remain unclear.
The preparation of these contingency plans emanates from the recognition that the scenario reportedly espoused by the Egyptians – and until recently, the Obama administration itself – is unlikely to come to pass. However, none of these plans involves intervention in any form, which raises questions about their effectiveness.
In fact, one administration official even said bluntly that Washington was “intentionally setting the bar too high [for intervention] as means of maintaining the status quo, which is to do nothing.” One critic of the administration’s policy recently called this approach “masterful inaction.”
In the Arab divide between those (Gulf) states seeking international intervention and those wary of it, the Obama administration continues to fall on the side of the latter. Even as it realizes that “the status quo is unsustainable”, the administration believes that “the risks of moving too fast [are] higher than the risks of moving too slow.”
We are, therefore, in a waiting period. The Saudi commentator Jamal Khashoggi may have said it best: “We are all buying time, not only the Syrian regime [but also] the Arab League, the Turks, the Arabs in general … They’re avoiding the inevitable, which is direct involvement in Syria.”
He, of course, is not alone in this assessment. Earlier this month, Congressman Steve Chabot told the administration’s point man on Syria, Frederic Hof, essentially the same thing: “ultimately [physical force] probably is going to be necessary.”
In the end, there is one constant, recurring theme. While the Obama administration entertains hopes that regional states would take the lead, in reality, these governments are waiting for the US to assume its traditional leadership role. Whether it’s Turkey or the Arab League, everyone, one way or another, is throwing the issue back at Washington. The notion that the US can remain above the fray in Syria and still shape an outcome in line with its interests was never a realistic option.
**Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He tweets @AcrossTheBay.

Iran official: U.S. cannot stop us from cutting off world oil supply
By Haaretz
The United States is in no position to advise Iran against cutting global oil supply in case of sanctions against its petroleum industry, a top Iranian commander said on Thursday.
The comment by deputy chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Hossein Salami came after the U.S. Fifth Fleet said on Wednesday it will not allow any disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway in the distribution of worldwide oil supply. "The free flow of goods and services through the Strait of Hormuz is vital to regional and global prosperity," said in a written response to queries from Reuters about the possibility of Iran trying to close the Strait. Responding to the remark by U.S. forces on Thursday, Salami told Iranian state television Press TV that the “Islamic Republic of Iran asks for no other country's permission for the implementation of its defense strategies." According to the Press TV report, the senior Iranian military official indicated that the U.S. was not in a position to give Iran permission to close the strategic waterway, adding that U.S. pressure had failed to prevent Iranian action on other issues in the past. The U.S. navy's comments on Wednesday came a day after Iran's first vice-president warned on Tuesday that the flow of crude will be stopped from the crucial Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf if foreign sanctions are imposed on its oil exports, the country's official news agency reported."If they (the West) impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz," IRNA quoted Mohammad Reza Rahimi as saying.
About a third of all sea-borne oil was shipped through the Strait in 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and U.S. warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage.
Tensions over Iran's nuclear program have increased since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on Nov. 8 that Tehran appears to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end. Iran strongly denies this and says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Iran has warned it will respond to any attack by hitting Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf, and analysts say one way to retaliate would be to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Most of the crude exported from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq - together with nearly all the liquefied natural gas from lead exporter Qatar - must slip through a 4-mile (6.4 km) wide shipping channel between Oman and Iran.

Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel
By Barak Ravid /Haaretz
Tamir Pardo says Israel using various means to foil Iran's nuclear program, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean destruction of Israel.
On Tuesday evening, Pardo addressed an audience of about 100 Israeli ambassadors. According to three ambassadors present at the briefing, the intelligence chief said that Israel was using various means to foil Iran's nuclear program and would continue to do so, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel.
"What is the significance of the term existential threat?" the ambassadors quoted Pardo as asking. "Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That's not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely."
The ambassadors said Pardo did not comment on the possibility of an Israeli military assault on Iran.
"But what was clearly implied by his remarks is that he doesn't think a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel," one of the envoys said.
Pardo's remarks follow lively a public debate in recent months over a possible Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. One of the figures at the center of this public debate has been Pardo's predecessor as Mossad chief, Meir Dagan. Dagan has argued that Israel should only resort to military force "when the knife is at its throat and begins to cut into the flesh." He has also criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, accusing them of pushing for an Israeli attack on Iran, and warned that such an assault would have disastrous consequences.
For the past several years, Netanyahu has characterized a nuclear Iran as an existential threat to Israel. The prime minister has even compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler and argued that Iran should be treated as Nazi Germany should have been dealt with in 1938, just before World War II. In contrast, Barak said in April 2010 that Iran "was not an existential threat at the moment," but warned that it could become one in the future.
In the cabinet, Netanyahu and Barak have been the leading proponents of a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. So far, however, they have not managed to convince a majority of either the "octet" forum of eight senior ministers or the diplomatic-security cabinet to support their position.
In related news, The Daily Beast website reported yesterday about one aspect of the disagreement between Israel and the United States on the Iranian nuclear issue. It said that Washington and Jerusalem are discussing "red lines" for Iran's nuclear project that, if crossed, would justify a preemptive strike on the nuclear facilities.
The website's defense reporter, Eli Lake, wrote that Israel's ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, lodged an official protest with the American administration following a speech a few weeks ago by U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the Saban Forum, in which the American defense chief warned of the consequences of an attack on Iran. The Daily Beast reported that Panetta's remarks infuriated the Israel government and that Oren was directed to lodge the protest.
A short time later, the White House conveyed a message of reassurance to Israel that the Obama administration has its own red lines for attacking Iran, so there is no need for Israel to act unilaterally. The Israeli protest was also followed by a shift in Panetta's rhetoric: In an interview with the American television network CBS, Panetta said the United States would not take any option off the table with regard to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The crux of the disagreement between the two countries revolves around the question of to what extent Iran has managed to develop clandestine sites for uranium enrichment. As a result, Israel and the United States are having a hard time settling on common "red lines."
Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told The Daily Beast that "if Iran were found to be sneaking out or breaking out [toward obtaining nuclear weapons], then the president's advisers are firmly persuaded he would authorize the use of military force to stop it." However, he added, "when the occasion comes, we just don't know how the president will react."

Iranian plan to mine Hormuz puts US, NATO on Persian Gulf alert
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report/December 29, 2011/,
US and NATO task forces in the Persian Gulf have been placed on alert after US intelligence warned that Iran's Revolutionary Guards are preparing Iranian marine commandos to sow mines in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
The new deployment, debkafile's military sources report, consists of USS Combined Task Force 52 (CTF 52), which is trained and equipped for dismantling marine mines and NATO Maritime Mine Counter measures Group 2 (SNMCMG2). The American group is led by the USS Arden mine countermeasures ship; NATO's by the British HMS Pembroke minesweeper. Other vessels in the task forces are the Hunt-class destroyer HMS Middleton and the French mine warfare ships FS Croix du Sud and FS Var.
Also on the ready are several US Expeditionary Combat Readiness units of the US Fifth Fleet Bahrain command. Seventeen of these special marine units are attached to the Fifth Fleet as America's answer to the Iranian Navy's fast assault boats and marine units.
US military sources told debkafile Wednesday, Dec. 28, that United States has the countermeasures for sweeping the waterway of mines and making it safe for marine passage after no more than a 24-48 hour interruption.
At the same time, leading military and naval officials in Washington take Tehran's threats seriously. They don't buy the proposition advanced by various American pundits and analysts that Iran would never close the Strait of Hormuz, though which one third of the world's oil passes, because it would then bottle up its own energy exports. Those officials, according to our sources, believe that Tehran hopes the mines in the waterway will blow up passing oil tankers and other shipping. It doesn't have to be sealed hermetically to endanger international shipping; just a few mines here and there and an explosion would be enough to deter shippers and crews from risking their vessels.
As Adm. Habibollah Sayari commander of the Iranian Navy put it Wednesday, Dec. 28: "Shutting the strait for Iran's armed forces is really easy – or as we say in Iran, easier than drinking a glass of water." He went on to say: "But today, we don't need [to shut] the strait because we have the Sea of Oman under control and can control transit."
debkafile's Middle East marine sources said the Iranian admiral's boast about the Sea of Oman was just hot air. For the big Iranian Velayati 90 sea exercise which began Saturday, America has deployed in that sea two large air and sea strike groups led by the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier and the USS Bataan aircraft amphibious ship.
And they are highly visible: Thursday morning, Dec. 29, Iranian Navy's Deputy Commander Rear Adm. Mahmoud Mousavi reported an Iranian Navy aircraft had shot footage and images of a US carrier spotted in an area where the Velayat 90 war games were being conducted – most probably the Stennis. Its presence, he said, demonstrated that Iran's naval forces were "precisely monitoring all moves by extra-regional powers" in the region.
Clearly, the US navy is very much on the spot in the Sea of Oman and other areas of the Iranian war game.
Middle East sources warn however that the repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz coming from Tehran this week and the framework of its naval exercise clearly point to the manner in which Iran intends to hit back for the tough new sanctions which the West plans to approve next month. The new round is expected to shear off 80 percent of the Islamic Republic's revenues.
The European Union's 27 member-states meet in January to approve an embargo on Iranian oil, with effect on 25 percent of Iran's energy exports. Next month, too, President Barack Obama plans to sign into law an amendment authorizing severe penalties for foreign banks trading with Iran's central bank, CBI, including the loss of links with American banks and financial institutions.
Tehran is expected to strike back hard by sowing mines in Hormuz and in the waters opposite the oil fields and terminals of fellow Persian Gulf oil producers, including Saudi Arabia.
It would not be the first time. In 1987 and 1988, sea mines were sown in the Persian Gulf for which Iran never took responsibility. It was generally seen as Tehran's payback for US and Gulf Emirates' backing for Iraq in its long war with the Islamic Republic. A number of oil tankers and American warships were struck by mines, including the USS Samuel B. Roberts. Such disasters can be averted today by means of the sophisticated countermeasures now in US hands.

Israel, U.S. discuss triggers for military strike on Iran
By Barak Ravid /Haaretz
The Daily Beast reports that the countries are discussing "red lines" in Iran's nuclear program, that if crossed would justify a preemptive strike on its nuclear facilities.
Israel and the U.S. are discussing "red lines" in Iran's nuclear program, that if crossed would justify a preemptive strike on its nuclear facilities, the Daily Beast website reported on Wednesday.
According to the report, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, filed an official complaint with the administration following a speech by U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta a few weeks ago, warning against a military strike on Iran. The Daily Beast reported that Panetta's statements infuriated the Israeli government, which ordered ambassador Oren to file the complaint. The White House then relayed a message to Israel saying the administration has its own "red lines" concerning a strike on Iran, and that Israel does not need to act unilaterally. Israel's protest also resulted in Panetta reversing his stand in an interview with CBS, saying the U.S. will use any means necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Patrick Clawson from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said in the report that "If Iran were found to be sneaking out or breaking out then the president’s advisers are firmly persuaded he would authorize the use of military force to stop it.” However, he added that "we just don’t know how the president will react.” The Daily Beast also reported that as part of the strategic dialogue between Israel and the U.S. that took place earlier this month, Israel presented new information about Iran’s efforts to build secret reactors for nuclear fuel production, and showed that these efforts were further along than the U.S. thought. Some of the intelligence was based on soil samples collected near the suspected sites. Israel and the U.S. disagree about how far along Iran's uranium enrichment program has developed, making it difficult for the two sides to formulate "red lines" concerning the Islamic Republic's nuclear program

2012: The year that could bring a U.S. strike of Iran
By Yossi Melman/Haaretz
It is obvious that recent Obama administration rhetoric is not intended only to win re-election. It is also intended to signal to Iran that the United States stands by its word.
Get Haaretz on iPhone Get Haaretz on Android The questions surrounding Iran and the decision of whether or not to attack its nuclear facilities reminds me of Israel and Egypt from1970 until the Yom Kippur War in October 1973. After Anwar Sadat gained power in the wake of Gamel Abdul Nasser’s death, he would, from time to time, declare that if Israel would not return the territories it conquered in 1967, Egypt would return them by force. At the time, Israelis laughed at Sadat’s statements. Even flyers advertising Israeli New Years Eve parties called on people to “celebrate the year of reckoning,” directly referencing Sadat’s oft-used expression. 1971 passed without any reckoning, as did 1972. With the passing years, Israel’s self-confidence skyrocketed, along with its complacence and euphoria. And then it happened. 1973 was the “year of reckoning.” Anwar Sadat stood by his promise, and retrieved what we took from him by force –Sinai.
Since the 1990’s, Israeli intelligence services have been publishing evaluations estimating that it would only be a matter of years before Iran builds a nuclear weapon. An early evaluation describes 1997 as a turning point. After that, another turning point at the start of the 21stcentury – “the point of no return.” That time has passed, and with it a new kind of terminology was used: “technological threshold”, around 2004. This happened again in 2007, as well during the years 2010 and 2011.
All of these evaluations proved false. Perhaps they were erroneous. Maybe they were correct at the time, and only secret operations attributed to the Mossad, with cooperation from the CIA and the British MI6 – a dangerous computer virus, damage to centrifuges, explosions in missile bases and areas with nuclear stockpiles – are preventing Iran from fulfilling its goal.
Most of Meir Dagan’s term as the head of the Mossad (2002-2010) was blessed with significant intelligence achievements and successful special operations of highly strategic importance. The Mossad is credited with obtaining information that allowed the IDF to destroy long-range missiles in the Second Lebanon War. According to several publications, the Mossad was responsible for obtaining information regarding Syria’s building of a plutonium reactor intended for the production of a nuclear weapon. The intelligence allowed the Israeli government to destroy the reactor.
After some time, and with the help of precise intelligence, Hezbollah operative Imad Mughniya was assassinated in Damascus, as was Syrian General Muhammad Suleiman, who acted as intermediary for special operations to Iran on behalf of Syrian President Bashar Assad, coordinated his own country’s nuclear program and was responsible for supplying Hezbollah with missiles. But the crown jewel of Israel’s achievements during Dagan’s tenure was the damage done to Iran’s nuclear program.
A man trusts his own intuitions. Thus, it is no surprise that Dagan is a great believer in the effectiveness of clandestine operations. And this is often the problem with special operations: The belief, till the point of infatuation on the part of the planners – and this includes the Americans and the British, in addition to the Israelis – that they can achieve great things in both the tactical and the strategic realms. It is comfortable for the decision-makers in Jerusalem, Washington, London or Paris to believe in these operations, to truly believe that they will provide a solution to the problem.
But, with all due respect to the success of clandestine operations, most Israeli, American, and European experts agree that secret operations will not be enough to halt Iran’s rush toward a nuclear arsenal. Iran is, in all honesty, fairly close to its own “year of reckoning.” It has already passed the “technological threshold.” It knows how to enrich uranium, and has carried out experiments where uranium was enriched to 90%, as well as experiments with explosives to generate chain explosions. It carried out computer simulations of nuclear explosions. There is a general consensus that by the year 2012, and 2013 at the latest, Iran will be able to put together a nuclear weapon. True, if is able to do so, it will be a large bomb – a clumsy structure – one that won’t be able to be assembled as a nuclear warhead. This will require several more years. Thus, Meir Dagan was right when he said Iran would be able to acquire a nuclear weapon by 2014-2015. But the fact that Iran may have a nuclear weapon (which will, in all likelihood, be only one of several to be produced) in the next year to year and a half will allow it to change the rules of the game.
Thus, it seems the hour approaches when decision-makers will have to decide whether or not to attack. Three years ago, only a short time after Benjamin Netanyahu was elected prime minister, and even before he gave his famous Bar Ilan speech, this writer suggested that it would be in Israel’s interest to act decisively in helping establish a Palestinian state. Such a step would have received the support of the Arab world, the Muslim world, Europe and the United States. It would have bolstered Israel’s political position and security situation, and Iran’s general influence over the Middle East as well as over smaller radical organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas would have waned. In such a situation, Israel would have allowed itself to present a convincing case for an attack on Iran. Each bloc – the Arab and Muslim world, Europe and the United States – would have either openly supported the operation, or refrain from openly opposing it. But Netanyahu and his government have no intention of allowing for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Thus, Israelis left severely isolated in its ability to confront Iran. Not to mention that Israel’s ability to conduct an effective strike against Iranian nuclear sites in order to neutralize them for a reasonable period of time is limited, especially when compared to that of the United States. The aforementioned puts Israel’s ability to allow it to attack Iran, even if it really wants to, in serious doubt. Thus, the only country with the ability to truly halt Iran from reaching its target is the United States. The past weeks has seen a severe change in tone emanating from Washington D.C. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey have openly spoken about the possibility that the United States will be forced to attack Tehran, and emphasized America’s determination to prevent the Ayatollahs from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Israeli and American analysts tend to classify this resolute language as a change in U.S. policy. They attribute the change to the president and the defense secretary who have happily appropriated it for themselves. I am of the opinion that this is an exaggeration. Neither Ehud Barak nor Netanyahu’s tacit threats of an Israeli attack over the past weeks convinced the Americans. Everyone knows that those hints were nothing more than disingenuous. I do not believe that there has been a change in the U.S. government’s policy. The determination to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon has always been apriority for Barack Obama. It is possible that he suppressed this determination. Now that he finds himself approaching an election year, and especially while he is under attack by Republican candidates for having a weak foreign policy, Obama is interested in emphasizing his obligation to his belief that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons.
It is obvious that this message is not intended only to win re-election. It is also intended to signal to Iran that the United States stands by its word, and that the Iranian leaders ought to cease developing nuclear weapons, or risk feeling the wrath of the American war machine. The message is directed toward Russia (whose leadership was severely weakened over the past weeks due to protests against alleged fraudulent elections) and China who would do well to put pressure on Iran, lest they seek a military standoff.
Thus, I believe that the chance that President Obama will call for a military strike on Iran, if he reaches the conclusion that there is no other way of stopping its nuclear program, is increasing. This may happen in 2012, before the U.S. elections, or not long after. Indeed, the year of reckoning is approaching.

Activists: Syrian troops kill more protesters
29/12/2011
BEIRUT (AP) — Arab League monitors were gathering accounts about the Syrian government's crackdown on dissent in the central city of Homs as fresh violence flared just dozens of miles away. Activists said troops opened fire on thousands of unarmed protesters, killing at least six. Though President Bashar Assad's regime has made concessions to the observers, including the release of nearly 800 prisoners, the military was pressing ahead with a campaign to put down mostly peaceful protests. In the two days since the Arab monitors arrived, activists said troops have killed at least 39 people, including the six shot in the central city of Hama on Wednesday. The continued bloodshed — and comments by an Arab League official praising Syria's cooperation — have fueled concerns by the Syrian opposition that the Arab mission is a farce and a distraction from the ongoing killings.
The opposition suspects Assad is only trying to buy time and forestall more international sanctions and condemnation.
"This mission has absolutely no mandate, no authority, no teeth," said Ausama Monajed, a member of the Syrian National Council, the main opposition group. "The regime does not feel obliged to even bring down the number of casualties a day."The 60 monitors — the first Syria has allowed in during the nine-month uprising — are supposed to be ensuring the regime is complying with terms of a plan to end a crackdown the U.N. says has killed more than 5,000 people since March.
The plan, which Syria agreed to on Dec. 19, demands that the regime remove its security forces and heavy weapons from cities, start talks with the opposition and allow human rights workers and journalists into the country. It also calls for the release of all political prisoners.
On Wednesday, the government released 755 prisoners following a report by Human Rights Watch accusing authorities of hiding hundreds of detainees from the monitors. It was the second concession in two days. The army on Monday pulled some of its troops back from the central city of Homs after bombarding it for days and killing scores of people. Monitors who were allowed into the city were met by tens of thousands of protesters who called for Assad's execution.
Images obtained by The Associated Press from the city in the days leading up to the monitors' visit show army defectors inside a bombed-out building, firing machine guns through gaping holes in a wall.
In another, a huge crowd fills the street for a nighttime rally behind a giant banner of the uprising's revolutionary flag. A row of women wear the flags and a large sign overhead reads: "All the doors are closed except your door, God." There are also photos of wounded civilians lying on a floor in pools of blood, and being treated with crude medical equipment. Another shows an alleyway with blood smeared on a wall and pooled on the ground. At a Dec. 21 protest, a banner reads: "To the Arab League: Your initiative cannot protect us from death." Young girls with headbands that read "Leave!" and sashes calling for the "execution of Bashar" protest under banners with "Freedom and Dignity." The images show the intensity of the opposition against Assad's regime, which brought on the offensive against Homs that began on Friday and lasted until monitors arrived Tuesday to start their one-month mission with a visit to the city.
Several from the team of 12 stayed in Homs overnight and they continued to work there Wednesday. There was no word on whether other teams went to different cities.
According to officials and activists, the monitors went to several districts of Homs, including trouble spots in Baba Amr, Bab Sbaa and Inshaat.
Amateur video posted on the Internet showed the head of the team, Sudanese Lt. Gen. Mohamed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi, walking in Baba Amr and stopping to talk to people. In one video, he is seen talking to a man who accuses the regime of killing his 64-year-old brother, a former official of Assad's ruling Baath party, and his wife, and then blaming it on armed gangs.
"Your excellency, they are killing influential people to draw a violent reaction from people," he tells al-Dabi.
Some amateur video showed the orange-jacketed observers in a white car, surrounded by people shouting for Assad's downfall and apparently objecting to the presence of a Syrian military escort in the car with them. Other video showed the monitors visiting women and children who purportedly lost family members in recent violence. There were no reports of firing on protesters in Homs during the observers visit on Wednesday. Troops did open fire on the crowds on Tuesday.
On Thursday, the monitors are expected to visit Hama, Idlib and Daraa — all centers of the uprising. In Hama, several thousand protesters were trying to reach the city's main Assi square to stage a sit-in amid a heavy security presence when troops opened fire with bullets and tear gas to disperse them, activists said. Hama-based activist Saleh Abu Kamel said he had the names of six people who were killed and many others wounded. The number could not be immediately confirmed. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Local Coordination Committees confirmed the protests and the shooting, giving conflicting casualty figures. Violence erupted in several other parts of Syria, including the ambush killings of four soldiers by a group of military defectors, activists said.
Despite the ongoing crackdown, an Arab League official said cooperation by Syrian authorities with the monitors was "reassuring."
"The Syrian side is facilitating everything," Adnan Issa al-Khudeir told reporters in Cairo. He said the 60 observers who arrived in Syria Monday were divided into five groups to visit five locations: Homs, Aleppo, Idlib, Daraa and Hama. Monajed, the SNC official, said the remarks were "unfortunate." "They reflect the irresponsible behavior and attitude toward the massacres and atrocities committed by Assad's forces in the country," he said.

Syria: A delegation of Arab spectators!
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
We are deluding ourselves, and the Syrian people, when our media repeats the expression “a delegation of Arab monitors” for this is nothing more than a delegation of Arab spectators, who have no initiative or capability whatsoever. Nothing can be expected from their visit to Syria, other than the al-Assad regime being granted more opportunities to kill the unarmed Syrian people.
Since the delegation of Arab spectators reached Syria, the number of Syrian people being killed at the hands of the al-Assad regime’s war machine has increased, whilst the suffering of the Syrian people is also on the rise; meanwhile the al-Assad regime’s lies are never-ending! The biggest such lie was the absurd scene of the Damascus bombings which the al-Assad regime sometimes blames on Al Qaeda, and at other times on the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, the delegation of Arab spectators – with all due respect to its members – has no value whatsoever; Homs is under siege and facing levels of suppression that the Israelis do not even practice against the Palestinians, or other Arabs. During the 2006 Lebanon war, for example, the world rallied to halt the Israeli military machine, and succeeded in doing so, within just a few short months. The world also rushed to stop the Israeli war machine in Gaza [December 2008], and also halted this in a short period of time. Whilst today, we see Bashar al-Assad’s forces running riot over the Syrian people, and this is a state of affairs that has lasted for approximately 10 months or more. This is not to mention the destruction of mosques and homes, and the killing of men, women, and children, in a manner that even the Israelis would balk at. After all of this, can we trust a delegation of Arab spectators, or even the Arab League itself? To put it bluntly, the answer is: no! Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim stated that Syria is close to the end of the road, and he later said that the situation in Syria is moving towards internationalization, whilst before all this he told al-Assad that there is no room to prevaricate; however Qatar’s statements [on Syria] have been nothing more than empty words, that do not sate hunger or quench thirst. This is completely contrary to Qatar’s position on Libya, and even not comparable to Doha’s position on Yemen and Ali Abdullah Saleh. Indeed Qatar withdrew from the Gulf initiative [on Yemen] because of Saleh’s procrastination and delay, before he eventually signed the initiative in Saudi Arabia. Today we find the al-Assad regime procrastinating, delaying, lying, killing, and wreaking evil on the land, without Qatar taking any clear position. My aim here is not to score political points against Doha, particularly as Qatar is heading the Arab League committee that is dealing with Syria, whilst the Arab League has also failed to take any clear position on Syria. This, of course, does not include the game that has been played regarding the delegation of Arab spectators, who did not begin their visit to Syria with a tour of the city of Homs – which has suffered under the al-Assad region’s campaign of bombing and bombardment – nor any other Syrian region where the al-Assad regime’s killing machine has run riot; rather the Arab League delegation of spectators began their trip in Damascus, visiting the sites of the absurd bombings there.
Therefore, if the Arabs do not move to transfer the Syrian file to the UN Security Council, or announce their failure, and the failure of the Arab League initiative – that was never going to succeed in any case –they are nothing more than an accomplice in the suffering of the unarmed Syrian people, and a reason for the deteriorating situation in the country. One who does not speak out against evil is nothing more than an accomplice to it! Therefore, the Arab League, and its delegation in Syria, are nothing more than spectators, and a means for the extension of the Syrian crisis; as they are granting the al-Assad regime one opportunity after another to kill the unarmed Syrian people.

The people want the fall of the Secretary-General
By Hussein Shobokshi
The only thing worse than the Arab League’s performance with regards to managing the Syrian crisis, is the performance of its Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby. This man has made numerous mistakes, and it is almost as if he is contributing to granting the Bashar al-Assad regime one opportunity after another to continue to slaughter its own people as if it were fighting a fierce war against its bitterest enemies, not unarmed civilians.
All of this has taken place in the midst of Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby undertaking official visits to Damascus, during which he met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Following one such meeting, he issued his now infamous statement that Bashar al-Assad had agreed to begin reforms.
Of course, this statement was issued whilst thousands upon thousands of Syrians were being killed and imprisoned. Following this, we saw Elaraby make a series of bad decisions with regards to the Syrian issue, not to mention the issuance of numerous statements that attempted to play down the impact of the crisis on the Syrian people. These Arab League statements included the use of certain provocative expressions which aimed to play down the crisis, including the oft-repeated statement that the Arab League is “concerned” by developments in Syria, not to mention other such meaningless terms. All of this aimed to play down what is happening in the Syrian streets, and the brutal crimes and atrocities being committed against the unarmed Syrian people by the regime. This was until the situation reached the end of the road, and the Syrian regime was forced to accept the Arab League delegation of monitors, who have travelled to Syria to see the situation for themselves.
The Arab League has also been strangely receptive of the Syrian regime’s desires, including its demand that this [acceptance of Arab monitors] be announced to coincide with the Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Riyadh. Whilst Elaraby also failed to object to Syria’s partial “acceptance” of the Arab League initiative; accepting the Arab League protocol, but rejecting the other articles of the initiative. For how can only one article of an agreement or initiative be accepted in this manner? Throughout the negotiations, the Syrian delegation attempted to gain international sympathy, portraying itself as being cooperative, and wanting to sign and accept the Arab League initiative. Indeed this delegation excelled at issuing deceitful and devious statements, stalling the process for weeks, during which hundreds of Syrian people were killed at the hands of brutal Syrian regime security forces.
Even after the al-Assad regime approved this [protocol], the Arab League Secretary-General dealt with the entire issue in a completely unprepared manner. Therefore, a number of days were wasted whilst Elaraby met with delegation members and arranged all the details of this delegation of Arab monitors. It was as if this Syrian acceptance [of the Arab monitors] was completely unexpected and out of the blue, and so he did not have enough time to prepare all the details and requirements of this vital issue, which should have been one of the most important files on the Arab League Secretary-General’s agenda.
Of course, more time was wasted, and more people were killed, during this period, to the point that the death toll over a period of three successive days reached 450. This reflects the brutality and insanity of the al-Assad regime, particularly in its dealings with the Syrian people.
Nabil Elaraby is an individual that appears to be unconvinced of the nature of the crimes that the al-Assad regime is carrying out against the Syrian people. Indeed, he seems to be unduly influenced by the views of his “brother-in-law” Mohamed Hassenein Heikal, who has failed to issue a single objection against the Syrian regime and its brutal practices against the popular Syrian revolution. Everybody knows that Nabil Elaraby, just like Heikal, has a predisposition towards Iranian policy in the region, and this was clear to see in his statements during his short-term as Egyptian Foreign Minister following the ouster of the Hosni Mubarak regime.
In Egypt, and in the Arab world in general, there are many deserving cadres that are well aware that we are now living in an era of freedom and dignity, not one of suppression, humiliation, and disgrace. It seems that Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby is not aware of this, and it is as if he believes that the Syrian people do not deserve what the Egyptian people have achieved!
My dear Nabil Elaraby, I think that the time has come for you to enjoy your retirement, after a long career of diplomatic service

Asharq Al-Awsat Profile: General Mohammed al-Dabi, head of the Arab League observers in Syria,
By Mustafa Sirri/Asharq Al-Awsat
London, Asharq Al-Awsat- When Mohammed Ahmad Mustafa al-Dabi -- a former Lieutenant General in the Sudanese army with extensive experience in military intelligence - was chosen for the post of head of the Arab League observers in Syria, a number of human right organizations denounced and protested this choice. They denounced his appointment because of the belief that he was deeply involved in the crimes that were committed in the Darfur region in Sudan, where he worked for an extended time as representative of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to quell the rebellion in 1999, which spread throughout Darfur in 2003. The Sudanese opposition groups, particularly the Darfur armed movements, accused him of being one of those who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
General Al-Dabi, who is 63 years of age, and who is closely linked to President Al-Bashir, comes from north Sudan tribes where he was born in the city of Barbar north of Khartoum in February 1948. He graduated from the Military College as a lieutenant in 1969, the year the late Sudanese President Jaafar Numayri seized power (1969-1985). He served in the Military Intelligence Department on 30 June 1989, the day Al-Bashir seized power through his notorious coup against the democratic regime. He continued to work in the military intelligence until 1995 when he assumed the post of director of foreign security in the Sudanese security agency, serving from July 1995 until November 1996.
General Al-Dabi advanced through the ranks in the security agency, and President Al-Bashir appointed him vice chairman of the staff of military operations, the period that witnessed the fiercest battles between the Sudanese army forces and the [Sudan People's] Liberation Army rebels.(former south Sudan rebels who have recently gained independence in the South Sudan State). He remained in that post until February 1999 when President Al-Bashir appointed him as his representative in Darfur to be in charge of security with the powers and jurisdictions of the president before the declaration of rebellion in Darfur in 2003.
Between 2003 and 2004, Al-Dabi served as Sudanese ambassador to Qatar. He then returned to Sudan and again assumed the post of representative of President Al-Bashir to Darfur. Following the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 1592 in 2005 under which an international investigation committee was formed to investigate into crimes perpetrated in Darfur, the International Criminal Court [ICC] issued an arrest warrant against President Al-Bashir on charges of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. This was followed by the issuance of another memorandum accusing him of genocide in Darfur. These resolutions were behind the appointment of Al-Dabi as national coordinator of the Sudanese campaign opposed to the ICC resolutions.
In 2007 Al-Dabi assumed the post of commissioner of the security arrangements for Darfur, a year after the signing of the Abuja peace agreement with the Sudan Liberation Movement, led by Mani Arkoi Minawi, which later rejected the agreement and declared resumption of the rebellion. Al-Dabi returned to Sudan and served as ambassador in the Foreign Ministry in August 2011 and stayed in that post until he was appointed by the Arab League as head of the Arab observers. He has assumed this post despite the opposition of human rights organizations.

Quote of the Day - December 29, 2011
FSM: Quote of the Day
Family Security Matters/December 29/11
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11132/pub_detail.asp
“Omar ibn Al Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) who in his days of pre-Islam (Jahilliyeh – religious ignorance) had such an unpredictable mind that he worshipped a god (an idol) made of sweets. One day he felt hungry and ate his idol. It is also related that following the customs of his time, he buried a young daughter of his, alive. His daughter was removing the dust from his beard whilst he was digging her grave…his fatherhood was not even aroused by this! But when Islam appeared and he began to hear verses of the Holy Qur'an being recited a gradual change was put into motion.”
Muslim writer Khalid Mustafa Abdul Kader.
“The celebrated companion of Mohammed who succeeded Abu Bakr in the Caliphate (A.H. 13-23 = 634-644). The Sunnis know him as Al-Adil the Just, and the Shiahs detest him for his usurpation, his austerity and harshness. It is said that he laughed once and wept once. The laugh was caused by recollecting how he ate his dough-gods (the idols of the Hanifah tribe) in The Ignorance. The tears were drawn by remembering how he buried alive his baby daughter who, while the grave was being dug, patted away the dust from his hair and beard. Omar was doubtless a great man, but he is one of the most ungenial figures in Moslem history which does not abound in genialities. To me he suggests a Puritan, a Covenanter of the sourest and narrowest type; and I cannot wonder that the Persians abhor him, and abuse him on all occasions…… The austere Caliph Omar whose scourge was more feared than the sword was the author of the celebrated saying ‘Consult them (feminines) and do clear contrary-wise.’ ”
Sir Richard Francis Burton, translator, explorer, orientalist (1821 – 1890), writing above in his footnotes to his partial translation of the Thousand Nights and a Night, (Sixty-first night).
EDITOR’S NOTE:
Omar ibn-Khattab (584 – 644 AD) interposed in the succession of the first Caliph (Abu Bakr) and allegedly threatened Fatima, Mohammed’s daughter, and her husband Ali ibn Abi Talib, to prevent them challenging the accession of Bakr, even though Ali had been Mohammed’s chosen successor. This dispute would eventually lead to the permanent schism between Sunnis and Shias.
Omar (Umar) was a friend of Mohammed who became the Second Caliph after the death of Abu Bakr, until he was assassinated by a Persian (Omar had conquered Persia).
Omar ibn-Khattab would introduce the notorious “pact of Omar”, also known as the “law of ghiyar (differentiation)” wherein Jews and Christians who were allowed to live amongst Muslims (on the condition that they paid the jizyah tax) had to show themselves publicly as non-Muslims. The name ghiyar referred to a strip of yellow cloth, that the alh-adh-dhimma /Dhimmis were advised to wear by Umar ibn-Khattab in a pact, though the first recorded use of such items appears in the early 8th century under Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Aziz. In Egypt in 1005, Al Hakim Bi Amr Allah, the Sixth Fatimid Caliph commanded that all Jews and Christians should follow Omar’s law of differentiation. The ghiyar law would later be re-adopted by Ottoman ruler Murad II (1404 – 1451) who made Jews wear yellow headgear. This pact/ghiyar law would later be adopted by the Nazis, who made Jews wear a star of yellow cloth to identify themselves as “non-Aryan” Jews.
With his harsh and uncompromising nature (he is said to have pushed a burning door onto Fatima, leading to her early death) it is not surprising that Omar is seen as a “model” by modern Salafists. The picture above shows the cover of an audio CD wherein his life and achievements are praised by a leading modern Salafist. That Salafist is now notorious – he is Anwar al-Awlaki.
Adrian Morgan, The Editor.