LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِNovember 11/2011

Bible Quotation for today/The Parables of the Mustard Seed the Yeast
Matthew 13/31-35: " Jesus told them another parable: The Kingdom of heaven is like this. A man takes a mustard seed and sows it in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it grows up, it is the biggest of all plants. It becomes a tree, so that birds come and make their nests in its branches. Jesus told them still another parable: The Kingdom of heaven is like this. A woman takes some yeast and mixes it with a bushel of flour until the whole batch of dough rises.  Jesus used parables to tell all these things to the crowds; he would not say a thing to them without using a parable. He did this to make come true what the prophet had said, I will use parables when I speak to them; I will tell them things unknown since the creation of the world.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
I Won't Let Iran Get Nukes,Barack Obama is leading us toward a cascade of proliferation in the Middle East/By: By MITT ROMNEY/November 10/11 (Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is seeking the Republican presidential nomination)
Zvi Bar'el/Israel is facing Iran in a two-person poker game/November 10/11
When will the “Ship-Jumping” phase begin in Syria/By Ali Ibrahim/November 10/11
The Future of Tyranny/By Mamoun Fandy/November 10/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for November 10/11
US official says Lebanon must protect itself from Syrian bids to evade sanctions
Lebanon's Arabic press digest - Nov. 10, 2011
Canadian Statement on IAEA Report on Iran
Israeli officials: ElBaradei an Iranian agent
World Must Stop Iran's Nuclear Drive, Israel Warns
US says discussing more Iran sanctions with Russia
Second Iranian threat to destroy Israel names its Dimona reactor
U.S. officials wary of new Iran nuclear sanctions despite damning IAEA report
Iran feels pressure of nuclear economic sanctions, U.K. official says
U.S. calls UN report on Iran nuclear program 'alarming,' vows further sanctions
U.S. officials coming to Israel to discuss how to handle Iran
Arms Race / Nuclear experts divided as UN issues severe Iran warning
West, Russia in standoff over Iran November
US: Arab leaders offering Assad safe haven
Syrian Forces Kill 25, Including a Child, in Daraa, Homs, Reef Hama
U.S. to return Ambassador Ford to Damascus
US Tells Syrians to Reject Amnesty Offer
Rights Group: Syrian Forces Kill 17 People in Crackdown on Dissent
France, U.S. Slam Opponents of Syria Action
Bellemare Hints he Would Summon Lebanese Officials to Stand Trial
Bellemare Wants to Delay Trials in Absentia Pending New Indictment
International Investigation Resumes Activity with Nazik Hariri, Others Close to Slain PM
Jumblat Calls for Preserving Rights of Syrian Activists in Lebanon
Hariri: Miqati Won’t Resign, The Syrian Regime Fall to Solve Some of Lebanon’s Problems
Sleiman: Syria regrets incursions into Lebanon
Hariri: Opposition will not seek to topple government
US to question Lebanon over deposits
Lebanon Shiite leader was 'liquidated' in Libya
Arrest returns Majdal Anjar to spotlight
Environment Minister Nazim Khoury : Dialogue is doomed if topic is arms

I Won't Let Iran Get Nukes
Barack Obama is leading us toward a cascade of proliferation in the Middle East.
By MITT ROMNEY /Wall Street Journal
10/11/11
The International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report this week makes clear what I and others have been warning about for too long: Iran is making rapid headway toward its goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.
Successive American presidents, including Barack Obama, have declared such an outcome to be unacceptable. But under the Obama administration, rhetoric and policy have been sharply at odds, and we're hurtling toward a major crisis involving nuclear weapons in one of the most politically volatile and economically significant regions of the world.
Things did not have to be this way. To understand how best to proceed from here, we need to review the administration's extraordinary record of failure.
Matt Kaminski on the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear development and Mitt Romney's plan on dealing with Iran.
As a candidate for the presidency in 2007, Barack Obama put forward "engagement" with Tehran as a way to solve the nuclear problem, declaring he would meet with Iran's leaders "without preconditions." Whether this approach was rooted in naďveté or in realistic expectations can be debated; I believe it was the former. But whatever calculation lay behind the proposed diplomatic opening, it was predictably rebuffed by the Iranian regime.
After that repudiation, a serious U.S. strategy to block Iran's nuclear ambitions became an urgent necessity. But that is precisely what the administration never provided. Instead, we've been offered a case study in botched diplomacy and its potentially horrific costs.
In his "reset" of relations with Russia, President Obama caved in to Moscow's demands by reneging on a missile-defense agreement with Eastern European allies and agreeing to a New Start Treaty to reduce strategic nuclear weapons while getting virtually nothing in return. If there ever was a possibility of gaining the Kremlin's support for tougher action against Tehran, that unilateral giveaway was the moment. President Obama foreclosed it.
In 2010, the administration did finally impose another round of sanctions, which President Obama hailed as a strike "at the heart" of Iran's ability to fund its nuclear programs. But here again we can see a gulf between words and deeds. As the IAEA report makes plain, the heart that we supposedly struck is still pumping just fine. Sanctions clearly failed in their purpose. Iran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power.
Recent events have brought White House fecklessness to another low. When Iran was discovered plotting to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador by setting off a bomb in downtown Washington, the administration responded with nothing more than tough talk and an indictment against two low-level Iranian operatives, as if this were merely a common criminal offense rather than an act of international aggression. Demonstrating further irresolution, the administration then floated the idea of sanctioning Iran's central bank, only to quietly withdraw that proposal.
Barack Obama has shredded his own credibility on Iran, conveyed an image of American weakness, and increased the prospect of a cascade of nuclear proliferation in the unstable Middle East.
The United States needs a very different policy.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. That is a Latin phrase, but the ayatollahs will have no trouble understanding its meaning from a Romney administration: If you want peace, prepare for war.
I want peace. And if I am president, I will begin by imposing a new round of far tougher economic sanctions on Iran. I will do this together with the world if we can, unilaterally if we must. I will speak out forcefully on behalf of Iranian dissidents. I will back up American diplomacy with a very real and very credible military option. I will restore the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. I will increase military assistance to Israel and coordination with all of our allies in the region. These actions will send an unequivocal signal to Iran that the United States, acting in concert with allies, will never permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.
Only when the ayatollahs no longer have doubts about America's resolve will they abandon their nuclear ambitions.
**Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is seeking the Republican presidential nomination

Muslims more likely to want to leave Lebanon than Christians
Daily Star/BEIRUT: Muslims are more likely to want to permanently leave Lebanon than Christians,according to new research released Sunday.A poll conducted by an Abu Dhabi-based think-tank showed that 35 percent of Shiite respondents and 34 percent of Sunnis would leave the country if they had the ability to do so,compared with 28 percent of Christians.The
results appeared to belie the perceived wisdom that Christians are more likely to seek to emigrate due to religious persecution.“It is clear from our research that commonly held beliefs related to migration in Lebanon are not representative of the Lebanese community,”said Dr.H.A. Hellyer,senior practice consultant at the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center,
which conducted the poll.“The primary reason people desire to leave Lebanon is not related to persecution,but rather to economic issues. ”The Gallup Center conducted face-to-face interviews with approximately 1,000 Lebanese and found that employment and stability were the key determining factors for many people who decided to stay put in the
country of their birth.“Of the Lebanese who say they wanted to leave but decided to stay,35 percent stayed to get a better job and 27 percent did so because of general improvements in the economy,”a group statement said.Much has been made of an alleged exodus of Christians from Lebanon and the wider Middle East,in the wake of ongoing regional turbulence.One
Beirut publication recently reported that half of all Lebanese Maronites were considering emigrating;another suggested that nearly one third of sect members“have submitted visa applications to foreign embassies. ”Those participants from each religion saying they intended to leave Lebanon favored the United States as their destination,with 15 percent
noting they wanted to emigrate to America,followed by 13 percent to Canada,11 percent to Australia,10 percent to France and 7 percent to the UAE.The poll also painted a picture of a remarkably tolerant country –perhaps not surprising given Lebanon’s 19 officially registered sects. The research found that 76 percent of Lebanese said they strongly agreed
that they“would not object to a person of a different religious faith moving[in]next door,”compared with 65 percent of Belgians,57 percent of Britons and Germans,53 percent of Italians and 23 percent of Israelis interviewed.In addition,the poll found that religion still formed a crucial part of life in Lebanon.Eighty-two percent of Lebanese Muslims said they
considered religion to be important,compared with 86 percent of Christians. In Lebanon,50 percent of Muslims said they had attended a religious service within the last seven days,compared with 65 percent of Christians.Several prominent academics have voiced concerns over Lebanon’s ongoing“brain drain”;one study in 2009 found that almost 20,000 highly skilled Lebanese graduates were leaving the country each year.However,the Gallup study found that the trend was not present among those interviewed.“Generally,neither Christians nor Muslims express an overwhelming desire to leave the country ,”a report accompanying the poll said.

Lebanon must protect against Syria evading sanctions: U.S. official
November 10, 2011/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanon must protect its financial sector from attempts to use it to avoid sanctions on Syria, U.S. Treasury Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing Daniel Glaser said Thursday.
Glaser “stressed the need for authorities to protect the Lebanese financial sector from potential Syrian attempts to evade U.S. and EU financial sanctions,” said a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon.
It said Glaser, who is in Lebanon on his first visit as assistant secretary, also underscored the need for Lebanon to take the necessary steps to “ensure a transparent and well-regulated financial sector for Lebanon’s continued prosperity.”
Glaser’s remarks were made during separate meetings with Prime Minister Najib Mikati, Lebanon’s Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh, and a number of representatives from the Lebanese banking sector.
He reiterated the U.S. view that it is important to ensure that the current instability in Syria does not undermine the Lebanese financial sector.
There have been fears that sanctions imposed on Syria may impact Lebanon, due to the close relationship between the two countries, and Glaser is not the first official to warn about such dangers. Last week, U.K. ambassador to Lebanon Tom Fletcher said he hoped the Lebanese economy could distance itself from the Syrian sanctions.
Labor Minister Charbel Nahhas assured Lebanese Thursday that they need not worry over the possibility of sanctions hitting the banking sector.
“There are banking controls and regulations in place that must be adhered to by all banks including the Central Bank,” Charbel told a local radio station.
“Lebanese bankers are aware of these rules and they cannot breach them,” he said, adding that if “sanctions are imposed they would be political.”
Regarding a U.N.-backed court probing the assassination of statesman Rafik Hariri, the U.S. official urged Lebanon to meet all of its international obligations, including cooperating with and funding the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, according to the embassy statement.
It said Glaser renewed Washington’s commitment to a “stable, sovereign and independent Lebanon.”

Lebanon's Arabic press digest - Nov. 10, 2011
The Daily Star
Following are summaries of some of the main stories in a selection of Lebanese newspapers Thursday. The Daily Star cannot vouch for the accuracy of these reports.
Al-Mustaqbal
Jumblatt: Are we about to establish a new era of renowned security tutelage?
The headlines may be many. But the most significant issue remains behind the border amid insistence by the Syrian regime on using violence to deal with citizens in a breach to its commitments to the Arab League.
In this regard, Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt called for “neutralizing” the Lebanese Army regarding the unrest in Syria.
Jumblatt urged the army to stick to tasks within the Lebanon borders “in order to preserve security and stability.”
He said Syrian activists have the right to express their opinion freely without being subjected to harassment or pressure from any side.
Jumblatt also wondered whether reports were true that the number of Syrian activists kidnapped in Lebanon has reached 13.
“Are we about to establish a return of the renowned era of security tutelage?” he asked.
The March 14 coalition also held the Lebanese government and security services responsible for the repercussions of the Syrian unrest in Lebanon which has left Lebanon’s security “shaken” and has “heightened tension.”
As-Safir
[Lebanese] Army responds to campaigns: They aim to restrict us ... We won’t be affected by them
“Syrian refugees” ... a humanitarian issue or a “political bomb"?
As the government resumes activity following Eid al-Adha holiday, the political fever heated up over the crisis of “Syrian refugees” in Lebanon after March 14 decided to turn this issue from humanitarian to political in an effort to exercise more pressure on the Mikati government which is accused by the opposition of ignoring the rights of these refugees and refusing to set up a camp for them.
The opposition’s “political bullets” first hit the judiciary and the Lebanese Army – both coming under direct campaigns over the way they are dealing with the disappearance of Syrians and the military’s strategy vis-ŕ-vis developments on the Lebanon-Syria border.
Senior military sources were surprised by the campaign against the Lebanese Army and called for distancing the military institution from political bickering.
The aim behind these accusations, the sources told As-Safir, was to restrict the army’s movement and push it into taking a hands-off approach on the border.
While calling on the various political leaders to “neutralize” the Lebanese Army from political conflicts, the sources said such campaigns would not affect the army.
Ad-Diyar
Aoun’s remarks about Syria crisis shake Lebanon and its leaders
Mikati organizes honor rally for Sleiman Sunday, mobilizes in Tripoli
Tripoli residents reject Rai’s visit, majority Sunnis against the visit
Serious remarks made by Gen. Michel Aoun that the unrest in Syria was “over” and telling reporters “ask me next Tuesday if there are [going to be] events [unrest in Syria]” have shaken Lebanese political circles as a result of the huge repercussions of the Syrian unrest on Lebanon.
Everybody in Lebanon is waiting to see how things are going to develop in Syria to decide what steps should be taken.
The political circles looked into Aoun’s remarks to determine whether he had received any information from the Syrian leadership through an envoy, but no one knows the secret behind his saying this, and everyone is waiting for next Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Najib Mikati decided to hold an honor rally for President Michel Sleiman on Sunday, choosing the Sunni northern city of Tripoli as a venue.
The move coincides with a negative response from Tripoli’s Sunni population who “vetoed” a visit by Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai to their city, prompting him to postpone.
The Sunni majority veto comes after remarks made by Rai in September in which he said that the uprisings in the Arab world were tied to Muslim fundamentalist movements.
Al-Akhbar
Jumblatt meets March 14 on ‘security tutelage’
At a time when the reasons were unclear for these “sudden and repeated” demands to set up refugee camps for Syrians fleeing the unrest to Lebanon, comments made by MP Walid Jumblatt on behalf of the PSP called one's attention. Jumblatt announced his "outright rejection of the use of Lebanese territory for any actions that would undermine Syria's security and stability, or perform any hostile activities against it from inside Lebanon."
Simultaneously, Jumblatt stressed the right to political asylum and wondered whether “we are about to establish a new era of the renowned security tutelage similar to the previous period when Samir Kassir was tracked down and assassinated, not to mention the assassination of Ramzi Irani and the kidnapping of Butros Khawand?"

US: Arab leaders offering Assad safe haven
State Department official says most Arab leaders believe Assad to be toppled soon
AFP Published: 11.09.11, 23:48 / Israel News
Arab leaders are privately telling the United States that they have offered Syrian President Bashar Assad "safe haven" in a bid to convince him to step down, a top US diplomat told lawmakers on Wednesday. "Almost all the Arab leaders say the same thing: Assad's rule is coming to an end. Change in Syria is now inevitable," Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Some Arab leaders already have begun to offer Assad safe-haven in an effort to encourage him to leave peaceably and quickly," Feltman said at a hearing on US policy towards the bloody unrest in Syria.
Feltman added that US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford was expected to return to Damascus within a few days or weeks after leaving the country for security reasons in October.
Assad's deadly crackdown on protests that erupted in mid-March has left more than 3,500 people dead, according to the United Nations, and fed increasing international anger at the regime in Damascus. A human rights group said Wednesday that security forces killed 12 civilians in Syria, which just last week signed up to an Arab League peace plan which called for an end to violence. Under the plan, Damascus would also release those detained for protesting, and withdraw all Syrian forces from towns and cities. It says it has already released more than 500. But since signing the Arab roadmap, up to Tuesday according to the United Nations, Syrian forces have killed another 60 people.

Bellemare Hints he Would Summon Lebanese Officials to Stand Trial
Naharnet /Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare is exerting strong efforts to guarantee the cooperation of Lebanese authorities with his investigations into ex-Premier Rafik Hariri’s Feb. 2005 assassination. According to information received by Naharnet, Bellemare is currently adopting the policy of “carrot and stick” to avoid an “overt confrontation” with Lebanese authorities. But the STL prosecutor is convinced about the need to raise the level of pressure on the authorities in Beirut to push them towards cooperating with him amid signs they are attempting to gain time and procrastinating in meeting the requests of the tribunal. Informed sources believe that Lebanese authorities should ready themselves in the next few days for new requests from Bellemare’s office to hear the viewpoints of security, military and judicial officials on the “seriousness” of the cooperation with the prosecutor.
Bellemare has hinted in a document he delivered to the tribunal about his intention to summon Lebanese officials and maybe party members to the court to question them on whether they are incapable of arresting the four suspects indicted in Hariri’s assassination or they are refusing to do so.
The four are Hizbullah members. They are Salim Ayyash, Mustafa Badreddine, Hussein Oneissi, and Assad Sabra. If the prosecutor goes ahead with his decision, then the Lebanese cabinet, which is constitutionally the decision-maker, would find itself in a new crisis that goes behind the fear of being targeted by international sanctions over any rejection by the government to fund the STL. Bellemare’s move could furthermore lead to a direct accusation to top Lebanese personalities of not only obstructing the course of international justice by rejecting the STL funding but also of collaborating with the suspects and the parties that are protecting them, which is a crime punishable by law.
Meanwhile, Bellemare’s office is shying away from responding to questions about reports that the prosecutor is suffering from a serious illness.
When asked about the reports and Bellemare’s alleged recovery abroad, his staff continues to repeat the same answer: “The prosecutor’s office has no comment at this stage.”
But the calm prevailing in his office seems to be the result of a firm policy and not confusion. All indications reveal that the work of his staff is continuing at full speed on more than one front.

Bellemare Wants to Delay Trials in Absentia Pending New Indictment
Naharnet agoLeidschendam, Naharnet Exclusive: Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare is preparing for a new surprise that he hinted in a document he submitted to the court last week ahead of a hearing on Friday on whether proceedings in absentia against four Hizbullah members were appropriate. The four members - Salim Ayyash, Mustafa Badreddine, Hussein Oneissi, and Assad Sabra - are wanted for the Feb. 2005 assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri and 22 others. High-ranking STL sources told Naharnet that Bellemare believes it is premature to begin a trial in absentia because his investigations have revealed the names of more suspects involved in the murders and assassination attempts that targeted Lebanese personalities between 2004 and 2005. The sources said the prosecutor has reached a stage of issuing a new indictment that includes his probe’s new findings. According to information received by Naharnet, the list of new suspects most likely includes names of people who are active on several fronts and whose places of residence are known which would prevent them from going into hiding or for influential political parties in Lebanon or in more than one regional country from protecting them.

International Investigation Resumes Activity with Nazik Hariri, Others Close to Slain PM
Naharnet Exclusive Report – Paris/The United Nations commission charged with investigating the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, headed by Prosecutor Judge Daniel Bellemare, is continuing its investigations and witness testimony hearings of the close circle of individuals who used to surround the slain premier. Naharnet received information from Paris that two investigation teams had moved from The Hague to Paris last week where they have been working for long hours in recording the testimonies of these individuals, starting with his widow Nazik, who has been residing in Paris since her husband’s assassination on February 14, 2005. The investigators’ inquiries have focused on the former prime minister’s movements, meetings, and places he visited during the last few weeks before his murder. Sides informed of the behind-the-scenes activity of the investigation estimated that the inquiries are aimed at demonstrating that Hariri’s final activity coincides with the activity of mobile phones whose owners used to monitor the premier, which proved the intensity of the surveillance that he came under. They noted that this is not the first time that they collected testimonies from Hariri’s close circle. The indictment, which the Special Tribunal for Lebanon had unsealed on August 17, had revealed part of the activity of mobile phones that followed Hariri’s actions. It also revealed the car dealership that the Mitsubishi truck used in the assassination was bought from and the areas of northern Lebanon and Beirut’s southern suburbs in which the mobile phone owners were located when they used them.

U.S. to question Lebanon over deposits
November 10, 2011/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Alleged reports of capital and deposits fleeing from Syria to Lebanon will be the key issue raised by a senior U.S. official during his talks with Lebanese officials Thursday.
The U.S. Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing Daniel Glase, who is scheduled to meet with Central Bank governor Riad Salameh and Finance Minister Mohammad Safadi, will convey Washington’s deep concern about reports that Syrian officials who are on the U.S. blacklist are trying to transfer their money to Lebanese banks and financial institutions. Salameh told the Association of Banks in Lebanon that Glase’s visit had been scheduled previously. The visit comes on the heels of news that Washington is determined to apply pressure on any country that facilitates the transfer of Syrian funds, especially if they belong to Syrian officials who may have played a role in the crackdown on Syrian protesters.
But Salameh and bankers insist that Lebanese banks have not received substantial deposits from Syria since the crisis broke out eight months ago. Bankers argue that the deposit growth this year has dropped compared to last year, proving that no Syrian cash has entered Lebanon.
A leading banker told The Daily Star that it is nearly impossible for any cash to enter the banking and financial system in a haphazard manner. “Any penny that enters our financial system in Lebanon will appear in the balance sheets of commercial banks. There is no way billons of U.S. dollars [are] entering the Lebanese financial market without raising the alert of the Central Bank,” the banker stressed.
He added that banks have clear instructions to ask any person who deposits more than $10,000 where he got the money from.
But the banker suggested that money could be carried through the border illegally by smugglers, but they surely won’t dare to deposit them in the banks since they realize that this cash will be frozen by monetary authorities. Salameh made similar these remarks in an interview with a Russian TV station, saying that the growth in Lebanon’s deposits dropped this year when compared to 2010. The latest data supports his claim. Deposits grew 5.4 percent in the first eight months of 2011, compared to growth of 7.3 percent in the first eight months of 2010, according to numbers by data provider, Economena Analytics. Salameh confirmed that no Syrian accounts have been frozen in Lebanon, saying that such a procedure is the prerogative of the Special Investigation Commission, a body affiliated with the Central Bank. “The Commission has not taken any action against Syrian depositors,” he said, adding, “generally, this requires a decision by the [U.N.] Security Council.” But a statement issued earlier by the U.S. Treasury Department said Glaser was expected to “highlight the need for authorities to remain vigilant against attempts by the Syrian regime to evade U.S. and EU sanctions through the Lebanese financial sector,” the U.S. Treasury Department said.
The United States had informally inquired about Syrian deposits in Lebanese banks last September as part of Washington’s efforts to tighten economic and financial sanctions on Damascus, media reports said. Bankers confidentially say that Syrian deposits in Lebanese banks do not exceed $3 billion and that most of this money belongs to prominent Syrian businessmen and traders who have held deposits in Lebanon previously. These bankers also claim that they will abide by any Security Council resolution in the future which may prohibit any banking and financial transactions between Lebanon and Syria. “So far, the Security Council did not pass any resolution on this matter and for this reason Lebanon is officially not obliged to heed the pressure from any country,” a banker told The Daily Star. Salameh and President of the Association of Banks in Lebanon Joseph Torbey have aggressively campaigned in Washington and other European capitals to dispel all rumors that Lebanese banks are a haven for illegal activities. Torbey made it abundantly clear that Lebanese banks are well regulated and always abide by all Security Council resolutions. Exchange dealers in Lebanon also denied some media allegations that they are receiving large sums of cash from Syria, adding that they are also under the strict supervision of the Central Bank.

Hariri: Opposition will not seek to topple government
November 10, 2011/By Wassim Mroueh/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Opposition leader Saad Hariri said Wednesday he would not seek to topple the government as he is waiting for the 2013 parliamentary elections, while Speaker Nabih Berri urged the resumption of national dialogue, warning that Lebanon was in the “eye of the storm.”
“[The March 14 coalition’s] next step is to regroup and have a much stronger opposition and I won’t tell you more it’s a secret,” the former prime minister told followers on Twitter.
Meanwhile, speaking to reporters after visiting President Michel Sleiman at Baabda Palace, Berri called on Lebanese leaders to take action to resume national dialogue sessions.
“What is happening around us is not far … and … Lebanon is in the eye of the storm … so we have to draw the future before it is drawn for us,” the speaker said.
Berri reiterated that he was not against resuming dialogue with various items on the agenda or opposed to discussing the reasons why some items that were already agreed on in previous dialogue sessions have not yet been implemented. “I say it for the last time. I am not against resuming dialogue with all its items … I remind those who have forgotten that I started it [dialogue] and for sure I am not against discussing [reasons behind] not implementing [its items], but in line with rules,” he said.
March 14 opposition leaders have said they would not attend dialogue sessions unless measures are taken to implement decisions already reached, including supporting the U.N.-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon, disarming Palestinian groups operating outside of refugee camps and demarcating Lebanese-Syrian borders.
According to March 14 leaders, an agreement on the funding for the STL was reached in earlier dialogue sessions and previous governments paid Lebanon’s share of the court’s funding. As such, they say that Hezbollah’s arms are the only topic on the agenda.
During a meeting in London with Catherine Ashton, the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security, Prime Minister Najib Mikati discussed the situation in Lebanon and the Middle East. According to a statement issued by Mikati’s office, talks focused on the current stability in Lebanon despite the regional situation and the need to cement this stability through support for the Lebanese government’s efforts at all levels from the international community and specifically Europe and through Lebanon honoring its international commitments. Mikati, who wrapped up his three-day visit to Britain, called on Europe to support Lebanon in demarcating its maritime borders and its Exclusive Economic Zone.
For her part, Ashton expressed her understanding of Lebanon’s position on various issues in the region, especially dissociating itself from all international resolutions related to Syria, and stressed the need for Lebanon to implement all international resolutions.
Ashton said she discussed several issues with Mikati, including continuing to support the STL. Mikati also met British Prime Minister David Cameron Monday.
Commenting to The Daily Star on Mikati’s visit to Britain, Tom Fletcher, Britain’s Ambassador to Lebanon, said it was “very good.”
“It was a very good visit, focused on practical cooperation that will support Lebanon’s stability. Both prime ministers wanted to concentrate on delivery and substance. Prime Minister Mikati was clear in his determination that Lebanon should implement SCR 1757, and that it was firmly in Lebanon’s interests that it did so,” Fletcher said.
Asked whether any agreement was reached on British assistance to the Lebanese Army, Fletcher, who accompanied Mikati, said that Britain promised to “more than double “training programs to the Lebanese Army.”
On his return to Beirut, Mikati contacted Brig. Ibrahim Bashir, the secretary-general of the Higher Relief Committee, and instructed him to follow up on the humanitarian situation of Syrian refugees in Lebanon. In a statement by Mikati’s press office, the prime minister dismissed reports of ending aid to refugees, saying this was part of “political campaigns” against his government, stressing that the committee had doubled its aid to the Syrian refugees. The prime minister is to chair a Cabinet session on Thursday at the Grand Serail and will attend another session Friday at Baabda Palace under President Michel Sleiman. Separately, Berri called for a question-and-answers session to be held on Nov. 16. – With additional reporting by Olivia Alabaster and Patrick Galey

Sleiman: Syria regrets incursions into Lebanon
November 10, 2011/By Patrick Galey/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Syria has “expressed regret” to Lebanon for repeated incursions into its territory that left at least one Lebanese dead, following the official confirmation that its army had mined its side of the border. President Michel Sleiman said Wednesday that Syrian officials had been in contact and promised to respect Lebanon’s independence and sovereignty. “Syria expressed regret for the unintended violations,” Sleiman said in remarks published by Al-Liwaa newspaper. The president also confirmed that mines had been planted along the Syrian side of its border with Lebanon. “Syria fully fulfilled its promises to respect Lebanon’s independence and sovereignty and planted mines along the border to prevent infiltration and smuggling,” Sleiman said.
A source close to Sleiman’s office told The Daily Star that senior Lebanese and Syrian officials had formed a follow-up committee to discuss recent alleged incursions into Lebanon.
During the meeting, Syrian representatives “offered an explanation” over military operations that had entered Lebanese territory, according to the source. Lebanese officials expressed the hope that coordination between the two state armies would be increased in order to avoid a repeat of incursions, it added.
A senior diplomatic source said that the lack of border demarcation could have contributed to several of Syria’s frontier raids. “Not to defend Syria, but its troops probably don’t know when they are entering Lebanon. Maps belonging to both armies differ,” the source told The Daily Star. The Syrian Army has crossed into Lebanon on several occasions as authorities in Damascus continue their prolonged crackdown against pro-democracy protesters. The military insists it had been pursuing “dissidents” in cross-border raids that have left three Syrian nationals in Lebanon dead. The United States has strongly condemned the frontier crossings and countries from around the world have spoken out against a security operation that the U.N. estimates has left 3,500 people dead across Syria since March. Officials in north Lebanon previously alleged that the Syrian Army planted land mines along parts of the border. Since neither Lebanon nor Syria is a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty outlawing land mine use, the action cannot be construed as illegal.
Ongoing violence has led over 5,000 Syrians to seek refuge in Lebanon. Syria has accused some groups in Lebanon of smuggling arms across the border to aid what authorities say are extremist anti-government factions.
Security forces in Beirut have come under attack over the alleged kidnapping of several Syrian opposition figures in Lebanon. Although Prime Minister Najib Mikati admitted last week that Syrian nationals had disappeared on Lebanese soil, Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour said Wednesday that there was still no accurate information on the reasons behind their vanishing.
“There are some Syrians who fled to Lebanon and some others have been arrested in Syria,” Mansour told a local radio station.
A host of political heads have waded into the debate surrounding kidnappings in Lebanon since Internal Security Forces Commander Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi alleged his officers had uncovered proof that members of the Syrian Embassy in Beirut had played a role in abductions.
In his weekly column in Al-Anbaa magazine, Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt asked if Lebanon was returning to “a certain hegemonic period of time that is bad to remember,” in reference to the days of Syrian military presence in Lebanon that saw several critics of Damascus kidnapped or assassinated.
Lebanese Forces issued a statement Wednesday alleging that State Prosecutor Saeed Mirza had obstructed the probe into the kidnapping of Syrians in Lebanon.
“[Mirza] does not want to hear [us] because he knows that kidnappings of Syrian opposition members have occurred in Lebanon,” the party said. “He is covering them up and preventing investigations from taking place.”
A Syrian opposition group urged the government to take steps to prevent further kidnappings, expressing concern over the safety of critics of President Bashar Assad in Lebanon. “The Council is very worried that opposition members are being handed over to the Syrian security services and as such risk death,” the Syrian National Council said in a statement.

Arrest returns Majdal Anjar to spotlight
November 10, 2011/By Rakan al-Fakih/The Daily Star
Majdel Anjar has always been restive in a security context.
MAJDAL ANJAR, Lebanon: Majdal Anjar is back in the media spotlight, after a man from the restive Bekaa town who was wanted in the kidnapping of seven foreign tourists in Lebanon was handed over to Lebanese authorities. But officials and residents maintain the town’s reputation for criminal activity and violence is not entirely deserved.
Last week, Syria handed over to Lebanese authorities Wael Abbas, who is believed to have led the group responsible for kidnapping seven Estonians earlier this year.
Abbas, 29, was also involved in several recent confrontations with members of the Internal Security Forces’ Information Branch in the Bekaa Valley, security sources told The Daily Star earlier this month. With his capture, more details of the abduction are expected to be revealed.
Shortly after crossing to Lebanon from Syria in March, the seven tourists were captured by masked men near the industrial zone of the city of Zahle. The cyclists were released in July in an operation that seemed to have been launched without the knowledge of Lebanese authorities. Conflicting reports have emerged over how Syrian General Security found Abbas shortly before handing him over to Lebanese authorities. But investigations into the abduction of the Estonians may not be concluded as two men alleged to have been involved are still at large. Hussein Hujeiri, the suspected mastermind of the operation who hails from the northern town of Arsal, and Mohammad al-Ahmad, a Syrian national born in Majdal Anjar who is also believed to be involved in the operation, are not in custody. A total of 10 people have been arrested by Lebanese authorities in the case.
Sami Ajami, Majdal Anjar’s mayor, told The Daily Star that the arrest of Abbas should put an end to accusations that town is sheltering fugitives.
Ajami said that the town’s residents are relieved that all but two of those involved in the abduction have been arrested, adding that media outlets have exaggerated security incidents in the town. Majdal Anjar, which is home to 20,000 people and located on the eastern entrance of the Bekaa governorate, near the Lebanese-Syrian Masnaa border crossing, has seen growing tensions in recent years. Smuggling networks and Islamist organizations have tried to make use of the rugged terrain and its location along the border with Syria to smuggle products to Syria as well as fighters destined for Iraq to fight U.S. forces. Tension mounted in 2004, when Ismail Khatib died in Lebanese custody after being arrested on charges of being a member of Al-Qaeda. The death of Khatib, who hails from Majdal Anjar, outraged many young people in the town who took part in his funeral openly carrying weapons.
Sectarian tension increased in the Sunni town with the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005 and again after pro-Hezbollah gunmen overran large swathes of West Beirut in May 2008 when the Cabinet of then-Prime Minister Fouad Siniora decided to dismantle the party’s telecommunications network.
A number of clashes pitting the Lebanese army and ISF against Lebanese fugitives from the town have led to casualties on both sides and the town has been besieged and raided by the Lebanese Army more than once. The most recent incident occurred in April, when Abbas is believed to have fled during a gunfight with the ISF’s Information Branch that left fugitive Darwish Khanjar and Information Branch Sgt. Maj. Rashed Sabri dead. But residents of the town deny that there is any significance presence of Islamists in Majdal Anjar, maintaining that only some individuals from the town join such groups.

Gadhafi Aide: Moussa al-Sadr was 'Liquidated' in Libya
Naharnet /Revered Lebanese spiritual leader Moussa al-Sadr, who went missing in Libya in 1978, was "liquidated" at the time, a former aide to Moammar Gadhafi said Wednesday.
The fate of the Iranian-born Shiite cleric has been unknown since he vanished during a trip to Libya aimed at negotiating an end to Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war.
Ahmed Ramadan, one of the most influential people in Gadhafi's entourage, said Wednesday on Al-Aan television that al-Sadr disappeared following a meeting with the late Libyan dictator soon after arriving in Tripoli. "I bear witness that (Sadr) came... he arrived in Libya," Ramadan said on the Dubai-based channel, adding the meeting had lasted for two and a half hours.
Two officials then "took the guests," including the cleric and those who accompanied him, and "100 percent, what we heard is that he was liquidated," said Ramadan. Ramadan said it was "possible" that Gadhafi had given the orders for Sadr to be killed because after the meeting, "He said: 'Take him'."
He said he received the information from "some sources at the time" as well as from one of the three officials involved who had since died, and that his statements could be corroborated by "complete files." The remains of the cleric, who would have been 83 in April, were likely to be located in either Janzur, a suburb east of Tripoli, or the southern region of Sabha, he said.
Officially invited to Libya, he arrived there on August 25, 1978, with two companions Sheikh Mohammed Yacoub and journalist Abbas Badreddin. They were seen for the last time on August 31, 1978. His disappearance had been a source of tension between Lebanon and the Gadhafi regime, which always maintained that the cleric had left Libya for Italy.
Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, the son of Moammar Gadhafi, reportedly confirmed to a Lebanese woman, closely associated with the Lebanese-Syrian security apparatus that controlled Lebanon until 2005, that Imam Moussa al-Sadr had been killed in 1978 at an order from his father, revealed the Kuwaiti al-Rai newspaper.
Arab sources told the newspaper that the woman, whose identity was not revealed, met Seif al-Islam in Athens in August 2010 to discuss the fate of the disappeared Imam.
The sources said that the meeting was not held until the Libyan official made sure, through a third party, that the woman speaks on behalf of the Sadr family in order to put an end to the dispute over the fate of the Shiite cleric and his colleagues. Seif al-Islam confirmed that Sadr and his two companions were killed in Libya in 1978 shortly after meeting with Gadhafi, said the sources. There is no hope in finding their remains and reports that they are still alive are not true, continued Seif al-Islam, they added. He held his father responsible for the “execution” of Sadr and his companions, revealing that he decided “to get rid of them” a few days after being arrested by Gadhafi, stated the sources.
According to an indictment against Gadhafi issued by Lebanese authorities, Gadhafi ordered Sadr to be "taken away" after the pair got into a heated argument. Abdel Moneim al-Honi, a former colonel who took part in the 1969 coup that brought Gadhafi to power, revealed in February that Gadhafi had ordered Sadr killed during his visit and that the cleric was buried in the southern region of Sabha. Gadhafi was killed in his hometown of Sirte on October 20 after an eight-month armed rebellion inspired by a wave of pro-democracy protests that swept the Arab world.  Source Agence France Presse

Jumblat Calls for Preserving Rights of Syrian Activists in Lebanon
Naharnet /Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat condemned on Wednesday the kidnapping of Syrian opposition members in Lebanon, wondering if Lebanon is facing a new phase of the “infamous” security hegemony that controlled the country in the past. He said in a statement: “All Syrian activists have the right to express their opinions freely without being subject to any harassment or pressure from any side.” He questioned the credibility of reports on the abduction of 13 Syrians in Lebanon, while the fate of the Jassem brothers, Shebli al-Aysami, and others remains unknown. “The PSP asserts the right for political asylum as stipulated in the Lebanese constitution and laws, which calls for respecting the freedom of political expression in accordance with Lebanon’s historic role as a country that protects diversity and freedoms,” the MP stressed. Furthermore, Jumblat renewed the party’s “absolute” rejection of using Lebanon for any actions that may harm Syria’s security and stability. “The party confirms its commitment to the army’s great national role in confronting Israel, but it also plays a role in maintaining the country’s borders and it is necessary to keep it out of the conflict in Syria and remain focused on Lebanon’s internal stability and security,” he noted. The four Jassem brothers were abducted from outside the Baabda Serail earlier this year. Internal Security Forces investigations said that the head of the Syrian Embassy guard unit, First Lt. Salah Hajj, was the ringleader of the group that abducted the brothers. In October, ISF chief Ashraf Rifi told the parliamentary human rights committee that the ISF had "dangerous information" linking the Syrian Embassy to the disappearance of Syrian opposition member Shebli al-Aisamy in Aley in May. But Syrian Ambassador Ali Abdul Karim Ali denied any involvement and challenged Rifi to provide evidence.

Environment Minister Nazim Khoury : Dialogue is doomed if topic is arms
November 10, 2011/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Environment Minister Nazim Khoury said Wednesday that the national dialogue table would fail to achieve results if the only item on its agenda is Hezbollah’s arms. “Which smart politician would say that a national dialogue would achieve results if Hezbollah’s arms are the only item?” said Khoury. He added that President Sleiman considers the national dialogue as a priority and prefers to have several items on its agenda. Also in defense of Sleiman, Khoury slammed Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun for criticizing the President. “Aoun has the right to his opinion, but the attack against the president is not justified,” said Khoury.

Israeli officials: ElBaradei an Iranian agent
Senior state officials accuse former IAEA chairman of covering up for Islamic Republic during his term, allowing Iranians to move ahead with nuclear program while playing for time. 'He is a despicable person,' one of them says. El Baradei calls accusations 'false'; Iranian Foreign Ministry says Tehran ready to resume nuke talks 'with respect for our nation's rights'
Itamar Eichner Latest Update: 11.09.11, 19:15 / Israel News
Senior Israeli officials said Tuesday night that the International Atomic Energy Agency report stating that Iran has been working on developing a nuclear weapon design proves that the former UN nuclear watchdog chairman "was an Iranian agent". On Wednesday, ElBaradei rejected Israel's accusations and called them "false." His response was published on the website of the Egyptian daily al-Youm al-Saba'a. The former IAEA chairman, Mohamed ElBaradei, is an Egyptian diplomat who even won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize.
For years he defended the Iranian nuclear program, claiming that it was peaceful, thus allowing the Iranians to continue their activity with the nuclear watchdog's seal of approval.
According to one of the state officials, the new report published Tuesday proves "just how much he was working for the Iranians.
"He simply rescued Iran and was constantly busy covering up for them, causing serious damage by allowing the Iranians to fool the entire world and play for time. History may judge him as the person who helped Iran obtain a nuclear weapon. "The things exposed now are not new. These are old things which were hidden and not published," the official added. "Now it turns out that ElBaradei led an active policy of concealment and disregard. This is very serious. He is a despicable person."
"ElBaradei didn't just mess us up, he messed up the entire sane world," added Uzi Eilam, former head of Israel's Atomic Energy Agency. "He was dishonest his entire term. He is the one who stopped the Security Council from imposing serious sanctions, providing the Iranians with precious time."
In an editorial published Wednesday, the British Daily Telegraph indirectly criticized ElBaradei. "Indeed, the IAEA has known for years that Tehran was building an atomic weapon, but has been reluctant to say so. This has made it more difficult to create a united front against the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to world peace," the article read.
Also on Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said Tehran remains ready to engage in negotiations with world powers concerned about its nuclear program, but only if the other parties show it due respect.
"We have always announced that we are ready for positive and useful negotiations but, as we have mentioned repeatedly, the condition for those talks to be successful is that we enter those negotiations in a stance of equality and respect for nations' rights," Ramin Mehmanparast was quoted as saying by the website of Iran's Arabic language al-Alam television.

US says discussing more Iran sanctions with Russia
State Department spokesman says Obama consulting with permanent Security Council members and 'looking at ways to impose additional pressure on Iran' following IAEA report on its nuclear program. Russia: Further punitive measures would be destructive 
Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 11.09.11, 21:38 / Israel News
WASHINGTON – A day after the publication of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report saying Iran appears to have worked on designing an atom bomb, the US is working to impose harsher sanctions against the Islamic Republic. State Department Spokesman Mark Toner said Wednesday that Washington was in consultations with Russia and three other permanent members of the UN Security Council – China, UK and France – as well as Germany, regarding the possibility of taking additional measures aimed at pressuring Iran.
The United States, he said, is looking at ways to put "additional pressure" on Tehran. "These are very serious allegations, serious charges, and it's incumbent on Iran to at last engage with the IAEA in a credible and transparent manner to address these concerns," Toner said. President Barack Obama's administration is "going to consult (with allies and partners) and look at ways to impose additional pressure on Iran," Toner told reporters, adding Washington was considering "a range of options" against the Islamic republic.
I don't want to rule anything out or anything in," he said, adding that unilateral sanctions were a possibility. The IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog, disclosed on Tuesday that it has found "credible" intelligence showing Iran's interest in nuclear weapons – the first time it has so openly supported claims initially raised by Israel and the United States.
Since 2006, four UN Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear program have involved sanctions, the latest coming in June 2010 in a resolution expanding the arms embargo and barring the country from sensitive activities like uranium mining.
The following month, Obama signed into law the toughest ever US sanctions on Iran, which were aimed at choking off Iran's access to imports of refined petroleum products like gasoline and jet fuel and curbing its access to the international banking system.
But the release of the damning UN report saw France and Britain join a US call for even stronger punishments, while Russia ruled out backing new sanctions against Iran.
A US State Department official reacted to the report by saying, "The IAEA Director General’s report...is the most comprehensive and detailed public assessment of Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and it raises further questions about the nature of Iran’s nuclear program and of the Iranian government’s willingness ever to discuss its nuclear activities forthrightly.
It also demonstrates what the US has known and made clear for years: that Iran had a nuclear weapons program and has provided no assurance that it has abandoned a nuclear weapons intent," the official said. "Our policy has been predicated on this view. Accordingly, we will proceed with our dual track policy."
The State Department official went on to say that "in the absence of transparency and compliance with Iran’s international obligations, we will continue to consult and work with our partners, with whom we have already engineered the adoption of UNSCR 1929 and other multilateral and national measures that have created the most aggressive, isolating, and debilitating sanctions regime imposed on Iran to date, to isolate Iran. It is Iran's responsibility to build confidence in its peaceful intent and to reduce those tensions through transparency and compliance with relevant UN Security Council resolutions and its IAEA obligations.
"We will continue both to put pressure on Iran and to offer opportunities for engagement so as to compel Iran to make the changes we seek in Iran’s decision-making," the official said.
Russia on Wednesday vehemently criticized the IAEA report, saying it contained no new evidence and was being used to undercut efforts to reach a diplomatic solution.
'No new info in report'
Sharpening opposition to any new sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council, where Russia has veto power, senior diplomats said further punitive measures would be "destructive" and urged a revival of talks between Tehran and global powers.
"According to our initial evaluations, there is no fundamentally new information in the report," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
"We are talking about a compilation of known facts, given a politicized tone," it said, adding that interpretations of the report brought to mind the use of faulty intelligence to seek support for the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said the Security Council should be convened and that Paris was ready to adopt "unprecedented" sanctions if Tehran refused to cooperate with efforts to ensure it is not pursuing nuclear weapons. Russia has grudgingly approved four rounds of UN sanctions on Iran after watering them down, with China. But it has criticized Western states for imposing additional punitive measures and signaled in recent months that it would oppose a new push for sanctions in the Security Council.
Russia has close commercial ties with Iran and built a nuclear power plant that was switched on in the Islamic Republic this year. It has repeatedly said too much pressure on Tehran is counterproductive. Russia is instead calling for a step-by-step process under which existing sanctions would be eased in return for actions by Tehran to dispel international concerns.
'Iran won't budge an iota' Analysts say Moscow may have calculated that it has little to gain from supporting new sanctions against Iran. This would further hurt ties already damaged by Russia's backing of the most recent measures in June 2010, when President Dmitry Medvedev also scrapped a deal to deliver air-defense missiles to Tehran.
Those sanctions were adopted at a time of improving relations between Russia and the US, after Obama downsized a European missile defense plan that Russia opposed and signed a nuclear arms limitation treaty with Medvedev.  Tehran meanwhile said Wednesday the country stands "ready for useful and positive talks" on its nuclear program as long as they are held on the basis of equality and respect. Earlier Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had reacted with a more defiant tone, saying Iran "will not budge an iota" on its nuclear program, which he insists is for peaceful ends. AFP, Reuters contributed to the report

Israel is facing Iran in a two-person poker game
Iran will either expose Israel's bluff or risk suffering a military strike.
By Zvi Bar'el /Haaretz
Latest update 09.11.11
This is the Israeli version of the prisoner's dilemma: If the International Atomic Energy Agency's new report on Iran and the flood of reports about Israel's intent to attack Iran result in a new set of sanctions on Tehran, Israel will have to decide if that's enough, or if it must nonetheless attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
If, on the other hand, the United Nations finds it difficult to approve significant additional sanctions, due to opposition from China and Russia, Israel will face a terrible dilemma. If it doesn't attack Iran, it will lose its credibility: The international community will no longer take notice of its empty threats. But if Israel does attack, claiming that the international community is indifferent, it will turn "the Iranian problem" into an Israeli problem, thus effectively absolving the international community of any need to act.
This week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that "After what happened in the Second World War, the survival of Israel is essential, and its creation was a central political event of the 20th century. We will not compromise on this." This statement alone is enough to show to what extent Israel has managed to reduce the global threat posed by Iran to a local threat against Israel. This, by the way, is the very same Sarkozy who warned in April that an Israeli strike on Iran would be "disastrous."
Israel's deliberate chatter did not merely divert attention from fear of Iran's nuclear program to fear of an Israeli response. It also transformed the question of Israel's response from a strategic dilemma into a logical dilemma. No longer is this a dilemma whose key questions are whether Israel can actually carry out a military strike, whether it knows where to attack, whether it can withstand an Iranian counterattack or what the political implications might be. The key question now has been reduced to whether it's reasonable for Israel to attack - or in other words, whether Israel will act like an irrational country that doesn't even consider the consequences of its actions.
This question places Israel in the same position as Iran, since the main question about Iran is also one of rationality: Is Tehran willing to suffer a deep economic crisis and possible loss of life just to maintain its nuclear program?
The international effort to impose further sanctions - or to offer incentives for stopping the program - is based on the assumption that Iran is a sensible, logical state, and that eventually, it will act rationally. If, on the other hand, one accepts the Israeli viewpoint that Iran is not a rational country, but rather the state equivalent of a suicide terrorist, then there's really no point in further sanctions, because in any case, sanctions can't persuade lunatics to change their ways.
And this is where the contradiction in Israel's logic lies. If the thunder and lightning coming from the Israeli government are meant to encourage the international community to impose more sanctions in order to forestall "Israeli lunacy," this implies that Israeli still sees Iran as a rational state that might change course due to international pressure. Such a conclusion ought to lead to a series of diplomatic moves rather than military threats, which force even Iran's opponents, including most European and Arab states, to unite behind opposition to an Israeli military strike. And when even Israel's friends - those it still has left - are opposed to military action, then even the cliche that "all options, including the military one, remain on the table" becomes worthless.
Because when Israel pushes for a military strike, it turns out that the military option is suddenly opposed by a united international front. Thus the implied threat that is supposed to deter Iran becomes an empty threat if Israel doesn't attack immediately. But Israel doesn't really want to do that: It just wants to threaten, so that the international community will wake up. And there's the rub. Now, Israel faces Iran in a two-person poker game, in which Iran will either expose Israel's bluff or risk suffering a military strike. But in either case, Israel will find itself in a critical situation from which only the international community can rescue it, by imposing sanctions on Iran. But what if it doesn't?

Second Iranian threat to destroy Israel names its Dimona reactor
DEBKAfile Special Report/November 9, 2011, For the second time in four days, Iran has threatened to annihilate Israel. Sunday, Nov. 6, Tehran said four missiles would be enough to kill a million Israelis. Wednesday, Nov. 9, Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, deputy commander of Iran's armed forces, said an American or Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would not only result in the Jewish state's extinction - "Dimona is the most accessible target" - but generate a response that "would not be limited to the Middle East."
debkafile's military sources interpret this to mean a missile attack on American bases in Europe and US Sixth Fleet vessels in the Mediterranean.
"The smallest action by Israel [against Iran] and we will see its destruction," Gen. Jazayeri went on to say. "We have plans of reprisal ready for any attack."
debkafile's Iranian sources report all this muscle-flexing is a sign of mounting edginess in Tehran as the debate in the United States and Israel over the need for a military operation against Iran gains momentum following the UN nuclear agency (IAEA)'s exposure of its nuclear program as weapon-focused.
Some American papers have responded with stories designed to discourage the Netanyahu government from a military offensive. They claim Israel is short of the bombers and air crews needed to conduct the 1,000 rapid-fire sorties required for a successful operation. The damage would therefore be slight, they argue, enough only to hold Iran's nuclear progress back by no more than a year or two at best. Israel would have to repeat its operation every few years.
Other US sources maintain that a unilateral Israel strike on Iran would seriously undercut America's Middle East influence and call for unwilling US intervention in the war to rescue Israel from the fury of Iranian missiles.
According to another view expounded by certain US columnists Wednesday, no American or Israel attack is to be expected in the coming days, but must eventually take place. President Barack Obama swore Iran would not be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon. He is bound to make good on his pledge just as he kept his promise to liquidate Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and pull US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Israel, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has told his office to offer no comment on the nuclear agency's evidence of Iran's work on an atomic bomb until he is ready and ordered cabinet ministers to keep silent.
There is a certain amount of frustration in Jerusalem over the nuclear agency's report, mainly because it conceals as much as it reveals. Its researches cover Iran's nuclear and missile developments only in the years 2008 and 2009 whereas both programs took off dramatically and ominously later.
debkafile's Jerusalem sources have registered two other dominant responses:
1. If as government sources claim Iran can attain an operational nuclear weapon within a year, why is the Netanyahu government talking about sanctions which everyone knows are useless instead of exercising its military option before it is too late? 2. Israeli intelligence and military sources and commentators say the agency's findings are not new but have been known for some years. If that is the case, many Israelis ask, why was Iran's nuclear progress kept dark and why didn't a military attack come up for debate much sooner when it would have been more expeditious? And if the truth was kept hidden for two or three years, why should anyone believe that the data released this week covers the true picture? The conclusion is inescapable that Iran's nuclear doings are a lot more dangerous than the agency and the Israeli government would have people believe. A minority of former government officials in opposition today maintain in response to the IAEA report that Israel should learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran and in fact has already managed to survive for some years and even prosper in its shadow without coming to harm. However, most Israelis now suspect that Iran already has the N-bomb but no one responsible is willing to admit it.

West, Russia in standoff over Iran
November 10, 2011/Daily Star
PARIS/MOSCOW: A new East-West front opened Wednesday over an atomic agency report on Iran with Western leaders calling for expanded sanctions against Iran, and veto-wielder Russia indicating it would block any new measures at the U.N. Security Council.
The U.N. watchdog report, released late Tuesday, released a trove of intelligence suggesting that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
France said it would summon the Security Council. Britain said the standoff was entering a more dangerous phase and the risk of conflict would increase if Iran does not negotiate.
The Security Council has already imposed four rounds of sanctions on Tehran since 2006 over its nuclear program, which Western countries suspect is being used to develop weapons but Iran says is purely peaceful.
There has been concern that if world powers cannot close ranks on isolating Iran to nudge it into serious talks, then Israel -- which feels endangered by Tehran’s nuclear program -- will attack it, precipitating a Middle East conflict. “Convening of the U.N. Security Council is called for,” French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told RFI radio. Pressure must be intensified, he said, after years of Iranian defiance of U.N. resolutions demanding it halt uranium enrichment, which can yield nuclear fuel for power stations or weapons.
“If Iran refuses to conform to the demands of the international community and refuses any serious cooperation, we stand ready to adopt … sanctions on an unprecedented scale,” Juppe said. But Moscow made its opposition to new sanctions clear.
“Any additional sanctions against Iran will be seen in the international community as an instrument for regime change in Iran. That approach is unacceptable to us,” Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov told the Interfax news agency. Russia, which has significant trade ties with Iran, has called for a phased process under which existing sanctions would be eased in return for actions by Tehran to dispel international concerns. But in talks between Iran and big powers that would be needed to achieve that goal, the sides have been unable to agree even on an agenda. The last round petered out in January.
Still, Russia’s Foreign Ministry, in a statement Wednesday after a meeting with a senior Iranian security official, said Moscow re-affirmed the need to find mutually acceptable solutions via negotiations. Russia accepts that the West has legitimate concerns about Iran’s nuclear program but sees no clear evidence that Tehran is trying to develop nuclear warheads. Israel urged the international community to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons at all costs. “The significance of the [IAEA] report is that the international community must bring about the cessation of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, which endanger the peace of the world and of the Middle East,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement.
Iran has repeatedly insisted it wants nuclear energy only for electricity. On Wednesday, it vowed no retreat from the program following the U.N. watchdog report, which used Western intelligence information that Tehran calls forgeries.
“You should know that this nation will not pull back even a needle’s width from the path it is on,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech carried live on state TV.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry said: “According to our initial evaluations, there is no fundamentally new information in the report … We are talking about a compilation of known facts, given a politicized tone.” It said interpretations of the report were reminiscent of the use of faulty intelligence to seek support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
In addition to U.N. sanctions that commit all countries, the United States and European Union have imposed extra sanctions of their own. A U.S. official said that because of Russian and Chinese opposition, chances were slim for another U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran. Washington might extend sanctions against Iranian commercial banks or front companies but is unlikely to go after its oil and gas industry or central bank, the clearing house for Iran’s energy trade, for now.Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China was studying the IAEA report and repeated a call to resolve the row through talks. In a commentary, China’s official Xinhua news agency said the U.N. watchdog still “lacks a smoking gun.”

The Future of Tyranny!
09/11/2011
By Mamoun Fandy//Asharq Al-Awsat
Many people both in our region and outside it talk about the future of democracy after the “Arab Spring”, despite the fact that what is important for our region is the future and fate of tyranny, rather than the future of democracy.
For us, democracy is an illusion, but tyranny is part of our character. Thus, talking about the future of tyranny is more effective, in the sense of whether tyranny is advancing or receding, in what way, and in what field.
The talk about the future of tyranny, its manifestations, branches, and the extent of its longevity in various forms has not started yet in earnest. This is because our region is still submerged in the euphoria of the revolution and in the stories of the “Arab Spring” that have dazzled the foreigners, and hence the Arabs welcomed them as if they were the truth. This is because for many reasons, some of which we know and others we do not understand, our minds work according to the principle: what the West says about us is the truth, and what we see and do in our own countries is the illusion.
The talk of the Arabs predominantly falls either into the intellectual storm that changes with the turn of the popular tide, or along the lines of sentiments imported from other countries. In the same way, the Arabs at the end of the 1980s and 1990s used to talk about modernization and structure, issues which the Arabs had little insight into. This is because modernism in culture comes as a result of a developed society, and it is inconceivable to talk about this in a pre-modernized society. Nevertheless, the Arabs love glorifying such sentiments even if they do not understand the basic terminology.
The important point in all of this, despite my enthusiasm for change in post-revolutionary Egypt and my presence at the heart of it, is my theory that the “Arab Spring” will not represent a break from tyranny, but rather it will be an extension of it with different characteristics. Tyranny, just like a virus, can go through a mutation process and change to resist its vaccine. We are facing a state of tyranny mutation, rather than democratic change, and there are many reasons for this.
What is the future of the “Arab spring?” This is a question that preoccupies the outside world. Will the “Spring” lead to a new breakthrough, or simply a reproduction of the old status quo? This is the question.
In order to answer this question we have to dismantle the popular conceptions of the “Arab Spring.” One such conception, which is popular in the Arab world and is being analysed with vigorous momentum, relates to the belief that a revolution has occurred. The first intellectual and analytical starting point is the idea that power was previously concentrated in the hands of a dictator who possessed everything in the country, including all forces and means of wealth. This conception is the beginning of the misunderstanding. For instance, it is a misleading oversimplification to claim that a man of the ilk of Mubarak and his family were the only, or even the primary, obstacle hindering the democratic process in Egypt. The exaggerated focus on the dictator, or on the concentration of authoritarian power in the hand of one family, is the primary misconception that damages any sort of thinking to help us understand the future of the “Arab Spring”, or the future of tyranny in our region.
The concept of dictatorship in our countries has not been limited to the acts of an individual as we thought, or the result of concentrating power within the centralised government. Rather, the concept dictatorship in the Middle East is more widespread. It is something similar to water being absorbed by a sponge, represented by a network of existing family relations that are tightening their grip around the neck of society. Only by explaining power or authority as a network that is distributed throughout certain aspects society can we begin to understand. The claim that power is concentrated in one hand is the beginning of our deception and misconception.
The dictatorship in Egypt was a complete system built upon sturdy pillars, from the father at home all the way to the head of the village, the chairman of the district, the governor, up to the head of state. Society became saturated with dictatorship, and entire currents were immersed in it, whether they were Islamic or secular. Former President Hosni Mubarak, the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the chairman of the Egyptian Communist Party were all cut from the same cloth. Therefore, in order to become democratic, we need new people, but “from where can I get these people?!” [In reference to a famous ballad about an Egyptian, Adham al-Sharqawi, fighting against the injustice of British colonialism in Egypt, who was executed at the beginning of the 20th Century]
First and foremost, the “Arab Spring” did not begin yesterday, nor is Arab tyranny a sudden phenomenon in our history. The Arabs, even after the arrival of Islam, were never “ideological” people who sought to develop an intellectual vision of ourselves and the outside world. Instead, we are the people of blood relations and family ties, or “Shalal” as we call it in Egypt. Our relationship with intellectual concepts is similar to the relationship between our satellite television channels and outer-space satellites.
Despite the fact that Islam was the greatest intellectual revolution in our history, we, as Arabs, have succeeded in adapting Islam to serve the tribe, the family, and the clan. Islamic history began as an intellectual revolution, and as a history of ideas and countries; however, after the beginning of the Orthodox Caliphate, it was transformed into a somewhat tribal state. The State of Islam became the Umayyad State, and after that the Abbasid, the Fatimid, and so on and so forth. This means that we now have a history of tribes instead of a history of ideas.
Has this tribal history, alongside tribal and family loyalties and the priority of blood relations over intellectual relations gone forever after the “Arab spring?” Of course not; what has happened is that the families and tribes have dressed themselves up in the cloak of revolutions in Yemen and in Libya, and in Egypt the opposition consists of tribes rather than concepts.
Naturally, after the revolution there is talk about ideologies, with reference to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis and the Islamist groups. Yet all this talk alludes to the manifestation of the subject, and not its origin. If you dismantle the projects of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamist groups to their bare bones, you would find specific tribes and families against other tribes and families using Islam as a cover, and this has nothing to do with Islam other than a veneer that covers the ugly face of tribal interests.
This does not mean that tyranny is our fate, but exaggerating the achievements of the “Arab Spring” is something that needs to be reconsidered and dismantled, because whoever came out of the mosque will return to the mosque, and whoever emerged from the tribe will certainly go back to the tribe. Egypt is not exempt from this.

Canadian Statement on IAEA Report on Iran
(No. 341 - November 9, 2011 - 8:20 p.m. ET) Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement regarding the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General’s report relating to Iran: “Canada is deeply disturbed by the actions of the current Iranian regime. The information presented in the report is only the latest of a series of grave concerns our government has with the regime. “Iran’s current leaders regularly ignore international obligations. They obfuscate Iran’s nuclear activities and they block international attempts to verify the country’s claims. They do so while continuing to promote religious intolerance, violate the rights of their citizens, and undermine regional and international security.
“The regime in Iran poses a significant threat to regional and global peace. “Canada will continue to work with its like-minded allies to take the necessary action for Iran to abandon its nuclear program. We encourage others to join in this effort. It is not a question of if, but to what extent, we will act in response to this report. “As this report is a confidential IAEA document, we will respect that confidence and not comment further.”

U.S. to return Ambassador Ford to Damascus
November 10, 2011/Agencies/Daily Star
CAIRO/BEIRUT/UNITED NATIONS: The United States said it would return Ambassador Robert Ford to Damascus within “days to weeks,” as divisions within the Syrian opposition spilled out into the open when egg-throwing dissidents tried to prevent other opposition figures from entering the Arab League headquarters in Cairo.
Speaking after a hearing of a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman said Ford would return to his post in “weeks – I mean, days to weeks.”The Cairo attack highlights the growing fault lines in the Syrian opposition, which is struggling to overcome infighting in the face of a brutal government crackdown that has persisted even after Damascus agreed last week to an Arab League plan to stop the violence. Security forces killed at least 13 protesters nationwide Wednesday, activists said.Syria’s two major opposition groups, the National Coordination Committee and the Syria National Council, are divided over issues at the core of the eight-month-old revolution, including whether to request foreign military assistance and accept dialogue with the regime. The divisions have prevented the opposition from gaining the traction it needs to present a credible alternative to the regime.
Around 100 protesters in Cairo threw eggs and tomatoes at a four-man delegation from the NCC – including prominent writer Michel Kilo and militant Haytham Manaa – as the group tried to enter the Arab League’s headquarters for a meeting. Critics say the NCC, which includes veteran activists and former political prisoners, is too lenient and willing to engage in dialogue with the government.
Kilo, 71, who lives in Syria, has opposed the ruling Baath party since it came to power in 1963, and was jailed from 1980-83 and from 2006-09.
He is a member of the National Committee for Democratic Change, which was formed on Sept. 17 and groups Arab nationalists, socialists, Marxists, members of the Kurdish minority and independents such as Kilo.
Haytham Manaa is a former political detainee and now lives in self-exile in France.
The NCC’s stance has prompted some anti-government protesters in Syria to carry banners reading: “The National Coordination Committee does not represent me.”
“What happened today in Cairo is a sign of the Syrian street’s disenchantment with the NCC and its direction, which goes against the people’s will,” said Ausama Monajed, a London-based member of the Syrian National Council. “There should be no dialogue with this regime. Not before, nor after it withdraws its tanks from the streets.”
The Syrian National Council – made up of opponents mostly outside Syria – has urged the Arab League “to take a strong and effective position against the Syrian regime commensurate with the dangerous development of the situation in Syria, especially in … Homs.”
It wants the League to freeze Syria’s membership, impose economic and diplomatic sanctions, and seek the referral of allegations of genocide and other human rights violations by the regime to the International Criminal Court.
Members of the NCC delegation, who also were shoved and taunted with shouts of “traitor!” were forced to turn back but the head of the delegation, Hasan Abdul-Azim, managed to enter the Arab League’s building from another entrance and met with Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby.
Abdul-Azim described the accusations that his group was cooperating with the Syrian regime as “nonsense.”
“We are a patriotic opposition … and we reject excluding any group, but others want to exclude us because we reject the foreign intervention in Syria,” he told reporters following the meeting with Elaraby.
Elaraby denounced the attack and said the Arab League is open for all Syrian opposition groups.
“What happened in Cairo is completely unacceptable behavior,” Sada Hamzeh, a Paris-based Syrian dissident who is a member of the NCC, told the Associated Press.
She suggested supporters of the Syrian National Council were behind the attack, adding: “It’s like everyone who is outside the Council is a traitor, it is another kind of dictatorship.”
As the opposition struggles to find a unified voice, the government crackdown has continued.
Syria agreed to a peace plan brokered by the Arab League last week, but officials say Damascus has since failed to abide by its commitments to pull tanks and other armor out of cities and stop the bloodshed that the U.N. estimates has killed 3,500 people.
The deal also includes a pledge to work on starting a dialogue with the Syrian opposition. The Arab League called an emergency meeting Saturday to discuss Damascus’ failure to abide by its commitments. It was not clear what action the league would take if bloodshed continues.
And, while the disagreement over foreign intervention and what role the Arab league could play bristled, France led other Western Nations condemnation of opponents of the U.N. action against Syria as a “failure.”
France’s U.N. envoy Gerard Araud said Wednesday the 15-member body had “abdicated their responsibilities” when China and Russia blocked a resolution condemning the violence in Syria. “Some vetoed even limited action by the Security Council. Others chose abstention, that is indifference,” Araud told the meeting. “It is a serious failure of the Security Council, in humanitarian or political terms.”
Also Wednesday, the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Local Coordination Committees, key activist networks, said at least 13 people – and possibly more than 20 – were killed by security forces in Damascus, Homs and other cities. The unclear death tolls point to the confusion in the aftermath of attacks in a country that has prevented independent reporting. Other activists said an armored Syrian force stormed a plain northwest of the city of Hama in pursuit of army defectors. They said tanks pounded villages near the town of Maharda and casualties were reported on both sides in fighting. Troops surrounded a farm in the village of Khuneizeer where deserters had taken refuge and at least one civilian was killed.
The latest reports of defections came as U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay warned an increasing number of soldier defections could raise the risk of a Libyan-style civil war in Syria.
“More and more soldiers refuse to become complicit in international crimes and are changing sides. There is a serious risk of Syria descending into armed struggle,” she said during a debate on protecting civilians in armed conflict. Echoing her sentiments, Feltman urged Syria’s opposition Wednesday to stick to peaceful methods.
“We urge the opposition, and our regional allies, to continue to reject violence. To do so otherwise would, frankly, make the regime’s job of brutal repression easier,” said Feltman.

When will the “Ship-Jumping” phase begin in Syria?
09/11/2011
By Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Al-Awsat
The Syrian revolution has been characterized by different attributes, especially after events in other Arab countries which witnessed revolutions and were labeled as part of the “Arab Spring”. However, the situation in Syria also poses many confusing questions in relation to the outside world which is monitoring it; either with admiration or concern, and we feel that there are many hidden variables which those inside Syria cannot see either.
Syria, without doubt, comes under the category of the “Arab Spring” with its popular uprising that has been ongoing for over 8 months with amazing resolution. At the beginning, the Syrian President believed that the storm in both Tunisia and Egypt was warranted and he lent his support, believing that the Syrian situation was different. He considered Syria to be a state of opposition and resistance, alongside other such terms which the people had grown tired of and discovered they were false. Certainly, just as what happened in Tunisia gave the demonstrators in Egypt’s Tahrir Square moral momentum, the latter events gave the moral impetus to the Syrians that change was indeed possible. We can bet that al-Assad now wishes that Mubarak or Ben Ali were still in power. Rhetoric is one thing, but confronting your people who are simply seeking a better life is another, and therefore Damascus, officially speaking, stood by Gaddafi until the last moment.
But the Syrian people’s uprising took on another dimension that brought with it puzzling questions, unlike Tunisia and Egypt, where the respective army establishments refused to fire upon their own people. The situation was different in Syria, where the army, or at least a sector of it, was directly affiliated to the ruling regime, a situation which has led to the bloodbath we have seen. While we see scenes of tanks entering the cities and giving the impression that the regime is waging war on its own people, the Syrians have continued their uprising until this day with courage and steadfastness that has drawn global admiration. They have given the world a different picture of Syria, away from the original belief that its population was passive and dormant. The world has been surprised to see people uprising and struggling resolutely in order to gain their freedom, despite the magnitude of the price they have paid.
Because the structure of the regime in Syria resembles the iron-fist communist regimes of the 1960s and 1970s before the fall of the Berlin wall, much of what goes on is not understood or known in the outside world. For many months the issue of the Syrian revolutionaries insisting on coming out to protest day after day remained puzzling; no one knew who these people were or how they organized themselves, and why they were so resolute in their confrontation with all manners of suppression from the Shabiha to the intelligence services, and even tanks. This was until some faces of the opposition became known and were branded as the coordinators of the spreading revolution.
Those in Syria who insisted on getting their message across to the world through their videos, slogans, and banners have excelled in doing so. However, they were less fortunate than their counterparts in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, as for some reason there was a period of hesitation before they gained support, and this is one of the most puzzling questions. The Security Council has so far failed to pass any form of resolution, and opportunities granted one after the other, both regionally and internationally, for the regime to save itself have been of no benefit. The most recent of these was the Arab League initiative, which was accepted by the Syrian regime, but nothing changed on the ground.
In spite of the international and regional impatience, some continue to swallow the bait of the sectarian card that the regime has tried to level at its opponents. It has also sought to manipulate the issue of minorities feeling intimidated, as if the minority community would not benefit from the free atmosphere that would emerge as a result of changing the regime!
It is clear that the Syrian regime is under severe pressure, regionally and internationally, and all that remain are a handful of weak allies alongside Iran, which is another state that has begun to lodge veiled criticism. Of course, the regime is under intense pressure internally, for there must be groups or individuals within the regime or its institutions who believe that the current leadership is steering the whole ship towards a collision with the rocks, whereby all will drown unless they start to jump ship now. We may not be witnessing that now, but similar historical cases have all witnessed the “jump ship” phase at some point. When this happens, and perhaps soon, there will be some who think that the door is about to close, and that the regime has lost its chance, and that even if it remains it power it will become like the regime of Saddam Hussein in its final year.