LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 08/2012

Bible Quotation for today/
Saint Mark's (16/01-13) Gospel describes thoroughly what has happened with these three loyal and faithful women: "When the Sabbath was, past Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 16:2 Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. They were saying among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” for it was very big. Looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back. Entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were amazed. He said to them, “Don’t be amazed. You seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen. He is not here. Behold, the place where they laid him! But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he said to you.’” They went out, and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come on them. They said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid. Now when he had risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.  When they heard that he was alive, and had been seen by her, they disbelieved.  After these things he was revealed in another form to two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.  They went away and told it to the rest. They didn’t believe them, either."

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Nor do we want a “Sheikh” Lavrov/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/April 07/12
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Pursues a Political Monopoly/By Eric Trager/Washington Institute/April 07/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for April 07/12
Exclusive: What were the six points Obama sent Khamenei through Erdogan?
Report: Israel threatens to strike militants if Egypt fails to secure Sinai
Egypt army launches crackdown on north Sinai terror groups
Muslim Brotherhood: We will not put Egypt-Israel peace treaty to referendum
IDF strikes Gaza militants about to fire rockets into Israel
Gaza's Islamic Jihad: We are commited to cease-fire with Israel
U.K. court annuls deportation of Israeli Arab Muslim leader
Erdogan: Turkey will take 'steps' if Syria disregards ceasefire deadline
Report: U.S., Israel helped train Iranian dissidents
Iran can produce nuclear weapons, but will never do so, says top lawmaker
US not backing off as Iran sanctions bite
Violence dims Syria truce hopes, over 100 killed
Lebanon-Syria border bus attack kills 7, wounds 21
March 14 leaders stay away from Bkirki’s Good Friday Mass
Telecoms Ministry, Geagea feud over data
No takers for electoral reform despite debate
Jumblatt backs down on proportional representation
Raad Criticizes Exaggeration of Events, Calls for Dialogue
MP Geagea Hits Back at Raad, Says Assassinations Could Target the March 8 Forces
Hariri Denies al-Manar Report Qoreitem Mansion Sold
Charbel: Proportional Representation Law is Fairer
Row on Telecom Data Threatens Sehnaoui’s Seat in Cabinet
Lebanon Fears Enraging West over Deportation of Syrian Refugees
Mikati holds official meeting with Italian PM
Soueid says won’t attend Bkirki’s Easter Mass
Kataeb to participate in Bkirki’s Easter Mass, says MP
Salafist Seeking Egypt Presidency Looks Set to be Barred

Soueid says won’t attend Bkirki’s Easter Mass
April 7, 2012 /March 14 General Secretariat Coordinator Fares Soueid said on Saturday that he “will not attend” the Easter Sunday Mass in Bkirki presided by Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai. “I will not attend [the Mass] because there is divergence of views [between me and] the Patriarch which relate in general to political views,” Soueid told New TV television. Rai’s statement that Syria was the closest thing to democracy in the Arab world sparked criticism from March 14 figures. He added that the disagreement with Rai became worse when “Rai did not get in touch with Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea” after the assassination attempt against him. On Wednesday, snipers targeted Geagea outside his Maarab residence in the district of Kesrouan, but failed to hit him.
-NOW Lebanon

Kataeb to participate in Bkirki’s Easter Mass, says MP
April 7, 2012 /Kataeb bloc MP Fadi al-Haber told MTV television on Saturday that his party “will be represented” in the Easter Sunday Mass in Bkirki presided by Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai. “The party will be represented at the Bkirki Mass on Sunday by a big delegation headed by its leader Amin Gemayel,” Haber said. He added that Bkirki, the chair of the patriarchate, was a “Christian and national reference” and that the Kataeb “will not boycott it.”Rai said in March that Syria was the closest thing to democracy in the Arab world, sparking criticism among March 14 figures.
-NOW Lebanon

Lebanon-Syria border bus attack kills 7, wounds 21
April 07, 2012/The Daily Star
A Syrian army position is seen set on the Syrian side across from the Lebanese eastern border village of Masharih al-Qaa, Lebanon, Friday, Oct. 21, 2011. (The Daily Star/Nidal Solh)  Al-QAA, Lebanon: Seven people were killed, including a Lebanese man and members of Syrian General Security, and 21 others were wounded Saturday after a bus carrying pilgrims was struck by a mortar bomb while undergoing inspection on the Syrian side of the border with Lebanon. The Lebanese victim of Saturday’s incident was identified as Mohammad al-Tala, who, along with another member of the bus, was on his way to Iraq on a Shiite pilgrimage, according to Lebanese security sources. The five other victims were members of Syrian General Security who were inspecting the vehicle that had earlier passed through the east Lebanon border crossing of Jouesiyeh. Four Syrian and seven Lebanese pilgrims were among the wounded, who were transported to three hospitals in Lebanon.
The sources said the vast majority of the passengers were Lebanese from the Hermel region and that they had been on their way to Iraq on a Shiite pilgrimage.

Nor do we want a “Sheikh” Lavrov
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
On 21 March, 2012, Russian Foreign Minister [Sergey Lavrov] warned that some countries in the region will want to establish Sunni rule in Syria following the fall of the tyrant of Damascus. This statement raised a storm in the Arab world, and I dubbed it a “gaffe” in my op-ed “Mullah Lavrov” published on 22 March, whilst the Russians, of course, raised an “official” objection to this article!
However today, nearly two weeks after Larvov’s statement, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken action to address this dangerous statement about Sunni rule in Syria, with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov saying that Lavrov’s statement “was taken out of context and misunderstood” adding that those who live in Russia are well aware that “the majority of Muslims in Russia are Sunni!”In reality, it is well-known that the majority of Muslims in Russia are Sunni. I was personally part of a delegation that accompanied current Saudi Minister of Defense Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz – then Governor of Riyadh – during one of his visits to Moscow. I heard him, first-hand, addressing a delegation of Russia’s Muslims, during which he called on them to be citizens who respect their country and its laws, and to avoid listening to any external voices, adding that their strength lies in their commitment to their country. Therefore it is well-known that the majority of Russia’s Muslims are Sunni, however the resentment over Lavrov’s comments was not just in defense of the Sunnis; what is required is not for the Russian foreign minister to become “Sheikh Lavrov” instead of “Mullah Lavrov”, rather what is required is simpler and more important than this!
What is required is for Russia, and particularly its politicians – including Lavrov – to care about the innocent Syrian blood that is being shed, for these innocent Syrian people have done nothing wrong except to reject the rule of al-Assad the tyrant. What is required from Moscow is for it to cease defending a killer, who has slaughtered more than 10,000 Syrians, whilst also being responsible for the detention of close to 50,000 Syrians, not to mention thousands of refugees! It is not required that Moscow become the champion of the Sunnis, for the majority of those who criticized Lavrov’s statement against the Sunnis – which contrary to the claims of the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, was clear and not taken out of context – were not supporters of sectarianism or those obsessed with defending the Sunnis, rather their intention was to stop the al-Assad regime’s killing machine and protect all of Syria, and this is something that can only be achieved by the ouster of the al-Assad regime. This is the same al-Assad regime whose victims include members of all communities and sects, whether in Iraq, Lebanon, or within Syria itself.
What Moscow, and particularly the decision-makers there, are unaware of today, is that if Russia were a partner in the Arab stock market, they would have been declared bankrupt thanks to the deterioration of its reputation and the hatred felt by the Arab world towards it. If the US veto in the interests of Israel had harmed Washington, then the Russian veto to protect al-Assad the tyrant has caused Moscow’s stock to drop completely throughout the Arab world. This appears to be something that Moscow is yet to grasp, but there can be no doubt that the Russians will ultimately pay the price for this.
Therefore whilst we criticized “Mullah Lavrov”, this does not mean that we want him to become “Sheikh Lavrov”, rather all that is requires is for Russia to halt its defense of Bashar al-Assad, the tyrant and killer of children. This is not a Sunni/Shiite issue whatsoever, for we want to protect the fabric of the Syrian state, even more than the Russians do!
 

The Muslim Brotherhood‏
Farid Ghadry
The subject of the Muslim Brotherhood intent on ruling in Syria has been the single most damaging issue to save Assad. It happened during the times I led the Syrian opposition in 2003-2006 and it is happening now. Every time there is a golden opportunity to save Syria from Assad, the MB blows it for us because they think their 5% support inside Syria gives them the right to govern 100% of Muslims.
The video of Bayanouni, taken secretly, saying Ghalioun is their front has damaged our work once again. During my time, they did it by instigating the Syrian opposition against a US-backed Syrian opposition. One cannot name one Syrian oppositionist today who stands for US values in the SNC. They issued a PR during my trip to Israel, which is based on exactly the opposite of what I said to further undermine freedom for Syria. Today, they have been promised a role, by Erdogan, in a new Syrian government and have thrown everyone to the wolves just to get their wish.
This is a subject worth researching and writing about widely in Arabic to show the Islamists are reason No. 1 we cannot free Syria. To them, Syria is about them and not the rest of us.

March 14 leaders stay away from Bkirki’s Good Friday Mass
April 07, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Politics played a role in Good Friday celebrations in Bkirki Friday, with politicians from the March 14 coalition opting not to attend. The services were attended by a number of other politicians, including Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun and ministers from Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s government. Sources in Bkirki told The Daily Star that it remained unclear as to whether March 14 politicians would attend Easter Sunday services. “Bkirki does not send official invitations, and that’s why it is not possible to know who is attending ... but none of the March 14 politicians attended the Good Friday ceremony,” said the source.Relations between Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai and March 14 have frayed since Rai made controversial statements on the ongoing developments in the Arab world.
In an interview with Reuters, Rai warned earlier this year that violence and bloodshed are turning the Arab Spring into a winter, and that the violence was threatening Christians and Muslims alike across the Middle East. In response to Rai, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said that he opposed any patriarch that defends the Syrian regime.
Although no official boycott of Bkirki has been announced by the March 14 coalition, MPs and politicians from the coalition are not expected to attend Easter mass. In an interview with Future News, Batroun MP Butros Harb said he would be staying away Sunday because of the “misunderstanding” between Bkirki and Christian March 14 politicians.“There is no decision to boycott Bkirki, but there is a misunderstanding between March 14’s Christians and Patriarch Beshara Rai,” Harb said. Speaking during Good Friday mass at Bkirki, Rai called on officials to commit to public service and stay away from corruption. “Everyone is called on today to stand away from corruption and from exploiting power for private purposes and partisan gain,” said Rai, during his second Good Friday sermon since becoming patriarch. “We ask Jesus for peace in the world and in our homeland, particularly the countries in the Arab world that seek to live in dignity and enjoy personal freedom, and desire democratic governments that respect the dignity of every human,” the patriarch said.Also to mark Good Friday, President Michel Sleiman and First Lady Wafaa Sleiman attended mass at the Holy Spirit University in Kaslik.
The mass was attended by a number of officials, including the Vatican’s ambassador to Lebanon, William Levada.

Telecoms Ministry, Geagea feud over data
April 07, 2012/By Hussein Dakroub The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The Telecommunications Ministry has turned down repeated requests to provide security services with telephone communications information on the pretext of protecting the people’s privacy, security sources said Friday, as the Lebanese Forces warned of more assassination attempts unless telecoms data was made available.
The row over the so-called “telecoms data,” which enables the tracking of telephone communications, raged as the country was rattled by an abortive attempt to assassinate LF leader Samir Geagea in an incident that has heightened fears of a return to a wave of political assassinations.
“Security services have made several requests to the Telecommunications Ministry for telecoms data since Jan. 15, including a request this week following the attempt to assassinate Dr. Samir Geagea,” a senior security source told The Daily Star Friday.
“But there has been no answer from the Telecommunications Ministry to these requests. This means the requests have been rejected,” the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.
The source added that Telecommunications Minister Nicolas Sehnaoui has referred the requests to a high-level judicial committee that can decide on these requests.
“But the judicial committee argues that it cannot decide before the wiretapping command center begins operating,” the source said. He added that the wiretapping center, established at the Telecommunications Ministry building late last year, has yet to be furnished with the necessary equipment. The center includes representatives of all security bodies in order to protect citizens from privacy violations.
The source warned of the consequences of withholding telecoms data from the country’s security services.
“Withholding telecoms data amounts to closing the eyes of security personnel on their job during this delicate and sensitive stage,” the source said. “Telecoms data helps security services ensure preventive security.”
Another security source said the telecoms data request had been made by the Internal Security Forces’ Information Branch at the request of the Prosecutor General’s office.
“The Telecommunications Ministry has turned down the request on the pretext that providing telecoms data would infringe on people’s privacy,” the source said.
Sehnaoui, who was at the center of a heated controversy in January for refusing to provide security services with telephone communications information, was not reachable when The Daily Star tried to contact him Friday.But in an interview with Al-Jadeed TV Friday, Sehnaoui acknowledged withholding telecoms data in the interest of protecting people’s privacy.
“The [Telecoms] Ministry can’t provide anyone with all of this data, which covers around 3 million [phone] subscribers, because this would mean an infringement on individual freedom,” Sehnaoui said. He added that the Cabinet had decided on Jan. 27 that telecoms data could be released after a decision by a judicial committee made up of the country’s three top judges.
In another interview with MTV Friday night, Sehnaoui said: “I am not withholding information. We receive nearly 300 requests per month. The decision [to withhold data] was taken by the Cabinet.”
Earlier in January, leaks of an alleged plot to assassinate a high-level security official, possibly the head of the ISF’s Information Branch, Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, highlighted the issue of telecoms data. Security bodies, including the ISF’s Information Branch, Army Intelligence and General Security, used to acquire all the data from the Telecoms Ministry. The data usually includes the location of a caller and his movements.
Meanwhile, investigations continued in the alleged attempt to kill Geagea while security forces continued combing the woods around the LF leader’s residence in Maarab in search of clues. “The investigation is continuing in a professional fashion in an attempt to determine the number and identity of the perpetrators,” a senior judicial source told The Daily Star. Asked whether the judiciary had asked for telecoms data from the Telecoms Ministry, the source said: “All measures are being taken to reach clues and apprehend the culprits.”
Meanwhile, the LF warned of more assassination attempts unless telecoms data was made available to security services. The LF’s Central Council met under Geagea Thursday to discuss the circumstances surrounding the shooting attempt.
“Lebanon might be entering a very dangerous crossroads. Whoever carried out this criminal and highly professional attempt [against Geagea] will not hesitate to carry out other attempts and in other ways,” said an LF statement released Friday. It added that such attacks came because the perpetrators were in disarray. “[Their] mental state is collapsing day after day in the face of God, and the steadfastness of the young people” in Lebanon and the Arab world, the statement said, referring to pro-democracy popular upheavals in the Arab world.
The LF participants asked about the connection between the alleged attempt on Geagea’s life and withholding telecoms data from security services, including the army and security forces, since Jan. 15. “Some participants asked: ‘Doesn’t withholding telecoms data, intentionally or unintentionally, facilitate the perpetrators’ mission?’” the statement said.
Geagea said Wednesday he had escaped an assassination attempt when a sniper fired at his residence in Maarab in Kesrouan, warning that the political killings of the last decade had not ended. He added that the incident had required expertise, claiming that the shots had been fired a few kilometers from the target site.
“The terrorist attempt was not only to assassinate a person or strike a party. It was also directed against a policy of resistance against tyranny. Therefore, it is directed against freedoms in Lebanon and its democratic system,” he said.
Meanwhile, the U.S. said it suspected Geagea’s attempted assassination may have been due to his criticism of Syrian President Bashar Assad and Hezbollah.
“While we do not know who was behind the attack at this time, we are deeply concerned that Mr. Geagea may have been targeted because of his outspoken criticism of the Assad regime’s murderous repression and [Hezbollah]’s destabilizing actions in Lebanon,” U.S. State Department spokesperson Mark Toner said in a statement.
Toner added that the U.S. condemned in the strongest terms what appeared to be an assassination attempt on the LF leader, calling on the government of Lebanon to thoroughly investigate the incident.
“Lebanon and the international community have sought to bring about an end to impunity for political assassinations with the 2009 establishment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to investigate the assassinations of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and other public figures from 2004 to 2007,” the U.S. statement added.
Geagea, a leading figure in the opposition March 14 coalition, is an outspoken critic of the Syrian regime and its ally, Hezbollah, which dominates the government. Geagea has accused Hezbollah of destabilizing the country by insisting on keeping its arsenal. – With additional reporting by Youssef Diab

Exclusive: What were the six points Obama sent Khamenei through Erdogan?
DEBKAfile DEBKA-Net-Weekly April 7, 2012,
After a two-hour, 15-minute conversation with US President Barack Obama in Seoul on March 25, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan undertook to fly to Tehran and personally hand Obama’s six-point message to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The note, which laid out the American position for the nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers that were scheduled to open in Istanbul on April 13, was delivered on March 29. debkafile’s Iranian sources report that the exercise was not a success. The Iranian leader has not replied to the US president’s communication up until the present. Instead, in the past week, Tehran has turned its guns on Prime Minister Erdogan and refused to accept Turkey as venue for the nuclear talks.
Washington has explained this setback by a controversy among heads of the regime in Tehran over the US President’s six points. Our Iranian sources strongly doubt this since, quite simply, the Islamic regime is a one-man show. Khamenei makes the decisions and he has clearly decided not to send a reply. DEBKA-Net-Weekly 535 of March 29 was the first world publication to reveal the content of Obama’s six-point message to Khamenei. That is now revealed here for the benefit of debkafile’s readers:
1. Tehran must come to the talks ready to show it is seriously and genuinely open to a compromise deal on its nuclear program;
2. A negative attitude on Iran’s part would result in President Obama merging the back-channel US-Iranian dialogue with the formal diplomatic negotiating track. (DEBKA-Net-Weekly 534 reported on March 22 that Washington was satisfied with the secret talks it has been conducting with Tehran and was ready to wind down sanctions.)
He asked the Turkish prime minister to inform the Supreme Leader that the Russian and Chinese presidents, Hu Jintao and Dmitry Medvedev, had agreed to go along with this position if Khamenei found it acceptable.
3. Any deal would require a commitment from Khamenei to freeze – though not dismantle - all aspects of Iran’s nuclear program from the moment an accord was reached. No new projects must be initiated and all progress arrested.
For example: The centrifuges already functioning in the Fordo underground plant near Qom must not be expanded; research on nuclear weapons and the construction of models be discontinued; and the transition of uranium enrichment from 3.5 percent grade to 20 percent halted.
The entire program would remain frozen in place.
4. President Obama asked Erdogan to convey a personal message from him to the Iranian leader:
He was favorably impressed with the ayatollah’s comments in the New Year speech he broadcast live on state television Tuesday, March 20: “We do not have nuclear weapons and we will not build them,” said the ayatollah. “But in the face of aggression from enemies, whether from America or the Zionist regime, we will defend ourselves with attacks on the same level as our enemies attack us.”
Obama also responded to another Khamenei remark. Addressing thousands of pilgrims gathered at the Imam Reza Shrine in Mashhad, the Supreme Leader said: “The Americans are making a grave mistake if they think that by making threats they will destroy the Iranian nation.”
To this, the US President answered that neither he nor America entertained any such intention.
5. Tehran must change the hostile anti-US tone of its speeches and publications and stop calling America an enemy and the Great Satan. In place of antipathy, Obama would deeply appreciate a series of helpful comments coming from Iranian leaders and news reports out of Tehran, especially if they highlighted an improved Islamic Republican attitude towards the United States as a result of his administration’s polices.
Erdogan was asked to hold up as an example of the sort of remark Obama had in mind the words of praise Khamenei offered President Obama on March 8, “for promoting diplomacy rather than war” as a solution to Tehran’s nuclear ambition.
More of this sort of rhetoric would be welcome, the Turkish prime minister was directed to inform Tehran.
The US presidential campaign was never mentioned, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s sources note. However, the rewards accruing to Tehran from extending a helping hand for Obama’s reelection were evident in the subtext.
Benign Iranian references to America would allow Obama to credit his foreign policy with kudos for an important breakthrough to the Islamic Republic. The improved climate surrounding relations would reduce the hazards of a war being launched against Iran. By helping to get him returned for a second term, Tehran would find the US president ready to pursue policies agreed between him and Khamenei in the course of their secret dialogue.
6. Erdogan was asked to explain the US President’s strategy of drawing a close linkage between the shifts in US policy on Iran and its nuclear program, on the one hand, and the Syrian crisis, on the other. This approach had guided Obama’s hand in his thus far successful moves to block Muslim-Arab-Western military intervention in Syria.
The US president believes that a coalition working on the Syrian crisis, composed of Washington, Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and the United Nations (the UN and Arab League envoy former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was mentioned in this regard) could be equally successful in resolving the Iranian nuclear controversy.
 

US not backing off as Iran sanctions bite
Top Administration official believes Iran is taking notice of growing sanctions, bite has been swift on the oil trade
Reuters/Ynet Published: 04.06.12/
The Obama administration's man in charge of squeezing Tehran over its nuclear program is unapologetic for the difficulties faced by banks in their dealings with Iran since the US tightened sanctions against the country. Companies that trade with Iran are struggling to get paid and the biggest Asian countries are scrambling to work around US sanctions that aim to deprive Tehran of revenue needed to develop its nuclear program. "I don't feel apologetic about it because that is the consequence of these banks in Iran willingly facilitating transactions for Iran's nuclear programs," said David Cohen, undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the US Treasury Department. "If they are going to do that, they shouldn't be accessible to the international financial system. They shouldn't be financial institutions that any reputable bank wants to deal with," Cohen said in an interview. The pressure has forced Iran to listen to US demands, he said. "Do we think we have the attention of the leadership on their end? We have it like never before," he added. Cohen's comments were a strong display of administration confidence in the measures against Iran, even as their effects have rippled through the marketplace faster than many had expected. J.P. Morgan warned on Thursday of an acceleration of Iranian oil cutbacks, predicting Iranian supplies could be slashed by one million barrels a day in the first of the year. Since January, the price of oil has shot up nearly 15 percent. The White House has not yet stated its position on proposed new bipartisan Iran sanctions legislation in the United States that would target Iran's main oil and tanker companies, as well as tighten up other loopholes. Mindful of the potential to cause more uncertainty over supply and push world oil prices higher, some senators are seeking amendments to the new sanctions package to assure insurers of allowed oil shipments that they will not be stung by sanctions.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid so far has said he does not want to allow the package to be amended.
Not a hermetic seal
US entities have been prohibited from working with Iran for years. But what Washington and its allies see as signs that Iran is closer to getting atomic weapons and unleashing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East have triggered Washington to increase the heat on the country. Tehran says its nuclear activities are peaceful.
Over the past three months, Cohen and other top Obama administration officials convinced Europe to impose similar sanctions on Iran's main recipient of oil payments, the Central Bank of Iran. The administration, as well, has been twisting arms trying to get Iran's biggest oil buyers, China, India, Japan and South Korea, to stop relying on Iranian crude.
The current US sanctions allow President Barack Obama to block foreign financial firms from US markets if they continue to deal with Iran's central bank starting June 28. However, if countries manage to reduce their Iranian oil imports, they can win exemptions from the US law so that their banks are not barred from the US financial system.
Despite the looming sanction deadlines, countries and companies have managed to do some business with Iran - a provision that the Obama administration defends.
"I don't think the measure of an effective sanctions program is that it creates a hermetic seal through which nothing permeates," said Cohen. "The fact that they are still selling some oil, I would not chalk that up to a failure of the sanctions program," he said.
Cohen said the question should be whether Iran was able to make use of the revenue that it earns from its oil sales rather than whether it was profiting from crude exports.
"It is increasingly difficult for Iran to make use of, or to get access to the funds that it is earning from its oil sales," he said.
Currently the exemptions, which the State Department granted late last month to Japan and 10 countries in the European Union, apply only to banks.
Fearing an oil crisis, where supply disruptions spark prices sharply higher, some of the most ardent supporters of Iran sanctions, who include a number of Republicans and some Democrats, are urging the administration to give energy companies similar relief.
A bipartisan bill introduced last month in the House of Representatives would extend those exemptions to oil traders, insurers and re-insurers and others in the energy business. The legislation would encourage companies not to shy away from deals that are allowed under US law.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Pursues a Political Monopoly
By Eric Trager/Washington Institute
The Muslim Brotherhood's presidential reversal highlights the group's dictatorial internal structure and power-hungry ambitions, both of which will exacerbate Egypt's political instability.
On Saturday, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) announced the nomination of Deputy Supreme Guide Khairat al-Shater for president, cementing a critical shift in its political strategy. Although the group initially tried to manage Egypt's post-Mubarak transition by cooperating with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and secularist parties, it is now pursuing outright political dominance. The MB's reversal of its oft-repeated pledge not to run a presidential candidate also suggests that it cannot be trusted if it decides there is an advantage to be won. More broadly, the Brotherhood's pursuit of a political monopoly undermines prospects for democracy in Egypt and threatens to intensify political instability -- a scenario that should deeply alarm U.S. policymakers.
COOPERATIVE FACADE CRUMBLES
Following President Hosni Mubarak's February 2011 ouster, the MB sought to allay secularist fears of an Islamist takeover by adopting a cooperative political approach and tempering its pursuit of power. Specifically, the Brotherhood made two promises: that it would contest fewer than half of the seats in eventual parliamentary elections, and that it would not run for the presidency. In June 2011, it emphasized its commitment to cooperation by joining the secularist Wafd Party in creating the National Democratic Alliance for Egypt, an electoral coalition that, at its height, included forty-three parties.
This cooperative approach was a facade, however. In October, the MB reportedly insisted that 40 percent of the Democratic Alliance's parliamentary candidates come from its own ranks, catalyzing the defection of thirty parties, including the Wafd. Shortly thereafter, the Brotherhood backtracked on its first promise, ultimately running for at least 77 percent of the seats in parliamentary elections that concluded this January. Then, after winning a 47 percent plurality in those elections, the MB ensured its dominance over the legislature by appointing Brotherhood-aligned chairs to fourteen of nineteen parliamentary committees.
Last month, the MB further alienated secularist parties by monopolizing the legislatively appointed Constituent Assembly, which will write Egypt's next constitution. MB political leader and parliamentary speaker Saad al-Katatni was named chairman of the assembly, and approximately 65 of the body's 100 members are affiliated with Islamist parties, including 27 Brotherhood and 12 Salafist parliamentarians. By contrast, only 16 seats were reserved for secularists, 5 for Christians, and 6 for women.
The Brotherhood's actions have catalyzed a significant political crisis. When the Constituent Assembly's first session opened on March 28, twenty-five members had already resigned in protest, and representatives from al-Azhar and the Coptic Orthodox Church resigned shortly thereafter. The MB has shown little willingness to make the body more inclusive of non-Islamists. Indeed, Brotherhood parliamentarian Subhi Saleh lashed out at the resignations, declaring that the assembly would not "fall hostage to the dictatorship of the minority."
Meanwhile, prominent lawyers filed suit against the assembly, arguing that the inclusion of parliamentarians in such a body is unconstitutional; a verdict is due April 10. If the current Constituent Assembly is not invalidated, Egypt's next constitution will lack legitimacy with a significant portion of the voting public -- a situation that will undermine attempts at establishing a culture of legal rationalism.
THE DEMISE OF BROTHERHOOD-SCAF DETENTE
The MB's cooperation with the SCAF proved only slightly more durable. The group's February 2011 promise not to run a presidential candidate was, in part, a vow not to contest the junta's executive authority, which the Brotherhood feared might invite an Algeria-like crackdown. The MB further reassured the SCAF by helping to draft proposed constitutional amendments that contained the council's program for political transition, and by endorsing those measures in a March 2011 referendum. When pro-democracy activists later stepped up their protests against the SCAF's repressive rule, the Brotherhood mostly stood aside and minimized its own criticisms of the junta.
This detente seemingly solidified following the Brotherhood's parliamentary victory, when the group appointed a former general to chair the sensitive Defense and National Security Committee. The MB also used its legislative preponderance to discourage criticism of the council, such as by investigating a secularist parliamentarian for allegedly insulting SCAF chair Field Marshal Muhammad Hussein Tantawi.
The relationship soured last month, however, when parliament demanded the dismissal of the SCAF-appointed government for lifting travel bans on American pro-democracy NGO workers. By implicitly challenging the council's executive power, which includes the power to appoint the government, the legislature exceeded its constitutional authority; in response, rumors surfaced that the SCAF might challenge the parliament's constitutional legitimacy. A war of words soon broke out: the MB accused the SCAF of trying to "abort the revolution," while the council insinuated that it might crack down on the Brotherhood as the military did under Gamal Abdul Nasser in 1954.
The MB's nomination of Shater for president is a further escalation of this conflict, since it openly contests the SCAF's executive power. In a statement announcing the decision, the Brotherhood accused the council of disrupting the parliament's work, pressuring parties to leave the Constituent Assembly, and attempting to run a presidential candidate who would resurrect autocracy. Given the SCAF's political and economic stake in the dispute and its record of repressing other critics, the confrontation threatens to destabilize Egypt's already tenuous political environment.
IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY
By reneging on two oft-repeated political promises, the Brotherhood has exposed its true aims. Its foremost priority is dominating Egyptian politics, and any assurances that it makes to the contrary cannot be trusted. Moreover, Western observers were not alone in being surprised by Shater's nomination -- even midlevel MB officials were caught off guard, which suggests that decisionmaking remains concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of top Brotherhood leaders.
Three potential scenarios show the danger inherent in the MB's dictatorial internal structure and power-hungry ambitions. First, if Shater wins the presidential election currently scheduled for late May, an emboldened Brotherhood would likely push harder for the military to relinquish many of its perquisites (e.g., budgetary autonomy and control over major industries), which could set the stage for a violent showdown. An MB political monopoly would also invite intensified protests from secularists, who are already accusing the Brotherhood of behaving like Mubarak's former ruling party. Meanwhile, the group would no doubt use its dominant position to carry out an oppressive theocratic agenda (e.g., repealing the ban on female genital mutilation, as one female MB parliamentarian recently advocated), which would exacerbate domestic tensions.
Alternatively, if Shater loses to a SCAF-backed candidate, the Brotherhood would likely contend that the voting was fraudulent (in fact, the MB is already accusing the council of planning to steal the election). In this scenario, the group could use its parliamentary dominance to undermine the legitimacy of both the presidency and the military, causing an extended political crisis.
Shater could also lose to Salafist presidential candidate Hazem Abu Ismail. In this case, Egypt would effectively become a competitive theocracy, alienating non-Islamists and spurring them to either challenge the new regime's legitimacy or emigrate.
To be sure, other scenarios are possible. Yet it is difficult to imagine one in which the Brotherhood's pursuit of political monopoly enhances the country's prospects for stability, given the group's exclusivist ideology and determination to dominate. Egypt is facing a severe economic crisis and could go bankrupt later this year. A perpetual MB-SCAF power struggle might therefore turn the impoverished country of 80 million people into a failed state. For Washington, this would be the worst scenario, endangering efforts to achieve America's three primary interests in Egypt: strategic cooperation, political pluralism, and regional peace.
At the same time, consolidating legislative and executive power will make it increasingly difficult for the Brotherhood to escape domestic political responsibility. This presents an important policy opportunity for Washington. As the MB inevitably looks abroad for help, Washington can condition its willingness to ensure Egypt's economic future on the Brotherhood's behavior. Specifically, the Obama administration should work with international allies to develop a credible economic aid package that would be dispersed incrementally, and only so long as the Brotherhood acts responsibly and helps in developing more-inclusive political institutions. Washington should use military aid in a similar fashion to hold the SCAF accountable.
**Eric Trager, The Washington Institute's Ira Weiner fellow, is a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Pennsylvania, where he is writing his dissertation on Egyptian opposition parties.

Question: "Why should I believe in Christ’s resurrection?"
question. com: Answer: It is a fairly well-established fact that Jesus Christ was publicly executed in Judea in the 1st Century A.D., under Pontius Pilate, by means of crucifixion, at the behest of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The non-Christian historical accounts of Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Maimonides and even the Jewish Sanhedrin corroborate the early Christian eyewitness accounts of these important historical aspects of the death of Jesus Christ.
As for His resurrection, there are several lines of evidence which make for a compelling case. The late jurisprudential prodigy and international statesman Sir Lionel Luckhoo (of The Guinness Book of World Records fame for his unprecedented 245 consecutive defense murder trial acquittals) epitomized Christian enthusiasm and confidence in the strength of the case for the resurrection when he wrote, “I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”
The secular community’s response to the same evidence has been predictably apathetic in accordance with their steadfast commitment to methodological naturalism. For those unfamiliar with the term, methodological naturalism is the human endeavor of explaining everything in terms of natural causes and natural causes only. If an alleged historical event defies natural explanation (e.g., a miraculous resurrection), secular scholars generally treat it with overwhelming skepticism, regardless of the evidence, no matter how favorable and compelling it may be.
In our view, such an unwavering allegiance to natural causes regardless of substantive evidence to the contrary is not conducive to an impartial (and therefore adequate) investigation of the evidence. We agree with Dr. Wernher von Braun and numerous others who still believe that forcing a popular philosophical predisposition upon the evidence hinders objectivity. Or in the words of Dr. von Braun, “To be forced to believe only one conclusion… would violate the very objectivity of science itself.”
Having said that, let us now examine the several lines of evidence which favor of the resurrection.
The First Line of Evidence for Christ's resurrection
To begin with, we have demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony. Early Christian apologists cited hundreds of eyewitnesses, some of whom documented their own alleged experiences. Many of these eyewitnesses willfully and resolutely endured prolonged torture and death rather than repudiate their testimony. This fact attests to their sincerity, ruling out deception on their part. According to the historical record (The Book of Acts 4:1-17; Pliny’s Letters to Trajan X, 96, etc) most Christians could end their suffering simply by renouncing the faith. Instead, it seems that most opted to endure the suffering and proclaim Christ’s resurrection unto death.
Granted, while martyrdom is remarkable, it is not necessarily compelling. It does not validate a belief so much as it authenticates a believer (by demonstrating his or her sincerity in a tangible way). What makes the earliest Christian martyrs remarkable is that they knew whether or not what they were professing was true. They either saw Jesus Christ alive-and-well after His death or they did not. This is extraordinary. If it was all just a lie, why would so many perpetuate it given their circumstances? Why would they all knowingly cling to such an unprofitable lie in the face of persecution, imprisonment, torture, and death?
While the September 11, 2001, suicide hijackers undoubtedly believed what they professed (as evidenced by their willingness to die for it), they could not and did not know if it was true. They put their faith in traditions passed down to them over many generations. In contrast, the early Christian martyrs were the first generation. Either they saw what they claimed to see, or they did not.
Among the most illustrious of the professed eyewitnesses were the Apostles. They collectively underwent an undeniable change following the alleged post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Immediately following His crucifixion, they hid in fear for their lives. Following the resurrection they took to the streets, boldly proclaiming the resurrection despite intensifying persecution. What accounts for their sudden and dramatic change? It certainly was not financial gain. The Apostles gave up everything they had to preach the resurrection, including their lives.
The Second Line of Evidence for Christ's resurrection
A second line of evidence concerns the conversion of certain key skeptics, most notably Paul and James. Paul was of his own admission a violent persecutor of the early Church. After what he described as an encounter with the resurrected Christ, Paul underwent an immediate and drastic change from a vicious persecutor of the Church to one of its most prolific and selfless defenders. Like many early Christians, Paul suffered impoverishment, persecution, beatings, imprisonment, and execution for his steadfast commitment to Christ’s resurrection.
James was skeptical, though not as hostile as Paul. A purported post-resurrection encounter with Christ turned him into an inimitable believer, a leader of the Church in Jerusalem. We still have what scholars generally accept to be one of his letters to the early Church. Like Paul, James willingly suffered and died for his testimony, a fact which attests to the sincerity of his belief (see The Book of Acts and Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews XX, ix, 1).
The Third and Fourth Lines of Evidence for Christ's resurrection
A third line and fourth line of evidence concern enemy attestation to the empty tomb and the fact that faith in the resurrection took root in Jerusalem. Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem. It would have been impossible for faith in His resurrection to take root in Jerusalem while His body was still in the tomb where the Sanhedrin could exhume it, put it on public display, and thereby expose the hoax. Instead, the Sanhedrin accused the disciples of stealing the body, apparently in an effort to explain its disappearance (and therefore an empty tomb). How do we explain the fact of the empty tomb? Here are the three most common explanations:
First, the disciples stole the body. If this were the case, they would have known the resurrection was a hoax. They would not therefore have been so willing to suffer and die for it. (See the first line of evidence concerning demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony.) All of the professed eyewitnesses would have known that they hadn’t really seen Christ and were therefore lying. With so many conspirators, surely someone would have confessed, if not to end his own suffering then at least to end the suffering of his friends and family. The first generation of Christians were absolutely brutalized, especially following the conflagration in Rome in A.D. 64 (a fire which Nero allegedly ordered to make room for the expansion of his palace, but which he blamed on the Christians in Rome in an effort to exculpate himself). As the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recounted in his Annals of Imperial Rome (published just a generation after the fire):
“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.” (Annals, XV, 44)
Nero illuminated his garden parties with Christians whom he burnt alive. Surely someone would have confessed the truth under the threat of such terrible pain. The fact is, however, we have no record of any early Christian denouncing the faith to end his suffering. Instead, we have multiple accounts of post-resurrection appearances and hundreds of eyewitnesses willing to suffer and die for it.
If the disciples didn’t steal the body, how else do we explain the empty tomb? Some have suggested that Christ faked His death and later escaped from the tomb. This is patently absurd. According to the eyewitness testimony, Christ was beaten, tortured, lacerated, and stabbed. He suffered internal damage, massive blood loss, asphyxiation, and a spear through His heart. There is no good reason to believe that Jesus Christ (or any other man for that matter) could survive such an ordeal, fake His death, sit in a tomb for three days and nights without medical attention, food or water, remove the massive stone which sealed His tomb, escape undetected (without leaving behind a trail of blood), convince hundreds of eyewitnesses that He was resurrected from the death and in good health, and then disappear without a trace. Such a notion is ridiculous.
The Fifth Line of Evidence for Christ's resurrection
Finally, a fifth line of evidence concerns a peculiarity of the eyewitness testimony. In all of the major resurrection narratives, women are credited as the first and primary eyewitnesses. This would be an odd invention since in both the ancient Jewish and Roman cultures women were severely disesteemed. Their testimony was regarded as insubstantial and dismissible. Given this fact, it is highly unlikely that any perpetrators of a hoax in 1st Century Judea would elect women to be their primary witnesses. Of all the male disciples who claimed to see Jesus resurrected, if they all were lying and the resurrection was a scam, why did they pick the most ill-perceived, distrusted witnesses they could find?
Dr. William Lane Craig explains, “When you understand the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what's really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in first-century Palestine. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, 'Let the words of Law be burned rather than delivered to women' and 'blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female.' Women's testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren't even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of Law. In light of this, it's absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses to the empty tomb are these women... Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples as discovering the tomb - Peter or John, for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained by the reality that - like it or not - they were the discoverers of the empty tomb! This shows that the Gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status." (Dr. William Lane Craig, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p. 293)
In Summary
These lines of evidence: the demonstrable sincerity of the eyewitnesses (and in the Apostles’ case, compelling, inexplicable change), the conversion and demonstrable sincerity of key antagonists- and skeptics-turned-martyrs, the fact of the empty tomb, enemy attestation to the empty tomb, the fact that all of this took place in Jerusalem where faith in the resurrection began and thrived, the testimony of the women, the significance of such testimony given the historical context; all of these strongly attest to the historicity of the resurrection. We encourage our readers to thoughtfully consider these evidences. What do they suggest to you? Having pondered them ourselves, we resolutely affirm Sir Lionel’s declaration:
“The evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”
Recommended Resource: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas