LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 14/2012

Bible Quotation for today/God's Love in Christ Jesus
Roman 08/31-39: " In view of all this, what can we say? If God is for us, who can be against us? Certainly not God, who did not even keep back his own Son, but offered him for us all! He gave us his Son—will he not also freely give us all things? Who will accuse God's chosen people? God himself declares them not guilty! Who, then, will condemn them? Not Christ Jesus, who died, or rather, who was raised to life and is at the right side of God, pleading with him for us! Who, then, can separate us from the love of Christ? Can trouble do it, or hardship or persecution or hunger or poverty or danger or death? As the scripture says, For your sake we are in danger of death at all times; we are treated like sheep that are going to be slaughtered. No, in all these things we have complete victory through him who loved us! For I am certain that nothing can separate us from his love: neither death nor life, neither angels nor other heavenly rulers or powers, neither the present nor the future, neither the world above nor the world below—there is nothing in all creation that will ever be able to separate us from the love of God which is ours through Christ Jesus our Lord.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Don’t mess with a military man/By: Michael Young/April 13, 2012
The Challenge of Containing Iran's Enrichment Activities/By Simon Henderson and Olli Heinonen/April 13/12
Did al-Assad set up a buffer zone in Turkey/By Tariq Alhomayed/April 13/12
The coming remodelling of Barack Obama/By Amir Taheri/April 13/12
The Egyptian case without the dark glasses/By Ali Ibrahim/April 13/12
Bahrain on the Brink Jeopardizes U.S. Interests in the Gulf/By Simon Henderson/April 13/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for April 13/12
Orthodox Christians mark Good Friday in Jerusalem
Lebanon: Protesters demand truth in fate of Civil War missing
Geagea blames March 8 for assassination bid
Geagea Says Bid on Life Triggered by His 'Attempt to Put Christians at Heart of Arab Spring'
Lebanese Officials remember Lebanon's Civil War
Rai to intervene in planned mass dismissal at The PAC, TV production firm
Al-Rahi Calls for ‘Christian Spring’: They Should Reject Violence and Bolster Dialogue
No need for probing Shaaban’s killing, Syria responsible: Jumblatt
Civil War bus to travel on‘memory stops’ tour
Miqati on Civil War Anniversary: Only Honest Cooperation among Lebanese Ensures Country’s Safety
Telecoms data dispute resolved: Charbel , Lebanon's Interior Minister
Suleiman: Lebanese Must Derive Lessons from Conflicts that Ignored Local Interests
Safadi Lashes out at Miqati, Challenges him to Probe Commission Accusations
Armed Clash between 2 Families in Shiyah, 2 Hurt
Lebanon: Majority Mulls Ways to Obstruct Opposition’s Vote of Confidence Plan
Report: Interpol Searches for Libyan Officials Involved in Sadr’s Disappearance
Obama, Sarkozy vow to step up efforts to end Syria violence
Saudi Defense Minister in US for key talks
Gulf States to Meet on Iran-UAE Island Spat
U.S.: Iran can end its isolation by giving up nuke program
U.S. deploys aircraft carrier in Gulf, as West prepares for Iran nuclear talks
Iran official: Only faint chance of war breaking in the Middle East
Uranium enrichment 'key focus' of Iran talks
Iran cuts oil supply to Germany ahead of upcoming nuclear talks with West
Israel has to give Iran nuclear talks a chance
Skirmish on Day 2 of fragile Syria truce
Islamists rally in Cairo against Mubarak old guard
Egyptian parliament passes bill banning Omar Suliman from presidential candidacy
North Korea admits long-range missile failure; U.S. condemns 'provocative' threat to security
Annan Calls for Opening of Syria Humanitarian Corridors
Assad's army, opposition stand down as cease-fire goes into effect
Sarkozy Doesn't Believe in Assad's Sincerity
Thousands of Syrians Demonstrate to Test Ceasefire, 11 Killed
Annan Says Syria Ceasefire 'Appears to be Holding', Ban Hopes to Send Monitors Soon
Iran envoy: Assad’s reforms will herald change

Geagea Says Bid on Life Triggered by His 'Attempt to Put Christians at Heart of Arab Spring'
Naharnet/ 12 April 2012/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said Thursday that the rival domestic and regional camp “has an interest” in eliminating him from the political scene, noting that his “attempt to put the Christians at the heart of the Arab Spring is an additional factor in the assassination attempt” he escaped last week. “I changed my lifestyle after the assassination attempt to prevent the perpetrators from making another bid,” Geagea said in an interview on Al-Arabiya.He accused a “professional and major political side” of perpetrating the attack, stressing that it was not the work of “individuals.”
“At least six people are estimated to have taken part in the operation, which means that it was well-organized,” he noted. Last week, Geagea announced that he had been shot at twice by "snipers" as he was walking with bodyguards outside his fortified residence in Maarab. "I heard two shots, so I dropped to the ground," he said, adding that the bullets made two holes in the wall of his house.
Lebanese security services who later arrived at the scene confirmed the incident, which they said they were investigating. During the interview on Thursday, Geagea said he was confident that President Michel Suleiman, Prime Minister Najib Miqati, Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji, Internal Security Forces chief Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi and ISF’s intelligence bureau chief Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hassan are “serious concerning the investigation” into the attempt on his life. “But officials (of lower ranks) may not be as serious,” the LF leader added. Asked whether he feared for the life of Druze leader MP Walid Jumblat, Geagea said: “In my analysis of how the other camp thinks, yes I'm seriously afraid for Walid Jumblat.” “I don't think that Lebanon will return to civil strife because at least the March 14 camp -- which has grown bigger due to several factors -- is keen on preserving civil peace, although sometimes it does that at the expense of its own interests,” Geagea said when asked about a possible return to civil war in Lebanon, on the eve of the 37th anniversary of the civil war that erupted on April 13, 1975. Geagea accused the rival Hizbullah-led camp of “impeding the democratic life with its weapons,” but noted that the March 14 camp was willing to wait for the 2013 parliamentary elections to seek a change in the political equation, saying that stems from keenness on preserving security in the country.
And he stressed that “the other camp will not come to the dialogue table before the fall of the Syrian regime and before it abandons its arms.”

Geagea blames March 8 for assassination bid
April 13, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said Thursday that he blamed “the other camp” in Lebanon, a reference to the March 8 coalition, for being behind an attempt on his life earlier this month. In an interview with Al-Arabiya television, Geagea said he feared that an investigation into the incident would be compromised because of the presence of “Hezbollah and its allies and the allies of Syria, which control political decision-making, and what they can of the security bodies.” Geagea said he was targeted by two snipers on April 4 at his residence in Maarab, Kesrouan, and the authorities have opened an probe into the incident. During the interview, he said “we should see who has an interest in removing me from the political scene – the other camp in Lebanon.”
The LF leader said top leaders such as President Michel Sleiman and Prime Minister Najib Mikati were “serious” about investigating the incident, but added that security bodies had suffered “a number of penetrations” within their ranks, which could obstruct the government’s efforts. Asked whether he believed Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt, a vocal critic of Damascus, might be targeted for assassination, Geagea said: “Based on my reading of the mind and behavior of the other camp, yes, I’m afraid [for Jumblatt].”“Unless this group believes that revenge is a dish best served cold,” he continued. “In other words, it might not be a priority now, since an attempt to kill Jumblatt, or not kill him, won’t affect things.”Geagea said he believed he had been targeted in a “serious attempt, and not a message” for several reasons: his alliance with the Sunni community, his good ties with Gulf states, and his “placing of the Christians in the heart of the Arab Spring.”Geagea said that after he disclosed the attempt on his life, he ordered the LF’s Central Council to refrain from organizing street protests as a response, “because we all know what might happen [as a response] to a public protest.”The only exception to the order was a “small, limited” protest in Zahle which he authorized, Geagea added.

Don’t mess with a military man
Michael Young/Now Lebanon/April 13, 2012
There was an ominous postscript to the attempted assassination last week of Samir Geagea, the Lebanese Forces leader. It came in the form of an alleged revelation by “a former Lebanese security official living in Paris” published in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Seyassah.
The official’s comment went like this: “The moment the attempt [on Geagea’s life] was announced, hundreds of Lebanese Forces, Kataeb Party, and National Liberal Front fighters, as well as Lebanese army backers, headed to the regions around Beirut’s southern suburbs and the Shiyyah area, the strongholds of Hezbollah and Amal.”
Both the official—in all probability Johnny Abdo, the onetime head of Lebanese military intelligence—and the outlet, Al-Seyassah, leave plenty of room for us to question the veracity of the story. But as some observers have noted, the point was not to tell the truth; it was to issue a warning. Mustapha of the Beirut Spring blog wrote an astute analysis of the episode, referring to it as “deterrence by rumor-mongering.” By cautioning Hezbollah and Amal that there could be dangerous repercussions if Geagea were harmed, Abdo and March 14 hoped to prevent further attacks against the Lebanese Forces leader. A rancorous mood did indeed circulate in Christian areas after the reported shooting. Had Geagea been killed, there would certainly have been hotheads willing to take matters into their own hands. The army would have been hard-pressed to restore order and ease tensions between the Lebanese Forces and the Aounists in particular, while one dreads to imagine what might have happened, let’s say, to Shia strolling through hard-core Lebanese Forces quarters.
For many years Geagea has carefully cultivated the impression that his followers could transform themselves into an armed militia if they were provoked into doing so. While the Lebanese Forces leader has repeatedly denied that his men are undergoing military training, he has also been deliberately ambiguous about their intentions. For instance, in February 2006 Lebanese Forces officials in Beirut warned then-Interior Minister Hassan al-Sabeh that they would take to the streets with their weapons if he did not control Sunni Islamists demonstrating against the publication by a Danish newspaper of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. They burned the Danish Embassy in the mainly Christian Ashrafieh neighborhood, and when the protest turned into a riot, the participants began harassing Christians and throwing rocks at a Maronite church. In May 2008, when Hezbollah and its pro-Syrian allies overran western Beirut, there was news that the Lebanese Forces would protect Christian districts if necessary. Perhaps this was again a case of deterrence by rumor-mongering. However, in such fluid situations, organized groups tend to fill the vacuum. That’s why it’s not especially difficult to imagine that Geagea would have been prepared to deploy his men had the army failed to defend eastern Beirut in the same way that it had failed to defend western Beirut.
The capacity and willingness to wage war remains very much a part of Geagea’s aura, and that of the Lebanese Forces. Do you recall all those March 14 rallies of recent years? Whenever you saw youths dressed in combat boots and fatigues, with black tee-shirts, you could be sure that they belonged to the party. They may have been in the minority, but they also had no inhibitions about flaunting the imagery of battle.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Geagea doesn’t seek an armed confrontation, but nor is he, temperamentally, the kind of person who will shrink from playing up his warrior persona when Hezbollah has spent years doing the same. In that sense his behavior contrasts with that of Walid Jumblatt, another former warlord. For Geagea, the Lebanese political system is one of natural equilibrium: If one coalition or religious community seeks hegemony over the others, then this requires a comparable counter-reaction to impose balance.
Last week, I suggested in this space that Geagea would attempt to play the failed assassination attempt in such a way as to improve his chances of success in parliamentary elections next year. Everything suggests that he is doing so, and that he has become the driving force of March 14, in the absence of Saad Hariri, the former prime minister. An element of brinkmanship was equally evident in Geagea’s speech to his coalition partners in Maarab on Wednesday. “March 14 is in the eye of the storm,” he was quoted as saying, before sounding the martial note: “The battle that the Syrian regime and its allies are fighting is a final battle of either killing or being killed.”
The Lebanese Forces leader is not reacting spontaneously. He has something in mind, a specific agenda, and it includes definite electoral calculations burnished by a noticeable military component. That doesn’t mean Geagea plans to go to war. Rather, he is positioning himself as a Christian champion, against those other leading Christian figures, Michel Aoun and Maronite Patriarch Bechara al-Rai above all, whom Geagea would insist have betrayed the community’s ideals and traditions while ceding vital ground, geographically and politically, to the Christians’ enemies.
The political ambitions of Samir Geagea aside, it is disturbing when the pulsations of conflict make a comeback in Lebanon. We haven’t condemned this in Hezbollah to sanction it in the case of the Lebanese Forces. Most Lebanese still aspire to a civil order that keeps violence at bay. Maybe we’re naïve for thinking so, or soft. Or maybe we just don’t want fear to color how we vote in the coming elections.
Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Lebanese Officials remember Lebanon's Civil War
April 13, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanese political leaders marked the 37th anniversary of the start of the country’s 1975-90 Civil War Friday with various calls for learning from history’s mistakes and aiming for unity. “The Civil War should be remembered by learning lessons that conflicts and disputes take place when the axis game and political interests go beyond national interests,” President Michel Sleiman said. While stressing the importance of stability Lebanon is enjoying in the midst of regional tension, Sleiman hoped that Lebanese people will realize the need to commit to national principles. “I hope the Lebanese will also realize that any dispute over any issue should be [resolved] within the democratic and constitutional framework,” Sleiman added. Prime Minister Najib Mikati, for his part, called on the Lebanese to unite to secure Lebanon’s future. “The painful memory of the 37th anniversary of the outbreak of the Lebanese [Civil] War necessitates us to call on all Lebanese with different [political] affiliations to unite on a slogan to save our homeland and keep the horrors of war away,” Mikati said. "Serious dialogue to discuss ways to ward off the dangers on Lebanon – particularly in light of the tragic events the region is witnessing and protecting it from regional and international repercussions – and putting hands together should come through the lessons of this anniversary,” Mikati said.
Lebanon’s Civil War erupted on April 13, 1975, when Christian gunmen killed 27 Palestinians on a bus in Beirut’s Ain al-Rummaneh neighborhood. The war killed at least 150,000 people.
Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri said the Civil War anniversary “should be an incentive to unmask a policy which threatens national peace and the will of coexistence.”
Hariri expressed solidarity with the families of martyrs as well as the families of kidnapped and missing persons and the thousands of families displaced by the successive wars in Lebanon.
“We look forward with all the loyalists to a sovereign Lebanon while resorting to the voice of wisdom and reason and that we learn from the bitter experiences our country has undergone and that we meet on the values that protect our freedom, our sovereignty and our democratic system, and liberate the state and its institutions from internal and external strength,” he said.
An Arab-brokered accord in Taif, Saudi Arabia, ended Lebanon’s Civil War, which also left hundreds of thousands of wounded and an infrastructure in ruins.
The hard task of getting the country back on its feet was taken up by successive governments but Lebanon’s post-war period has been slow and difficult.
In 2005, after the assassination of Hariri’s father, five-time Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and mass demonstrations labeled the “Cedar Revolution” Syria withdrew its army after a decades-long presence.
Hariri’s assassination was one of several to shake the country’s stability. Its consequences, the establishment of an international court to try those behind the attack, has been a major point of tension between the country’s rival factions after four members of Hezbollah were indicted in the case. Hezbollah denies involvement in the assassination of Hariri.
In 2006, Israel and Lebanon engaged in a month-long war that left over 1,000 Lebanese civilians killed. The country also neared the brink of civil war in 2007 after clashes between supporters of Hezbollah and the Future Movement of Saad Hariri over the resistance group’s private telecommunications network, which the government of the time had planned to dismantle.

Civil War bus to travel on‘memory stops’ tour
April 13, 2012/By Olivia Alabaster/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: On the anniversary of the start of the Civil War 37 years ago, the iconic image of the Ain al-Rummaneh bus is being reimagined as a way to confronting the country’s past head-on. The project, “The Bus Takes the Podium: Voyages into the Memory of Lebanon and its People,” is being coordinated by UMAM Documentation and Research, and funded by the European Union in conjunction with the U.N. Development Program. Widely accredited with being the final catalyst that sparked the outbreak of war, a massacre of Palestinians on board a bus in a Beirut suburb on April 13, 1975, has led many to hold the “bus” as a symbol for that era, which saw between 150,000 and 200,000 people lose their lives. That original bus has been recovered by UMAM, and is on permanent display at their Hangar site in Haret Hreik. But it is a more modern bus, previously of the Beirut-Sidon line, which has been transformed into a mobile archive of the Civil War, and which will travel around the country in an effort to allow the population to discuss and reflect on their experiences and memories of the time.
Speaking at the launch Thursday, at which Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour represented Prime Minister Najib Mikati, project manager Layal Assad explained the inspiration behind the idea. “The bus is a symbol in the minds of the Lebanese. It reminds us of a tragic event,” she said. “Sometimes questions are emotional,” she added, but it was important to “remember and not repeat the same mistakes.”
“We want to turn the idea of the bus being cursed into the idea that it is blessed,” Assad added.
Lokman Slim, the director of UMAM, warned that since the end of the Civil War, the Lebanese have been living in an “incomplete peace,” which has worsened over the last few years. “‘Peace’ seems like a word which is just being used to preserve stability,” he said. It is vital, he added, for people young and old to “come to terms with the war and the violence that was used.”
The mobile unit, which contains UMAM’s Civil War archives – comprised of diaries, information on key events and actors, on victims, missing persons, as well as media coverage from the time – will tour every region of the country, starting Friday in Beirut’s Sodeco Square at 12 noon, next to Beit Beirut, which itself is currently being turned into a war museum. During the “memory stops,” the route of which has not yet been finalized, UMAM will work alongside local NGOs and municipalities. UMAM, an NGO dedicated to initiating collective reflection on Lebanon’s past, and founded in 2005, was never intended to focus solely on Greater Beirut, Slim added. As such it was natural that outreach projects be introduced, and the bus seemed like the perfect choice – allowing for mobility and acting as a bridge between the country’s past and future. Robert Watkins, UNDP resident representative in Lebanon, also spoke Thursday. While UNDP is largely focused on development, he said “you cannot build a society without a peaceful environment.”
“The bus is an iconic image for the country and we think this project will help the population come to terms with what happened,” Watkins added. The UNDP always supports truth and reconciliation policies in countries with a history of civil conflict, he said.
Indeed, while the mobile unit is not a formal court with prosecutions, as witnessed in many other countries such as the former Yugoslavia, “it will help in coming to terms with the past and offers an important opportunity to reflect.”He added: “It has been said that time heals all wounds, but this does not come from simply forgetting the past.”
Speaking on behalf of the European Union’s ambassador to Lebanon, Angelina Eichhorst, Diego Escalona-Paturel said that, “Coming from Spain, where discussions about the civil war are still ongoing after more than 70 years, I cannot but confirm the importance for any conflict-torn society to deal with its past in order to build a sustainable peace.”
“This search is not easy and it inevitably brings back painful images of the past and unanswered questions. But it is worth it,” Escalona-Paturel added.
Both Watkins and the EU representative praised the work of UMAM, and the support of the Lebanese government for the project.
“The neighbors of Lebanon may benefit from our incomplete ‘peace’” Slim warned. “But we must start reading this past, even if we have differing opinions on it.”

Rai begins Mexico, Canada, U.S. visit
April 22 April 13, 2012/ The Daily Star
BKIRKI, Lebanon: Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai will kick off a pastoral visit to Mexico, Canada and the United States on April 22. Sources at Bkirki, the seat of the Maronite Church, told The Daily Star Friday that the visit would last one month. No other details were available.

Suleiman: Lebanese Must Derive Lessons from Conflicts that Ignored Local Interests
Naharnet/ 13 April 2012/President Michel Suleiman stressed on Friday the importance of the stability Lebanon is experiencing in light of the tense political and security situation in the region.He urged the Lebanese people, on the 37th anniversary of the eruption of the Lebanese civil war, “to derive lessons from conflicts that disregarded national interests and instead served personal and regional gains.”He hoped the Lebanese would realize “the importance of internal agreements on central national principles and keep all disputes within democratic and constitutional limits.”
“There can be no rise for the state without committing to the constitution, which is the only guarantee for the country and its people,” said Suleiman. The civil war erupted on April 13, 1974.It pitted various local and regional factions against each other, resulting in the deaths of nearly a fifth of Lebanon’s population.The war ended in 1990 through the Taef Accord.

No need for probing Shaaban’s killing, Syria responsible: Jumblatt
April 13, 2012/By Hussein Dakroub The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt said Thursday there was no need for investigating the killing of Al-Jadeed TV cameraman Ali Shaaban because facts on the ground have confirmed that the Syrian army opened fire on the crew near the border with Syria. He instead demanded an international court to probe “this criminal act.” In the meantime, Public Works and Transportation Minister Ghazi Aridi, a PSP official, described Shaaban’s killing by Syrian gunfire as “deliberate and premeditated,” saying Syria must act to pinpoint responsibility for those who opened fire on Al-Jadeed crew. In an interview with Al-Fajr radio station run by Al-Jamaa al-Islamiya, Jumblatt, a harsh critic of Syrian President Bashar Assad, accused what he called the regime’s “Shabbiha” (armed thugs) for Shaaban’s killing. “The regime’s Shabbiha were not deterred and will not be deterred,” he said. He rejected demands for a Lebanese and Syrian investigation into Shaaban’s killing. “It is not a matter of an investigation. I disagree with those who are demanding an investigation. Someone had opened fire. A regular army opened fire on a Lebanese citizen, a Lebanese journalist on Lebanese territory,” Jumblatt said, adding: “Therefore, a lawsuit must be lodged, I don’t know, with international courts against this criminal act.”
Earlier Thursday, Aridi, one of three ministers representing Jumblatt’s parliamentary bloc in the government, urged Syria to determine responsibility for those who opened fire on Al-Jadeed’s crew, saying Shabaan’s killing was unjustified and was “a deliberate and premeditated” act. Aridi said it was unacceptable to see journalists working in war zones killed accidentally or unintentionally.
“But for a journalist and a media employee to be deliberately targeted in a premeditated fashion is entirely rejected and should be denounced by everyone,” Aridi told reporters at his office.
“The Syrian side must act to determine responsibility in this matter. This was not the first time in which victims fell on Lebanese territory by gunfire from Syrian territory,” he added.
Aridi admitted that it was difficult to control the border between any two countries, not only between Lebanon and Syria.
“There was a time when calls to control the border were made by a party that was at odds with Syria. Now the calls to control the border are made by a party that is allied to Syria,” Aridi said, referring to the March 14 and the March 8 coalitions respectively.
Shaaban, 29, was killed Monday when the car he was traveling in along with two Al-Jadeed colleagues, reporter Hussein Khreis and cameraman Abdel-Azim Khayyat, was hit with a volley of machine gunfire in the northern area of Wadi Khaled near the border with Syria. Khayyat was lightly wounded in his left arm.
Al-Jadeed has blamed the Syrian Army for Shaaban’s killing. The TV station’s owner, Tahseen Khayyat, said the Syrian attack on Al-Jadeed crew had been intentional.
Meanwhile, a magistrate in north Lebanon, Judge Tarek Bitar, met separately with Khreis and Khayyat to hear their testimonies in the incident. Al-Jadeed TV said the investigation focused on determining the place where the car was parked when Shaaban was hit. “The location [of the car] will help determine the direction from which the gunfire came,” the TV said in its evening news broadcast.
President Michel Sleiman, who has urged the Syrian side to probe Shaaban’s killing, discussed with Nasri Khoury, the head of the Higher Lebanese Syrian Council, “the course of judicial investigation by the Syrian side” into the attack, said a statement released by Baabda Palace. A source at Baabda Palace said Khoury had promised Sleiman that an investigation would continue until results were reached in Shaaban’s killing. For his part, Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn maintained that “a serious investigation” has been launched into the incident to determine responsibility.
In an interview with Al-Jadeed TV Thursday night, Ghosn said: “God willing, the investigation will arrive at results. The investigation should be clear. We insist on the Syrian side to provide us with the facts they have so that everyone can be satisfied.”
He added that the Lebanese Army was present in all areas and crossings at the border with Syria. Ghosn called on members of the media to inform the Army in advance when they have assignment in border areas.Meanwhile, the head of Lebanon’s branch of the Baath Party conveyed Assad’s condolences to Shaaban’s parents in the southern village of Maifadoun. Fayez Shukr also reiterated that the Syrian president was keen to uncover the circumstances behind Shaaban’s killing. Shaaban’s bereaved mother told Shukr, who was accompanied by his wife, “We will not be bought by money but with a word of satisfaction by Almighty God ... I want justice done against those who killed my son. I want to tell [Hezbollah leader] Sayyed Hasan [Nasrallah] that I and my family sacrifice our lives for him.”
Among the throng of people who visited Maifadoun Thursday was a delegation from Syria’s official news agency SANA, headed by the agency’s director, Jamal Mohsen, who offered condolences to Shaaban’s parents on behalf of Syrian Information Minister Adnan Mahmoud. Addressing Shaaban’s father, Ahmad, Mohsen said: “We came to express our deep sorrow over the loss of the martyr [Shaaban]. The Syrian media’s loss of your dear son is not less than your loss of this young man. We stress that our loss of martyr Ali is very great, and no media campaigns and conspiracies will be able to affect Lebanese-Syrian relations.”In response, Shaaban’s father hoped that Assad and the Syrian government would pursue their efforts to uncover the circumstances of his son’s killing.

Thousands of Syrians Demonstrate to Test Ceasefire, 11 Killed
Naharnet /13 April 2012/..Thousands of Syrians marched on Friday to test the regime's commitment to a U.N.-backed peace plan, and the fragile two-day old ceasefire was again shaken when security forces killed 10 civilians and an army deserter. The Local Coordination Committees, the main activist group spurring protests on the ground, said security forces killed three protesters in Daraa, two protesters in Hama, two people in Idlib, two protesters in Aleppo, a demonstrator in the Damascus suburb of Daraya and a rebel soldier in al-Hassakeh. The hard-won truce to end a 13-month crackdown on dissent that has cost an estimated more than 10,000 lives appeared to be relatively holding, but French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he did not expect it to last. He questioned President Bashar al-Assad's sincerity and appealed for observers to monitor his compliance. U.N.-Arab League peace envoy Kofi Annan, who brokered the ceasefire, urged Syria to open humanitarian corridors to deliver aid.
"Mr. Annan is aware that we don't have a perfect situation in the country at the moment," his spokesman Ahmad Fawzi said. "There are detainees that need to be released, humanitarian corridors need to be opened."Protesters rallied in the Qadam and Assali districts of Damascus, while other demonstrations took place in Irbin and Bibla outside the capital, according to videos posted on the Internet.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said demonstrations were organized in the northern province of Aleppo, while protesters took to the streets after the main weekly Muslim prayers in several neighborhoods of Deir Ezzor in the east.
The Britain-based watchdog said demonstrators hurled stones at security forces in the Tariq al-Sadd district of the southern city of Daraa, cradle of the protest movement that erupted in March last year.
Sporadic clashes broke out between troops and rebels at Khirbet al-Joz on the northern border with Turkey, it said.
Violence on Thursday killed at least 10 people, including seven civilians, and wounded dozens more.
Among the dead were two soldiers killed by rebels after forces loyal to Assad attempted to break up a demonstration in the central province of Hama.
Even so, the toll is markedly lower than in recent weeks, when there have often been scores of people killed on a daily basis.
On Friday, security forces killed one man when they opened fire at a group joining a demonstration in Assi Square, in Hama, the Observatory said.
Another demonstrator was shot dead in the village of Nawa in Daraa province, as he left a mosque to join a demonstration, the Observatory said.
Regime forces also killed a man in the town of Salqin, in Idlib province, the center added.
After the ceasefire came into force at dawn on Thursday, Annan declared he was "encouraged by reports that the situation in Syria is relatively calm and that the cessation of hostilities appears to be holding."
But as Assad's government and the rebels traded accusations of trying to wreck the ceasefire, Annan insisted "all parties have obligations to implement fully the six-point plan."
The plan, to which Damascus has committed itself, calls for the withdrawal of forces from urban areas, the release of arbitrarily detained people, freedom of movement for journalists and the right to demonstrate.
Despite the regime's commitment, the spokeswoman for the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC), Basma Qoudmani, said "we have concrete proof that heavy weapons are still in population centers."
The SNC, the most widely recognized opposition group in exile, and Internet-based activists called for peaceful demonstrations to test the government's readiness to accept public shows of dissent.
"We call on the people to demonstrate and express themselves... The right to demonstrate is a principal point of the plan," SNC head Burhan Ghalioun told Agence France Presse.
Qoudmani said: "The real test (of the ceasefire) will be if there is shooting or not when people demonstrate."
The Syrian Revolution 2011 activist group called on Facebook for protests on Friday -- the Muslim day of rest when the demonstrations have been the largest after noon prayers -- under the rallying cry: "A revolution for all Syrians."
But the interior ministry insisted people wanting to demonstrate must have permits.
"The right to demonstrate peacefully is guaranteed by law. We call on citizens to apply the law by requesting a permit before demonstrating," it said.
On Friday, the U.N. Security Council could vote on a resolution authorizing the deployment of observers to monitor both sides in a conflict the Observatory says has cost more than 10,000 lives.
An advanced mission of 20-30 observers could be in place early next week, diplomats said, with the full mission reaching at least 200.
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said: "The world is watching however with skeptical eyes," adding that previous promises made by the regime "have not been kept."
In a statement after two days of talks in Washington, foreign ministers from the Group of Eight major economies, which include Western powers and Syria's main supporter, Russia, urged "immediate" action to send in observers.
Syria's government urged tens of thousands of people who fled the violence both inside and outside the country to return home and offered an amnesty to opposition gunmen without "blood on their hands."
In Turkey, which is hosting around 25,000 Syrian refugees, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said international aid has begun to arrive.
"We will start getting international aid, and in fact we have already started," he told reporters in Istanbul.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) this week sent 1,500 tents and 1,500 blankets to Turkey, diplomatic sources told Agence France Presse.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called on the international community to help Turkey house Syrian refugees.
*SourceAgence France Presse.
Rai to intervene in planned mass dismissal at TV production firm
April 13, 2012/By Wassim Mroueh The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai promised Thursday to reach out to the Labor Ministry and other officials to ensure that nearly 400 employees from a leading television production company be paid compensation and their salaries.
Meanwhile, the company’s employees, who have not been paid last month’s salaries, hired a law firm to represent them, in a battle expected to last into May.
PAC, a production company providing services for the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International and other media outlets, called on the Labor Ministry in a letter on March 21 to hold consultations to discuss laying off 397 employees. It cited “economic reasons” for the move, a justification that would allow the company to withhold compensation from the employees.
Saudi businessmen Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a majority of PAC’s stock. A large number of employees working at LBCI, which is headed by Pierre Daher, are PAC’s.
Addressing a delegation of the employees who visited Bkirki to brief him on the company’s decision, Rai stressed that he is against anyone losing their job or not being provided compensation, adding that he would contact the Labor Ministry and other officials to safeguard the rights of the 397 employees.
The employees, who have yet to receive their March salaries, described to Rai the financial difficulties they are facing, as they have outstanding bills to hospitals, schools and banks.
A statement by Lebanese Media Holding, which owns PAC, said Wednesday that it is ending the operations of the company due to losses sustained after the refusal of LBCI to pay it its dues.
“The failure of LBCI to pay for programing produced by PAC and the ensuing disputes with the head of LBCI and former-head of PAC and Rotana TV, Mr. Pierre Daher, have resulted in the inability of PAC to pay the salaries of its employees and continue to sustain the ongoing costs of production and operations,” said the statement.
“Despite its prime location, diversified production facilities, multiple studios and talented production staff, the PAC production facility has sustained significant losses for some time, many of which stem from actions and decisions taken by the previous management team,” it added.
The statement came in response to a news broadcast aired last week on LBCI, during which it ran what it called the “the full story” on PAC and LBCI.
In 2003, Bin Talal became the owner of 49 percent of stocks in PAC and in late 2008, he acquired the majority of stocks in PAC after an agreement to raise the capital in a bid to improve the programs and develop production under the supervision of Daher.
LBCI said that in 2010, media tycoon Rupert Murdoch became an investor in PAC, which was merged with Rotana, but said the cooperation between Murdoch and Bin Talal did not improve the media group as expected.
A PAC employee who requested to remain anonymous told The Daily Star that he and his colleagues had Thursday hired a law firm to represent them.
“We tasked the law firm of George Khadij to follow up on the issues of our salaries and compensations,” he said.
The employee predicted that LBCI would continue its operations, and employ perhaps half of the people slated to lose their jobs.
“Sheikh Pierre Daher will hire a number of the [PAC] employees, maybe between 150 and 200,” he said.
“What we are essentially demanding is that we get paid the salaries of March and April and receive our compensation,” he added.
He said employees were surprised by the sudden deterioration of the situation and wondered why Daher, who is believed to still have a small share in PAC, did not inform them about the matter in advance.
But speaking to The Daily Star, Daher said he never knew about PAC’s intention to stop paying salaries to its employees. Asked about plans to hire PAC employees at LBC, Daher said he was awaiting the final decision of PAC.
“The employees have not been officially dismissed,” he maintained
During the first consultation session with the Labor Ministry on March 26, PAC lawyers provided financial reports they said proved that the company had incurred financial losses, but they did not attend the second session which was scheduled for April 4.
Elie Bitar, an adviser of Labor Minister Salim Jreissati, told The Daily Star that PAC could only avoid paying compensation to the employees if it proved that it had incurred significant financial losses over the past three years.
In the event that PAC does not pay compensation to employees without proving that it has sustained major losses, the Labor Ministry would send a letter to a Labor Arbitration Committee, which could issue a decision forcing PAC to pay the compensation for the employees along with an additional payment if the committee finds they were subject to arbitrary dismissal. Bitar said that things should be clear within a month.
Separately, the Lebanese Forces condemned in a statement Thursday the laying off of PAC employees, and blamed Daher for their plight.
“The recklessness and the greed of the people currently in charge of the TV station has given way to harming the interest of these families,” it said.
In 2007, the LF filed a lawsuit against Daher over an ownership dispute over the Lebanese television channel, which was established by the party during the Civil War In March, the Beirut Prosecutor’s office dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the statute of limitations in the case had run out.

Did al-Assad set up a buffer zone in Turkey?
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
For over a year the question has been: when will Turkey establish a buffer zone in Syria? This question was not the result of delusions or dreams, but based on statements from Turkey issued prior to the massacres – that’s right, massacres – committed by al-Assad in all off Syria’s rebellious cities and towns. [Turkish Prime Minister] Mr. Erdogan previously announced that Ankara would not accept a repeat of the massacre committed by al-Assad the father in Hama; however al-Assad the son has committed his own massacres – plural – without any real Turkish movement against al-Assad!
When we say that there has been no real Turkish movement against al-Assad, this is for a number of realistic reasons; al-Assad’s massacres are on-going, not to mention the ethnic cleansing that is taking place in Homs, indeed the situation has even reached the point where al-Assad has targeted the Turkish border, with mines and gunfire. Al-Assad regime forces have also strongly infiltrated a number of other areas, some of which have been announced publicly and others not. We must also not forget the abduction of Syrian defector Lieutenant Colonel Hussein Harmoush from Turkish soil, with the Syrian defector being handed over to the al-Assad regime under mysterious circumstances. In addition to this, there was the incident in which 2 Syrian refugees were killed on Turkish soil; therefore the question that must be asked here is not will Turkey establish a buffer zone in Syria, but rather has al-Assad set up a buffer zone in Turkey?
The Turkish silence on al-Assad’s transgressions, not just the transgressions against the people of Syria, but also his transgressions against Turkish sovereignty, is puzzling. Al-Assad represents a genuine threat to Turkish security, not just in terms of the flow of Syrian refugees into the country, but also due to the fact that al-Assad is carrying out the worst crimes in democratic Turkey’s neighbouring Syria. This is something that represents a genuine threat to Turkish security, which is something that Ankara must prevent. The Saudis, for example, forced Ali Abdullah Saleh to leave power, under the umbrella of the Gulf initiative, when Riyadh found that the Yemeni people had reached breaking point because of his rule. Prior to this, the Saudis also had no choice but to confront the Huthi rebels’ aggression against Saudi territory. Therefore the question that must be asked here is: what is Turkey waiting for today with regards to all the crimes that are being committed by al-Assad, not to mention his blatant aggression towards Turkish sovereignty? Are the Turks waiting for al-Assad to establish a buffer zone within Turkey, rather than Ankara establishing a buffer zone in Syria? I am not being sarcastic here, for we saw Walid Muallem in Moscow arrogantly accuse the Turks of harboring “armed gangs” and “terrorists”, so when will Ankara address al-Assad’s aggression and crimes? That is the question!
The truth is that what is required from Ankara today is not for the Turks to unilaterally intervene in Syria, for Turkey’s fears in this regard are justified, particularly as they do not want to be viewed as aggressors or as if the Ottomans have come again. Rather what is required from Turkey, and particularly Mr. Erdogan, is to seek to establish a coalition of the willing – in the event that the United Nations [UN] fails – in order to put an end to al-Assad’s crimes which represent a genuine threat to Turkish security, as well as to put an end to the al-Assad regime’s attacks on the Turkish border. Saudi Arabia did the same thing when it liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq; Riyadh fought a political and military battle in this regard and prior to this a media battle as well. So what is Erdogan or Turkey waiting for today? Are they waiting for al-Assad to establish a buffer zone within Turkey itself? This is truly puzzling!

Saudi Defense Minister in US for key talks
By Asharq Al-Awsat
Washington, Asharq Al-Awsat – Saudi Defense Minister Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz discussed cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the US, and the two countries mutual desire to deepen their bonds of friendship, with US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in Washington on Wednesday. They also discussed the latest developments in the regional and international arena.
For his part, Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz expressed his appreciation for the welcome and hospitality of the US, as well as his hopes that bilateral relations between Riyadh and Washington continue to develop and grow, under the support and patronage of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz and US President Barack Obama.
Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz also met with US President Barack Obama at the White House on Wednesday. At the outset of the meeting, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Salman conveyed the greetings of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz to the US president. Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz and US President Obama reviewed the strong historical bilateral relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States of America during the meeting, in addition to discussing a number of bilateral and regional issues of common interest.
Saudi Defense Minister Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz also met with US Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan and Commander of the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) General James Mattis during his visit.
Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz was accompanied by Minister of State Musaed Al-Aiban, Saudi Ambassador to the US Adel Al-Jubeir, Royal Saudi Air Force commander Lt. Gen. Mohammed Al-Ayeh, director general of Prince Salman’s office Lt. Gen. Abdul Rahman Al-Binyan, and other top officials.
Saudi Minister of Defense Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz arrived in Washington on Tuesday at the start of an official visit to the United States at the invitation of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. On arrival at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, Prince Salman was received by US Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs Joseph McMillan and US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Smith and a number of senior US military officials.
Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz was also received by Saudi Assistant Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources for Petroleum Affairs Prince Abdulaziz Bin Salman Bin Abdulaziz, in addition to Prince Sultan Bin Saad Bin Khalid, Prince Saud Bin Nasser Al-Farhan, Prince Mohammad Bin Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, Prince Saud Bin Sultan Bin Abdulaziz, Prince Abdulaziz Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz, and a number of other princes and senior officials.
Upon his arrival in Washington, Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz said “I am pleased, at the start of my visit to the United States of America, to express my thanks to US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for inviting us to visit this friendly country in order to meet with President Barack Obama and senior US officials. I am also pleased to convey the greetings of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, and the greetings of Deputy Premier and Interior Minister Crown Prince Naif Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, to US President Barack Obama.”
He added “the visit paid by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz to the United States in 2005 has greatly promoted the strong historical relations between our two countries in various fields. My visit to the United States comes in the context of the care extended by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques to boosting these relations, and the joint endeavor to serve peace, security and stability in the region.”

The coming remodelling of Barack Obama
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
In six months’ time Barack Obama would conclude his first term as President of the United States. With the election campaign raging, he is a lame-duck president already.
Even his admirers admit that Obama has spent much of the first term talking about the past, blaming George W. Bush for everything that is wrong with the United States.
Talking to Obama’s friends and foes provides what they claim would be the image of Obama II. So, what will he do with his second term, if he wins?
The president and those close to him claim that, if re-elected, he would reveal his “real self”, unveiling policies he dared not introduce for fear of losing the last election of his career.
If these claims are correct, Obama II would be more to the left than the Obama of the first term. He would pursue his plan to impose the so-called Obamacare under which the US would get a European-style national health service. In the process, the state would gain control of almost 12 per cent of the gross national product, the biggest extension of the public sector since the 1930s.
By massively increasing federal debt, Obama has already tried a European-style economic policy anchored on deficit budgeting.
Obama II would try to counter balance that policy with a dramatic increase in taxes, starting with the abolition of Bush’s historic tax cuts. That would make it easier for him to sell the idea of a mixed economy in which the state plays a leading role. What is left of Reaganomics, created with Ronald Reagan’s de-regulation and liberalization drive, would be consigned to history.
In foreign policy, Obama believes that, on many issues, the United States has acted as a bullying “Imperialist” power and should atone for its sins. Obama did a lot of apologizing all over the world but, facing re-election, dared not adopt policies that would translate those apologies into reality. If re-elected, he could introduce those policies.
Speaking in code, Obama has provided clues to how he really sees the world. He believes that we are heading for a “multipolar” world in which the US is one of many players.
Even where American power is needed to sustain a policy, Obama believes the best course for the US would be to “lead from behind.”
Obama II would be good news for several regimes across the globe.
The Putin set-up in Moscow would benefit because, unlike his putative Republican rivals, Obama is prepared to recognize Russia as an equal in Europe and the Middle East.
Putin suspected the Bush administration of harboring plans for regime-change in Russia. With Obama II those fears would disappear. And that would give Putin a freer hand to restore at least part of the zone of influence that Russia lost when its Soviet Empire collapsed.
In his recent meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Obama promised to be “more flexible” on a range of issues, notably missiles and nuclear arsenals, after the election. That flexibility would relieve the pressure that Russia feels in its efforts to modernize its military machine.
China’s Communist leaders would also benefit from Obama II. Freed from electoral calculations, Obama II would drop the troublesome Dalai Lama and end Washington’s tunes about human rights in China.
For almost four years, Obama has managed to hide his dislike of Israel, a dislike he formed as a radical youth in New York. Obama II would champion the Palestinian cause and pressure Israel to implement the two-state scenario.
As far as the old conflict with the Khomeinist regime is concerned, Obama II would accept Iran’s nuclear program and acknowledge Iran as a regional power.
Obama II would disentangle the US from residual involvement in Iraq and end the American presence in Afghanistan as fast as possible.
In Latin America, Obama II would throw a bridge to left-leaning regimes that have changed the political landscape in the American backyard.
Well, what do you think? Will Obama II herald a radical shift to the left in the United States?
Having listened to Washington insiders over the past week or so, my answer is: not necessarily.
Obama’s re-election advertisement is built on a claim that he inherited an America on the brink and saved it from disaster. That, however, is a re-hash of the hate-Bush campaign of four years ago. By spreading rumors about a second-term shift to the left, Obama is trying to mobilize his radical base and inject a dose of ideology into the campaign.
In practice, however, for a number of reasons, radical changes in American and domestic policies are unlikely.
To start with, at this moment, a majority of Americans happen to be on the right on most major issues. Obama may still win a second term because the Republicans might not produce an attractive candidate. But Obama would not win a mandate to take a sharp turn to the left. Reagan succeeded in leading the US to the right because he relied on a majority that had already moved in that direction.
There is also the fact that the power of a US president to set the national agenda is less today than even 20 years ago. The kind of social democratic ideology that Obama’s friends and foes claim he harbors is best suited to small European powers like Norway or Sweden not an ailing superpower with numerous enemies across the globe.
More importantly, perhaps, no one knows who the real Obama is. He may have been a leftist pro-Palestinian black radical in his youth. But that may well have been because he needed the mask to find a place in local politics in New York and Chicago. At the same time, he was the beneficiary of an expensive education and rich enough to indulge in politics rather than earn a living.
I think that Obama harbors no dangerous idea apart from getting himself re-elected.

The Egyptian case without the dark glasses
By Ali Ibrahim/Asharq alawsat
With regards to the names that have put themselves forward for the presidential race in Egypt – whether from the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists or the individuals who played a small or large role in the former regime – none of them may be able to satisfy the vanities or desires of the youth activists of the so-called “Facebook” or “Twitter” generation, who provided the spark and were the original proponents behind the revolution that began on 25 January 2011, and ended 18 days later with the fall of the former regime.
The transitional phase has entered its latest round with the passing of the deadline for presidential nominations, following which – if all goes according to plan – we will see the first president of Egypt’s second republic following the 25 January revolution.
It is not difficult to detect an atmosphere of pessimism or a sense of defeat and regret, especially among the groups that consider themselves the true forces of the revolution and the rightful owners of the 25 January project, who are currently facing one of two choices in the presidential elections: the first is the Muslim Brotherhood – perhaps allied with the Salafists – producing either the Iranian or Turkish model, and under this system who will be [more powerful], the President or the General Guide? The second option is a civil system led by figures of the old regime, including those who the advocates of the 25 January project have described as seeking to reproduce the old order.
One year and a few months after the spark which became the 25 January revolution, much blood has been shed, whilst alliances and promises have been overturned, and everybody is disagreeing over everything. Following this, we saw the coming of the new Egyptian parliament, dominated by the Brotherhood and the Salafists, as well as the similarly dominated constituent assembly. It was clear that a large part of the reasons behind the traps and pitfalls we have seen was the desire of every political force to unilaterally claim the scene and exclude others, and given that political Islam is deeply entrenched in the street and has been in the political arena for more than two decades – under the eyes of the former regime – it was only natural that it would obtain the lion’s share of the results of any free elections, whether or not the Islamists were giving their voters bottles of oil and bags of rice, as their opponents claim. This is the reality and the Islamists dealt with it politically.
Despite all this, the scene is not all doom and gloom. On the contrary, much has been achieved in terms of political freedom, breaking down the fear barrier, and opening topics for discussion that were previously forbidden, including the role of the military and their place in the new constitution. Likewise we have seen the removal of the aura that the Brotherhood and the Salafists once gave themselves in order to intimidate others, and now the Islamists are sitting down at the table practicing politics and receiving open criticism. The parliament also came about via a free and fair election the likes of which has not occurred in Egypt for 60 years, even if the outcome has somewhat hindered the idea of a civil state. Even the approaching presidential elections are full of excitement, surprises and genuine pluralism, and are no longer boring and meaningless as they were in the past. If we remove our dark glasses we would see that what has been achieved over 15 months is very positive, and a transformation in political life has taken place, even if we accept that the process could have been better or come at a lower cost if the thoughts behind this were more mature. But what do we do if all the [political] forces, without exception, are confused?
What we are seeing now is the natural outcome of the balance of power in Egyptian society, according to a political analyst friend of mine from Cairo, who says that the youth may have ignited the revolution but the forces who were already prepared on the ground have reaped its rewards. The Brotherhood have the support of the street and have a strong political machine, which we saw in the elections, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces [SCAF] has the power and operational tools to administer the state, while the liberals and other forces were, and still are, not ready. This suggests that any elections that take place now will have practically the same results as the previous [parliamentary] one.
Those powers that advocate the civil state, which are believed to reflect a large segment of society, must take into account how to change the reality and must be ready politically to unite their forces with clear programs, thus becoming a source of pressure upon the drafting of the constitution and the next president’s era. These will not be the last elections; the presidential election is merely a new step in the transitional phase.

The Challenge of Containing Iran's Enrichment Activities
By Simon Henderson and Olli Heinonen/t The Washington Institute.
April 12, 2012
In the absence of very tight monitoring, and in light of Iran's increasing mastery over limited centrifuge technology, permitting the country to continue enriching uranium at any level would still give it the option of developing nuclear weapons.
With talks between the P5+1 (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany) and Iran set to resume in Istanbul on April 13, officials are discussing possible compromises that might persuade Tehran to give up any ambition of developing nuclear weapons. Apparently, one of the principal components of these proposals is acceptance of Iran's right to enrich uranium to around 3.5%, a level suitable for civilian power reactors. But this could turn out to be a fatal bargain: centrifuge technology is easy to hide, and there are few barriers to continuing enrichment up to 90%, the level needed for an atomic bomb.
BUYING LITTLE TIME
Natural uranium contains just 0.7% of the fissile isotope U-235, which is the key to both controlled chain reactions in nuclear power plants and uncontrolled, explosive chain reactions in atomic bombs. Enriching this material is a progressively easier process. For example, if the aim is to produce 90% enriched uranium, reaching the 3.5% level requires some 75% of the work. By the time 20% enrichment is reached -- the level Iran currently achieves -- 90% of the work has been done. Therefore, cutting a deal in which Iran gives up enriching to 20% but continues enriching to 3.5% would buy relatively little time. Worse, it would not solve the more fundamental problem: the unknown scope and nature of Iran's nuclear program.
In 1943, when the United States was trying to enrich uranium to make a bomb, it used two different methods. One scheme, based on magnets called calutrons, used huge amounts of electricity and employed more than 10,000 people. The other, using diffusion through specially made barriers, was housed in the largest building ever constructed. The beauty of the centrifuge method, used in Europe to fuel civilian nuclear power plants since the 1970s, is that it requires much less: a building the size of a supermarket and electricity equivalent to a small industrial plant. The danger is that the same technology, when mastered, can easily make the high-enriched uranium (HEU) needed for nuclear explosives. And the building where this is being done can be difficult to detect, as evidenced by North Korea's surprise 2010 revelation that it had built a centrifuge plant in its Yongbyon nuclear complex, and Iran's 2009 admission of work on a new facility at Fordow.
IRAN'S CENTRIFUGES
Currently, Iran's capabilities appear limited because of operational problems with its IR-1 centrifuge, based on a design received from Pakistan but originally developed in Europe. The IR-1 is prone to breaking down, and Tehran's efforts to develop more advanced models have been hampered by international restrictions on its ability to import the requisite high-strength steel, carbon fiber, aluminum, and other components and machine tools.
Nevertheless, Iran has built a formidable number of IR-1s and has succeeded in enriching uranium to around 20%. Tehran claims it has enriched to only 19.75%, thereby avoiding the 20% level, which is notionally the divide between low-enriched uranium and HEU (so designated because it is theoretically possible to make a nuclear explosive using 20% enriched uranium, though such a device would be so bulky and otherwise impractical that it would hardly qualify as a bomb).
Originally, the government's enrichment activities were confined to the giant facility at Natanz in central Iran. Recently, however, the higher-enrichment centrifuge cascades were transferred to Fordow near the holy city of Qom. This new facility was built under a mountain so as to be immune from attack. Tehran has publicly stated that it plans to build ten such facilities, so other locations may already be designated or even under construction. Similarly, Pakistan -- the source of Iran's technology -- began with a main centrifuge plant at Kahuta, then built a second facility at Gadwal, housed in one building on the grounds of a huge munitions factory near Islamabad. Pakistan also has one or more small centrifuge plants hidden in mountain tunnels.
Without a diplomatic breakthrough, Iran would likely be able to produce weapons-grade HEU eventually despite the IR-1's limitations, since even inefficient centrifuges seem capable of success given enough time. Although many Western experts sneer at the IR-1's poor performance, some estimate that Iran could make enough HEU for a bomb perhaps later this year or in 2013. If Iran chose the breakout path, it could conceivably make several bombs' worth of HEU within a matter of a few weeks or months, depending on the number of centrifuges deployed.
STRICTER SAFEGUARDS AND MORE OPENNESS
The compromises that will be considered in Istanbul likely include tight safeguard arrangements to prevent undisclosed Iranian activities and/or the diversion of nuclear material, as well as inspection of any suspicious sites. But a more immediate challenge is for Tehran to answer existing questions about suspect activities that suggest it has, at least in the past, worked on nuclear weapons designs and breached its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This is a fundamental part of restoring international confidence in the peaceful scope of Iran's nuclear program, in both the immediate and long term. Without this more complete sort of understanding, the reputation and work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be fundamentally undermined.
Throughout past discussions, Iran has repeatedly offered "transparency" to build international confidence in its activities. Thus, the first step going forward should be to secure a clear commitment by competent Iranian authorities to full openness and cooperation with the IAEA. Tehran must fully implement its obligations under the IAEA statutes and Safeguards Agreement. It must also return to provisional implementation of the Additional Protocol, which strengthens inspection regimes, and work toward early ratification of that protocol. In addition, it must provide all necessary access and cooperation as the IAEA verifies the correctness and completeness of its declaration.
Restraining Iran's enrichment activities might also involve limiting its number of operational centrifuges from around 10,000 to just 1,000 -- a figure commensurate with estimates of the country's maximum conceivable need for enriched uranium. In reality, though, Iran has no need to make enriched uranium at all -- the fuel for its Bushehr power reactor is supplied by Russia, and the fuel rods in the Tehran Research Reactor (used to produce medical isotopes) could be supplied from abroad if Tehran permitted it. In the past, Iran has explained its activities by speaking of elaborate plans to become a global supplier of enriched uranium for nuclear power stations. It could try this gambit once again in Istanbul or later talks.
CONCLUSION
Even if the parties make some diplomatic progress at the Istanbul summit, they are unlikely to build much trust. Yet such confidence building -- which includes an even stricter safeguards regime -- is essential if compromise is to work. In the absence of progress, Iran could be tempted to pursue clandestine programs. And in the meantime, its centrifuge skills and ability to produce enough high-enriched uranium for a small arsenal of bombs are steadily increasing.
Simon Henderson is the Baker fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at The Washington Institute. Olli Heinonen, a senior fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, formerly served as deputy director-general and head of the Department of Safeguards at the IAEA.
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy · 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050 Washington DC 20036
Tel: 202-452-0650 · Fax: 202-223-5364 · Contact · Privacy Policy · © 2012 All rights reserved

Changed Prospects for Turkish Military Intervention in Syria
By Soner Cagaptay/t The Washington Institute.
April 12, 2012
Turkey is hinting at intervention to contain the crisis on its border, and developments such as military redeployments, consular closures, and parliamentary authorization may give Washington advance warning of Ankara's plans.
Several recent developments have put the possibility of military action in Syria on Turkey's agenda. On April 9, Syrian forces opened fire at a refugee camp on the Turkish side of the border, killing two Syrian refugees and wounding two Turks. The number of such refugees crossing into Turkey has increased sharply, reaching some 25,000. In response, Ankara is hinting at creating a buffer zone inside Syria to defend the civilian population and contain the crisis on its border. On April 10, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that although Turkey does not want to enter Syria, "if anybody were to force [Ankara] to do that, it would be the Syrian regime itself."
What are the most likely signs that Turkey is planning military action aimed at creating such a safe haven? Both domestic and regional political dynamics would no doubt shape Ankara's decisions in this regard, as would the military's level of preparedness. The following early indicators could help predict imminent Turkish military action:
•Parliamentary approval. First and foremost, if the Turkish military is to be deployed beyond the border, the government must receive authorization from parliament. So far, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has not approached the legislature with such a request. Should it decide to do so, its prospects for success are good: the AKP holds 327 of the parliament's 550 seats, and a motion to approve military deployment requires only 276 votes.
•Russian neutrality. Turkey is more likely to consider intervention if Russia, which has blocked international action against Damascus, were to drop its objections. Russia is the only neighbor with an economy and military larger than Turkey's. Ankara appears uninterested in confronting its most powerful neighbor, with which it has deep trade and energy ties -- for example, Turkey imports over 50 percent of its natural gas from Russia. At the same time, Moscow depends on Ankara as both a key trading partner and a strategic partner on energy security issues, including those related to proposed pipelines from the Caspian Basin to international energy markets. Given this interdependence, the two governments might be able to bridge their differences on Syria. Even if Ankara cannot convince Russia to formally approve Turkish action against the Assad regime, Russian neutrality could help clear a hurdle in Ankara's forward thinking on possible intervention.
•Arab support. Ankara has cultivated good ties with the Arab Middle East over the past decade, building its own regional soft power in the process. For instance, Turkey receives regular invitations to Arab League summits. Ankara cherishes this newfound status and therefore takes Arab opinion into account when formulating foreign policy, including on Syria. Should the Arab League or Gulf Cooperation Council sanction military intervention -- Ankara has especially good ties with GCC members, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- this might help Turkey move forward against Damascus, potentially to the point of military action.
•Closing of Aleppo consulate. Turkey closed its embassy in Damascus on March 22, but it has kept its consulate in Aleppo open for now. One reason a government chooses to evacuate its diplomatic personnel from another country is to safeguard them from becoming hostages in case of conflict between the two nations. In this regard, Turkey would likely close the Aleppo consulate and evacuate the rest of its diplomats before any military action in Syria.
•Army drills along the border. The Turkish military has not conducted regular exercises along the border with Syria for over a decade. Accordingly, the army would need to carry out preparatory drills in this area if Ankara were planning an intervention. Such exercises could be seen as a likely final step ahead of potential Turkish action, though they could also be interpreted as deterrence. In 1998, when Ankara wanted to end Syria's support for the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), it carried out a massive military exercise along the border, successfully convincing Damascus to change its policy without actually invading.
•Mobilization of the 1st Army. The Turkish Land Forces, the backbone of the country's military, are divided into four armies. Southern Turkey, adjacent to the Syrian border, falls under the responsibility of the 2nd Army, headquartered in Malatya in east-central Turkey. Yet the country's premier fighting force, the 1st Army, is headquartered in Istanbul, with most of its units located over 1,000 miles from the Syrian border.
Currently, four 2nd Army brigades are positioned along that frontier: the 39th Mechanized Infantry Brigade based in Iskenderun, the 5th Armored Brigade based in Gaziantep, the 20th Armored Brigade based in Sanliurfa, and the 70th Mechanized Infantry Brigade based in Mardin. In addition, several support units are stationed up to two days' distance from the border: the 5th Armored Brigade and Artillery Regiment based in Kahramanmaras, the Combat Engineer Regiments based in Malatya, the 16th Mechanized Infantry Brigade based in Diyarbakir, and the 172nd Mechanized Infantry Brigade in Silopi.
The 2nd Army has spent much of its energy fighting the PKK in southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq over the past few decades. Indeed, Turkey's military planning has played down the possibility of a serious threat from Syria since Ankara convinced Damascus to change its PKK policy in 1998. Thus, until the Syrian uprising began in 2011, Ankara had taken a rather benign view of its neighbor, as shown by actions such as removing mines from the border area and deploying premier fighting units elsewhere.
In short, the Turkish military along the Syrian border is arguably less than war ready. Units in this area appear to be weaker than those in the rest of the country; for instance, they typically fail the war-preparedness drills run by the Turkish chief of staff every other year.
For its part, Syria has traditionally stationed a comparable number of troops near the border, namely, four brigades and three regiments. Of course, most of the Syrian military is tied down with fighting the uprising, so it is not clear how many of these units would be available to counter a Turkish incursion. Still, if Ankara is planning to intervene, it would be better served by boosting its military presence in the area both qualitatively and quantitatively to improve the chances of success. This would require strengthening the 2nd Army primarily with units from the premier 1st Army in northwestern Turkey, and perhaps also from the Aegean Army (often called the 4th Army) in western Turkey. Although the 3rd Army in the northeast is a relatively small force, some of its units could be mobilized toward Syria as well. Whatever is decided, the Turkish military would require approximately six weeks to mobilize such units, relocate them to the Syrian border, and make them war ready.
Soner Cagaptay is director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute.

Israel has to give Iran nuclear talks a chance
Haaretz Editorial/Haaretz
Israel can take credit for the international mobilization on Iran, but it must not dismiss in advance the diplomatic effort and treat it as redundant and hopeless. The talks due to be renewed in Istanbul on Saturday between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council along with Germany have already been dubbed "the last diplomatic opportunity."
Despite this, it is doubtful the meeting will yield decisive results that would calm down the West and Israel, or, alternatively, make it clear there is no other option but a military offensive There have been reports that U.S. President Barack Obama will present a more flexible stance regarding the development of Iran's nuclear program for peaceful purposes. The Iranians have declared their intention of enriching only a limited amount of uranium to a 20-percent level, which is a potential transition stage to weapons-grade fuel. These reports indicate both sides will present proposals that could form a basis for continued dialogue.
Israel does not believe, perhaps rightly so, in the power of diplomacy to remove the Iranian threat. It continues to brandish the sword of attack on Iran. The differences between the prime minister and defense minister involve secondary issues. The threat of attack, even if not real, has already raised international support for imposing unprecedented sanctions on Iran, while at the same time accelerating the diplomatic process.
At this stage, and at least until the diplomatic move's results are clear, the ball is in the court of the world powers, which fear an Israeli attack no less than the Iranian nuclear weapon. Such an attack, the leading nations presume, could embroil the region in war, undermine stability and damage their vital interests.
Israel can take credit for the international mobilization, designed to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear program for military purposes. But it also means Israel must not dismiss in advance the diplomatic effort and treat it as redundant and hopeless.
Israel's confidence in its ability to attack Iranian nuclear sites successfully may be valid; but the cost in life such an attack would exact and the risk of confrontation with the international powers following a disputed attack require Israel to support the diplomatic move, refrain from judging it before it has begun - and first and foremost listen to what all sides have to say.