Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 31/12
Saudi silence on intelligence chief Bandar’s fate denotes panic
Arafat's widow asks France to launch murder probe
MK: Netanyahu must 'unmask' US spying on Israel
Barak endorses Barack, touts US security support
Panetta in Cairo for Talks with Tantawi, Morsi
Christians Protest Islamic Constitution in Egypt
Syria fighting rages as rebels attack Aleppo targets
Official: Iraqi Kurdistan Trained Syrian Kurds
Syrian army pounds Aleppo, rebels claim successes
U.N., aid groups struggle to help Syrian refugees
Iran needs to wean off oil exports, leaders say
Lebanon EDL chief: Monday disruption at EDL office ‘unprecedented’
Berri-Aoun Differences Linger over EDL Crisis
Kataeb calls to “remove obstacles” hindering dialogue
STL rejects all challenges to jurisdiction
Bank employees support civil servants' call for new salary scale
Sleiman voices relief at release of telecoms data
Lebanese hostages' families demonstrate near presidential palace
Lebanon’s EDL says “occupation” by strikers poses national risk
Assir sets 4 conditions to end Sidon sit-in
Italian defense minister praises UNIFIL’s work
Families of Abducted Lebanese Pilgrims Hold Sit-in Near Baabda Palace
Lebanon to Plunge in Darkness as Foes Refuse to Shift Stances
Report: Rmeileh Cell was Planning to Shoot Down UNIFIL Chopper
Report: Abbas Shoaib Escapes Captors for Few Hours
Phalange Urges Removal of All Obstacles Hindering National Dialogue

Saudi silence on intelligence chief Bandar’s fate denotes panic
http://www.debka.com/article/22225/Saudi-silence-on-intelligence-chief-Bandar’s-fate-denotes-panic
DEBKAfile Special Report July 31, 2012/ Disquiet in Washington, Jerusalem and a row of Middle East capitals is gaining ground the longer the Saudi government stays silent on the reports of the assassination of the newly-appointed Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, purportedly in a revenge operation by a Syrian intelligence death squad. If true, it would shoot a devastating tentacle out from the Syrian conflict to the broader region. It is widely feared that Saudi rulers are too traumatized to respond by the fear of Iranian penetration of the highest and most closely guarded circles of Saudi government, possibly climaxing in Bandar’s assassination. The unconfirmed reports of his death attribute its motive to revenge by Iran and Syria for the bomb explosion five days earlier in Damascus which killed four of Bashar Assad’s top managers of his war on the uprising against his regime.
The prince, son of the late crown prince Sultan, has not been seen in public since Saudi General Intelligence headquarters in Riyadh was hit by a bomb blast Monday, July 23 killing his deputy, Mashaal al-Qarni. DEBKA-Net-Weekly 550 of Friday, July 26, was the first world publication to report this attack, in the face of a massive official blackout, from its exclusive intelligence sources.
Now as then, debkafile’s sources have obtained no confirmation that Prince Bandar was injured or killed in that attack. King Abdullah made him Director of Saudi Intelligence on July 19, just a day after the Damascus bombing. But our sources doubt whether a Syrian intelligence squad would be capable of reaching deep inside Riyadh. They therefore postulate that the deed was committed or orchestrated by a clandestine Iranian agency.
It wouldn’t be the first time.
In 2003 and 2004, Iran initiated a wave of bombing attacks inside the Saudi kingdom carried out by Al Qaeda, supplying its terror squads with intelligence, explosives and money. Al Qaeda experts ran those operations. One of them, Saif al-Adal, was later freed by Iran and is now based in Pakistan.
Iran’s terror masters may have gone back to their tested stratagem of hiring Al Qaeda terrorists for an insider job against the Saudi regime.
For Tehran, all means are justified for the preservation of their foremost Arab ally, Syrian ruler Bashar Assad, in power. Furthermore, Iran’s ability to strike deep into the heart of the Saudi capital is meant to serve as a timely object lesson for their Middle East enemies that Iran’s arm is long enough to reach inside any of their capitals.
The attack on Riyadh therefore throws a new perspective on the military calculations actuating the “Arab Spring” and governing US and Israel plans to strike Iran’s nuclear program in the very near future. In the same way, the Damascus bombing of July 18 dragged the Syrian civil war outside its borders to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Iran. The unconfirmed report claiming Prince Bandar was critically injured and his doctors had lost the fight to save him, spilling out since Sunday July 29, has gained wide resonance – not because it was verified but because of its momentous strategic significance. Corroboration is still lacking. debkafile reports that Washington too is groping the dark and has turned to its many Middle East intelligence contacts for a glimmer of light on what has happened to the key Saudi figure – so far without success.
It looks as though the enigma will be solved one way or another only after an authoritative account or an official statement is forthcoming from the Saudi government or if the missing prince appears in public. The absence of any word from the Saudi government increases the trepidation in Washington and among concerned parties in the Middle East.

STL rejects all challenges to jurisdiction
July 31, 2012/By Willow Osgood/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The Special Tribunal for Lebanon rejected all defense motions challenging the jurisdiction of the court in a decision published Monday, clearing another hurdle in the runup to trial, tentatively set to begin in March. The defense counsel for the four men indicted in the attack that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others had argued before the court that it had been established illegally, violates Lebanese sovereignty, has selective jurisdiction and does not guarantee the accused a right to fair trial. But the Trial Chamber of the United Nations-backed court dismissed the motions, confirming that it had jurisdiction to try the men accused of the 2005 attack. The decision can be appealed. On arguments that the court violates Lebanese sovereignty because it was not approved by the president or Parliament, the judges said that “[U.N. Security Council] Resolution 1757 is the sole basis of establishing the tribunal,” and Lebanon, as a member state of the U.N., had complied with its obligations under the resolution. Because of this, the Trial Chamber said it was not necessary to examine any issues in the defense motions alleging that Lebanese law was violated.
Furthermore, the judges found that Lebanon has never claimed that its sovereignty had been violated.
“To the contrary, as a member state of the United Nations, Lebanon has honored its obligations specified in the annex to the resolution by taking all required steps,” the decision said, citing evidence of this cooperation including a list of potential judges Lebanon presented to the court, memoranda of understanding it made with the court and Lebanon’s substantial contribution to the court’s budget and its compliance with requests for assistance.
The Trial Chamber also said it had no power to review the actions of the Security Council and that “no other judicial body possesses such a power of potential judicial review of the Security Council.”The judges rejected that the court was illegal – rather than without jurisdiction – because the challenges didn’t fit under the definition of a preliminary motion. The court earlier dismissed a pretrial motion asking it to reconsider a February decision to proceed to trial in absentia. It has yet to rule on defense motions filed in late June on alleged defects in the form of the indictment.

Aoun is the primary victim
Hazem Saghiyeh, July 30, 2012
Michel Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement could well be the primary victims of the repercussions of the Syrian crisis on Lebanon.
If we take a look at the past, we notice that the Understanding between Hezbollah and the FPM was one between a major regional issue (the Resistance’s weapons and the interests of the Syrian-Iranian alliance) and a petty domestic one (Aoun’s accession to the presidency). While Hezbollah does not intend to bring the FPM leader to the top spot in the state, it provided him with cover on the national level, much like the FPM provided Hezbollah with a Christian cover.
However, the repercussions of the Syrian crisis on the situation in Lebanon mean that Hezbollah cannot afford slow, considerate and complaisant action similar to what the Understanding with Aoun dictated. During his speech before last, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah did emphasize the continuing alliance with the General, but news of conflicts, though patched up, is now largely predominant over news of agreement. More importantly, Hezbollah’s “regional issue” no longer cares that much about cover, be it Christian or otherwise due to its distress in Syria, as it is now a matter of life or death. Such a transformation is likely to lead to a progressive, albeit rapid, retreat by Aoun toward pure and clear Christian positions. The issue of hourly-wage workers at Electricité du Liban and granting them permanent employee status may well be an indicator in this respect. Still, the Christian positions to which Aoun will retreat do not allude to national détente, nor do they entail any positive connotation regarding saner national relations between the various sectarian groups. Rather, these positions are likely to hover between childish sulking on the one hand and, on the other, the exacerbation of instincts. This prediction is even more bolstered by the deep frustration Aounists are certainly feeling today.
In fact, the Free Patriotic Movement made a break with “the West” and was overrun by an “East” that is fraught with worries far greater than Michel Aoun’s place on the Lebanese political stage. This deadlock is added to a conflict between a wish to withdraw from the cabinet in order to gain popularity and an inability to do so in order to void the total collapse of the Understanding with Hezbollah.
In other words, all roads seem blocked and all we can do is to wait for weird surprises in the shape of Aoun’s statements. Aounists can indeed do no more than talking.
**This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Sunday July 29, 2012

Kataeb calls to “remove obstacles” hindering dialogue
July 30, 2012 /The Kataeb Party on Monday called for removing obstacles that prevented national dialogue sessions from being held, according to a statement issued following the party’s weekly meeting.
“[We] call for removing all obstacles… in order to resume [national dialogue sessions] on a clear and solid basis. This calls for a frank stance to be made regarding March 14’s demands, particularly those pertaining to handing over complete telecom data,” the Kataeb added.The party also commended President Michel Suleiman’s efforts to resolve the issue of transferring telecom data to security forces.
The Western-backed March 14 alliance had accused Najib Mikati’s government of refusing to transfer crucial telecom data to the relevant security agencies to assist in efforts to uncover suspects involved in political assassination bids. On July 19, March 14 suspended its participation in national dialogue sessions. The accusation was made following assassination attempts against March 14 figures, including Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea in April and March 14 MP Boutros Harb in early July. The Kataeb also voiced its appreciation to the military on the occasion of Army Day, which falls on August 1, and called on the cabinet to provide the army with “full political cover” in order to allow it to perform its national duties “completely.”
-NOW Lebanon

EDL chief: Monday disruption at EDL office ‘unprecedented’
July 31, 2012 /Electricité Du Liban Director General Kamal Hayek told the press Tuesday that Monday’s closure of the EDL headquarters in Beirut’s Corniche al-Nahr was unprecedented.
“What happened yesterday was unprecedented and very dangerous. [Such actions] did not take place during the [Lebanese] civil war, [the] 1982 [Israeli invasion] or the 2006 [July War].”
On Monday, the striking employees blocked the road outside the company headquarters as well as the building’s entrances, preventing employees from leaving or accessing the office.
The hourly-wage workers have been at odds with the company over improvements to their work conditions and have called for their appointment as permanent staff.
Although the parliament approved a draft law on July 2 to permanently employ them—after conducting an assessment to select those competent for hiring—the workers still held protests demanding back pay. The EDL chief added that he entrusted security forces with electricity bills “worth billions of Lebanese pounds” and documents present inside the surrounded company headquarters.
He also called for keeping the EDL away from political bickering, adding that the solution for the current crisis was in the hands of the parliament.
-NOW Lebanon

Italian defense minister praises UNIFIL’s work
July 31, 2012/The Daily Star
TYRE, Lebanon: Italy’s defense minister praised Monday the “excellent ties” Italian peacekeepers were able to forge with the population of south Lebanon as part of their mission with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. Giampaolo Di Paola visited his country’s contingent in the town of Shamaa, near the southern city of Tyre. The minister thanked his country’s contingent for the “efforts and sacrifices” they were making to preserve peace and stability in south Lebanon.  Italy currently holds the presidency of the peacekeeping force and has a 1,189-strong contingent.
Di Paola held talks with Lebanese leaders Monday that focused on developments in the country and the region, as well as the peacekeeping mission.
The minister kicked off his talks with a meeting with his Lebanese counterpart Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn in Yarze, northeast of Beirut.
During the talks, Di Paola praised the cooperation between the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL. He also stressed that the cooperation should continue and be bolstered. Di Paola then drove to Ain al-Tineh in Beirut for talks with Speaker Nabih Berri. The Italian official left Lebanon Monday night.
The Italian official also held talks with President Michel Sleiman at Baabda Palace.

Assir sets 4 conditions to end Sidon sit-in
July 31, 2012/ By Mohammed Zaatari/The Daily Star
SIDON, south Lebanon: Sheikh Ahmad Assir laid down four conditions Tuesday to end his road blockage of part of the south Lebanon highway. “There are signs of a breakthrough. Palestinian and Lebanese [officials] are exerting efforts toward ending this sit-in,” Assir told The Daily Star from his campsite on Sidon’s eastern highway, which he established one month ago to protest Hezbollah's refusal to discuss disarming. Assir, however, set four conditions he said the Lebanese government would have to meet in order for him to end his protest. The firebrand Sunni sheikh said his conditions include a pledge from President Michel Sleiman to include the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons as a main topic on the agenda of the next National Dialogue session, which is scheduled for Aug. 16. The other demands include a pledge from authorities not to pursue him or his supporters and to release a man named Mohammad Baba. Lebanese authorities arrested Baba during the first days of the protest, which has paralyzed business in the Lebanon’s southern port city. Sources in Sidon told The Daily Star Monday that ongoing efforts to end the sit-in have made progress and might lead to positive results in the next 48 hours.
But Assir sounded less positive. “Nothing is final yet. We have set out demands and we will dismantle the encampment if the government respects my [conditions],” Assir said during his remarks to The Daily Star Tuesday. Assir’s supporters began the sit-in on Sidon’s eastern highway on June 28 to protest Hezbollah’s arms. Assir, a harsh critic of Hezbollah, has repeatedly called on the party to surrender its weapons to the Lebanese Army.

Lebanon to continue debate on draft electoral law next week
July 31, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Lebanon's Cabinet agreed Tuesday that it would continue discussion next week of a draft electoral law based on proportional representation.
Information Minister Walid Daouk said the Cabinet will meet at Beiteddine Palace Monday to continue debate on the electoral law presented by Interior Minister Marwan Charbel.
The decision came following a Cabinet meeting at the presidential palace in Baabda, northeast of Beirut, during which ministers failed to agree on all the articles of the draft law.
Ministers had failed to approve the law during a session held Monday at Baabda Palace, following which ministerial sources told The Daily Star that the law would likely be approved by a majority vote at Tuesday’s session after being discussed in greater detail. The sources also said that ministers aligned with Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt’s parliamentary bloc would probably vote against adopting the law. Jumblatt has repeatedly voiced his objection to a law based on proportional representation, fearing that such a law would diminish his parliamentary bloc. Daouk told reporters following Cabinet's Tuesday meeting that the Cabinet did not put the law to a vote.

Lebanese hostages' families demonstrate near presidential palace
July 31, 2012/ The Daily Star /BEIRUT: The families of 11 Lebanese pilgrims kidnapped in Syria two months ago held a rally Tuesday near the presidential palace in Baabda, northeast of Beirut, to protest the government's failure to secure their release. Around a dozen men and women gathered outside Bou Khalil Supermarket, some four kilometers from the presidential palace, in a bid to pressure government leaders meeting in Baabda to redouble their efforts to secure the release of their loved ones. The pilgrims, all Shiites, were kidnapped on May 22 after crossing into Syria from Turkey. They were on their way back to Lebanon following a pilgrimage to Iran. A previously unknown group calling itself "Syrian Rebels in Aleppo" claimed responsibility for the abduction, saying five of the hostages were members of Hezbollah. Hezbollah and their families deny the claim. The group demanded that Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah apologize for comments he had made in support of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Nasrallah, a staunch ally of Assad, said the abduction would not change Hezbollah’s stance on the events in Syria.

The Twilight War: The Secret History of America's Thirty-Year Conflict with Iran
Washington Insitute/David Crist and James Jeffrey
July 31, 2012
Watch a live webcast starting at 12:30 p.m. EDT as author David Crist and Ambassador James Jeffrey delve beneath the war of words between Tehran and Washington to uncover the parallel campaigns of espionage, covert action, and military activities that have roiled U.S.-Iranian relations.
Watch live streaming video from washingtoninstitute at livestream.comBeneath the thirty-year war of words between Iran and the United States have been parallel campaigns of espionage, covert action, and military activities that have rarely come into public view. In his latest book, Dr. David Crist details the dramatic secret history of this undeclared conflict, from the weeks immediately following Iran's 1979 revolution through today's tensions. A Marine reservist and senior historian with the U.S. government, Crist had unprecedented access to senior officials and key documents. The product of ten years of research, Twilight War reveals the undercover activities and policy debates that have roiled U.S.-Iranian relations.
To discuss the book's findings, The Washington Institute cordially invited Dr. Crist to address a Policy Forum luncheon on July 31, 2012, from 12:30 to 2:00 p.m. Ambassador James Jeffrey, who retired from the Foreign Service in June, will add personal observations from three decades in the State Department, most recently as ambassador to Iraq and Turkey.
David Crist is a senior historian for the U.S. government and a special advisor to the head of U.S. Central Command. As an officer in the Marine Corps Reserve, he served two tours with Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Author of the 2009 Washington Institute report Gulf of Conflict: A History of U.S.-Iranian Confrontation at Sea, he holds a doctorate in Middle Eastern history from Florida State University.
James Jeffrey recently retired from the Foreign Service after a thirty-three-year career in which he attained the highest rank of career ambassador. His assignments included deputy national security advisor in the White House, three years in Iraq as ambassador and deputy chief of mission, and ambassador to Turkey and Albania. From 1969 to 1976, he served as a U.S. army officer in Germany and Vietnam.
 

Lebanon: Fractured Past, Bleak Present
BY BARRY RUBIN JULY 29, 2012
William Harris, professor of politics at the University of Otago in New Zealand, is one of the world’s leading experts on Lebanon and Syria. His new book is Lebanon: A History, 600-2011, which, as the title suggests, narrates the history of that land and country over the centuries. But Harris also follows the contemporary regional events very closely. He is interviewed here by PJ Media Middle East Editor Barry Rubin.


BR: You’ve just written a comprehensive history of Lebanon. What makes Lebanon a unique country and what are its most important special features?
WH: Lebanon contains virtually the full religious diversity of the Arab world in a space the size of Connecticut. Christian, Muslim, and Islamic-derived sectarian communities with histories going back to early Medieval times are the principal identity markers in the country. The balance is unique: Sunni and Twelver Shia Muslims are about 30% each; Christians (all Christian sects) are approximately 35%; and Druze (an offshoot of Isma’ili Shia Islam) are 5%.
Nowhere else do Sunni, Shia, and Christians come together in such equivalence, and the demographic standoff is expressed in a unique multi-communal political system of defined shares in government, parliament, and bureaucracy for each sectarian group. The system worked best in the 1960s and has decayed in the subsequent decades of turbulence, but Lebanese remain more accustomed to freedoms than any other Arabs.
Lebanon also has the largest and most longstanding global Diaspora of any Arab country. Lebanon, cobbled together as a territorial state by France in 1920 with the Ottoman province of Mount Lebanon as its core, is also a vital little strategic arena in the early 21st century, sandwiched between Israel and Syria and attracting the close attention of both the West and revolutionary Iran.
BR: A key factor in recent Lebanese history has been the rise of the Shia community, and particularly of Hezbollah, to power. How do you explain this development?
WH: The Shia were the fastest growing Lebanese community between the 1940s and 1990s, and increased their proportion from about 20% to about 30%. In that period they were the poorest and most marginalized group and their elite was subsidiary to the Maronite Catholics, the leading Christian sect, and the Sunni Muslims. In the chaos of Lebanon’s war years after 1975, powerful movements and militias emerged in this discontented community — Amal and Hezbollah — to assert a more central role.
Hezbollah moved ahead after 1990 after the Maronites blew themselves apart in the last outburst of the war years, and Syria imposed its hegemony that lasted fifteen years, blessed by the United States. Syria and Islamist Iran backed Hezbollah, which gained an increasing de facto political advantage in the country because of its struggle with Israel. Its perpetuated militarization was justified by that struggle while others disarmed, and hegemony within its community was enabled by both leadership of the struggle and by Iranian financial infusions.
Nonetheless, Hezbollah’s advantage began to become more contested as the years passed after Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000. The Shia demographic surge has faded, the non-Shia two-thirds of Lebanon has become largely hostile, and association with the Syrian and Iranian regimes has vented an increasingly foul odor in the nostrils of other Lebanese.
BR: What are the relations of Hezbolloh and some of the leading Sunni politicians to Syria, and how are they being affected by events there?
WH: The Syrian regime of Bashar Assad has been Hezbollah’s strategic ally and physical connection to Iran. Hezbollah has chosen to commit itself to Bashar’s brutal repressive campaign against the Syrian opposition since early 2011, and it has thereby earned the deepening and now probably implacable hatred of the majority of the Syrian people. If we assume that the Syrian regime is doomed, Hezbollah’s options are to pull as much weaponry as it can across the border, even including chemical munitions, before supply lines are no longer viable, and perhaps to participate in trying to prolong regime elements in a rump of Syria’s territory. In other words, to contribute to Syria’s collapse as a state. Such a posture would of course mean conclusive divorce with the Sunnis of both Syria and Lebanon.
As for Lebanese Sunni politicians, most of course quietly hope for the political advantages that would come from a new Syrian regime. Prime Minister Najib Mikati, however, is in a special position of embarrassment having done his deal with Hezbollah and Syrian President Bashar Assad to head the present Lebanese government on the very eve of the Syrian uprising.
BR: How does Iran figure into Lebanon today?
WH: The Iranian regime is tied to Hezbollah and the present Hezbollah-guided Lebanese government. Shia Islamist Iran is feared and loathed by the great majority of Sunnis and Druze. Despite Hezbollah’s significant extension into the Christian sector through its ally Michel Aoun, the Iranian Islamist regime can have no serious lasting standing among Christians. Shia outside the Hezbollah camp also have no time for the current rulers in Tehran.
In other words, the Iranian regime has a narrow base in Lebanon, being dependent on a faction that perhaps amounts to 20% of Lebanese. This precarious situation would become worse with a collapse of the Syrian regime, Iran’s strategic partner and route to Lebanon. Iran would presumably have to fall back on Beirut’s airport and Lebanese ports to supply Hezbollah, which would not be appreciated by most Lebanese.
BR: Would it be correct to describe the opposition as being an alliance of Sunni Muslims, Christians, and sometimes the Druze, and what are their positions and goals?
WH: The opposition encompasses the overwhelming majority of Sunnis, at least half the Christians, and most Druze regardless of the perambulations of Druze leaders. Senior Druze politician Walid Jumblatt is an interesting case; he has been a forthright Lebanese voice against the crimes of the Assad regime since 2011 yet his party continues to sustain the Mikati government, Hezbollah’s vehicle.
In political terms, the opposition is an alliance of Sunni Muslim and Christian leaders who want to resurrect a mercantile Lebanon somehow insulated from regional turbulence, and its support base includes most Druze and a significant minority of Shia. However the opposition does not really have a coherent vision of a new Lebanon and many Sunnis, frustrated by weak leadership, are drifting toward Sunni Islamist militancy.
Christians in general and Maronites in particular are split between the two major political camps. Drawing on the resentments — especially of less well-off Maronites — toward the Sunni bourgeoisie and Sunni Arab oil state money, Michel Aoun took a substantial segment into alignment with the Shia of Hezbollah. However, Christians are also sensitive about the pretension and pressure of Hezbollah and that party is not mentally well-equipped to interpret the shifting tides. The Christian mood is fickle and still influenced by rancor from the poor outcome for Maronites of the late 20th century war years.
Apart from the usual personal agendas, opposition politicians — targeted in the post-2005 political murder campaign (which they believe was the work of Assad and Hezbollah) — want the downfall of the Syrian regime, the removal of Hezbollah weapons, and constriction of Iran’s involvement in Lebanon. They are short on reassurances to Shia Lebanon on building a positive partnership in a restructured political order.
BR: How do you view Western and particularly U.S. policies toward Lebanon in recent years, and what changes would you suggest?
WH: Given the entrenched political and strategic realities and interlocking tendencies toward inertia in the Levant, I am skeptical about the effect of any U.S. policies (and still more skeptical about the rest of the West). One positive move was the multilateral push to bring accountability for political murder after the February 2005 assassination of Rafik Hariri, culminating in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Of course as yet there is no actual accountability, which I suppose buttresses the first point, but the West at least made an attempt to blunt impunity and to bring the rule of law back to Lebanon.
Otherwise, the U.S. could at a minimum avoid repeating such self-evidently stupid policies as the Obama administration’s drive in 2009 to “engage” Bashar Assad, which achieved derision from Assad and demoralization of the West’s friends in Lebanon. For the immediate future, assuming the Syrian convulsion drags on and the United States remains resolute in sticking to the sideline, Washington needs to be alert to attempts by the Bashar/Hezbollah/Iran machine to change the scenery by embroiling the Israelis in Lebanon. From so many angles the earliest possible demise of the Assad clique is the national interest of the United States.
BR: If the Assad regime in Syria falls, how will this affect Lebanon?
WH: Lebanon is completely hostage to developments in Syria. The detailed effects depend on how long the downfall takes and whether or not a coherent pluralist new regime can be stabilized in Damascus. All downfall scenarios are bad for the positions in Lebanon of Hezbollah and Iran, but a fragmented and anarchic Syria would give these parties some continued room for maneuver.
Early establishment of a new pluralist Syria would reduce the significance of Hezbollah weaponry in the Lebanese domestic equation and give the opportunity for real national dialogue in the context of more balanced power relations. The result would depend on leadership qualities and putting aside of absolutism, rancor, and superiority complexes. The signs are not encouraging.
It is possible to imagine a scenario in which Lebanese remain stuck in their sectarian bog while a new Syria forges ahead. The Syrian uprising has not been on a sectarian basis despite the strenuous efforts of the Assad regime to goad it into sectarianism and the distortion of Syria’s affairs in the Western media. Nonetheless, for both Lebanon and Syria the horizon darkens as the horrors and devastation in Syria become more protracted.
*This article was also published in PJ Media.

Christians Protest Islamic Constitution in Egypt
Washington, D.C. (July 30, 2012) – International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that hundreds of Christians will protest outside Egypt’s constitutional court today, demanding the dissolution of an Islamist-dominated assembly tasked with writing the country’s new constitution. The assembly, appointed by a parliament that was dissolved by the military on June 14, has proposed a constitution that will adhere to the “principles of Islamic Sharia [as] the main source for legislation.”
On July 30, Egypt’s Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) is expected to decide whether or not the Constituent Assembly, a body tasked with drafting Egypt's new constitution, is legal. The current 100-member assembly is led by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups. If the court dissolves the assembly, the military will be granted authority to create a new panel to write the document, making it less likely that Egypt’s constitution will be centered on Islamic law.
In early July, the Constituent Assembly proposed an article which states that Egypt’s legislation is based on the “principles” of Sharia. According to Mohamed Emara, a head of the assembly, Article 2 states that, “Islam is the religion of the state, and Arabic is its official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source for legislation.”
“There is some ambiguity here as to whether Egypt would thus be a Sharia state,” said Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center in Herzliya, Israel. “On one hand, Islamic law is not made the sole source of legislation, while the word ‘principles’ might mean that the interpretation will be loose…. On the other hand, though, both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis accepted this formulation. Since they want a Sharia state this implies they don’t feel that phrasing blocks their goal. Moreover, the meaning of those ‘principles’ will be defined not by the courts but by the al-Azhar mosque university.”
Following demonstrations on Friday at St. Mark’s Coptic Cathedral in the Abbassia District in Cairo, the Maspero Youth Union, a political movement created to defend the rights of Coptic Christians, is calling for renewed protests on Monday demanding that church representatives withdraw from the Constituent Assembly “after [the assembly’s] failure to preserve constitutional articles [by] allowing Egypt to be turned into a religious state,” according to the group’s statement. Protestors are also urging the SAC to dissolve the Constituent Assembly and to reject the proposed constitution, which they view as the beginning of the Islamization of Egypt.
“The stipulation ‘sovereignty is for God’ in the draft constitution to replace the current ‘sovereignty is for the people,’ plays on religious sentiment,” a member of the Maspero Youth Union told Daily News Egypt. “It takes Egypt back to the Middle Ages, shatters the basis of a modern state, legalizes theocracy, and opens the door for countless legal problems, let alone blackmail by opportunists who feign religiosity.”
Meanwhile, Salafi political parties—who made up 25 percent of the dissolved parliament and follow the radical Wahhabi interpretation of Islam found in Saudi Arabia—are insisting that Sharia be the sole source of legislation. In their first few months in parliament, Salafi lawmakers sought to remove a woman’s right to divorce her husband and to toughen blasphemy laws by enacting stronger punishments for insulting Islam.
“I am afraid of leaving the constitution in the hands of people who think in this way,” Shahata Mohamed Shahata, a lawyer fiercely opposed to Islamist rule, told Reuters.
Aidan Clay, ICC Regional Manager for the Middle East, said, “The ‘Arab Spring’, which many of Egypt’s Christians and secularists believed would grant greater freedoms, has instead given rise to Islamists that do not recognize the rights of religious minorities. Although the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly will threaten the very fabric of Egypt’s revolution by giving the military—rather than a democratically elected assembly—the authority to write the country’s constitution, this is exactly what many Christians are hoping for. If the military and the constitutional court do not intervene, then Islamic law will become the basis of the country’s legislation. Under a Sharia state, attacks on churches and the killing of Christians will continue to increase. Additionally, Christians and secularists who are viewed as a threat to the Islamist-dominated government will routinely be charged with blasphemy or ‘insulting Islam’ and thrown in prison. The remaining freedoms that Christians and other religious minorities still have in Egypt will be completely taken from them.”
For interviews, contact Aidan Clay, Regional Manager for the Middle East: clay@persecution.org

Moallem is no longer free
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
It is a significantly ironic observation, with many implications, when we find that most Free Syrian Army statements are now being issued from inside Syrian territory, and especially from Aleppo, steadfast in resisting the tyrant al-Assad’s forces, while we find the al-Assad regime’s Minister of Foreign Affairs speaking from the Iranian capital Tehran!
The Free Syrian Army has begun issuing its statements from inside Syria, vowing to continue the revolution, and liberate occupied Syrian territories from the clutches of the al-Assad regime. Meanwhile we find Walid Moallem threatening the Syrians from Iran, pledging to crush them, and standing next to the Iranian Foreign Minister! It is strange that the al-Assad regime – through its external attempts – has tried to portray the Syrian revolutionaries as a group of “Arab armed gangs”. Likewise, the al-Assad regime has tried to tell the West, and some Syrian segments, that the revolution against it is nothing but a sectarian movement. Meanwhile we find Moallem himself threatening the Syrians – from Iran – and yet no one mentions the abhorrent sectarian nature of the al-Assad regime! Walid Moallem, speaking from Iran, did not announce practical solutions to the crisis; he did not offer anything useful, only threats and intimidation. Meanwhile, the Iranian Foreign Minister said that the formation of a transitional government in Syria was an “illusion”, instead of demanding that the al-Assad regime stop using its criminal killing machine against the Syrians, which shows Iran’s hypocrisy in our region!
Of course, the implications of this, i.e. Moallem speaking from Iran and the Free Syrian Army issuing statements from Syria, means that events on the ground are moving rapidly against the wishes of the al-Assad regime, which has begun to face genuine difficulties on the ground, especially the steadfastness of Aleppo and the Free Syrian Army, which are compounding the erosion of al-Assad’s forces and weakening their control. If there was genuine international action, or at least from the countries willing, to impose safe areas on the Syrian border, this would dismantle the al-Assad regime, particularly its security divisions, in a manner faster than imagined, especially with the increasing pace of military defections, and likewise the diplomatic splits. We have even seen defections among Syrian members of parliament and police leaders in large Syrian cities, most recently the deputy police director in Latakia.
Therefore, Moallem speaking from Tehran shows that the al-Assad regime now believes Iran is all that remains. In spite of all the Russian positions defending al-Assad, the difference between Iran and Russia is that Moscow is now talking about al-Assad using a form of language that does not convey respect, especially when the Russian Foreign Minister spoke recently joking about the idea of granting political asylum to al-Assad in Moscow, where Lavrov said that his country could note even think about that, and that it was up to other countries to take him in. This language is not being spoken in Tehran, and indeed Iran is still defending al-Assad, and threatening those who support his departure from power in our region!
In summary, Moallem’s comments from Iran and the Free Syrian Army’s statements from Syria reflect the reality on the ground, and show that al-Assad no longer cares about the opinion of those in Damascus or Aleppo; rather he wants to make sure that Tehran stands by him in his battle with the Syrians. These are indicators not only of al-Assad’s weakness, but of his imminent end, just as the whole scenario is evidence of Iranian sectarianism in our region.

War by "Remote Control"
By Aidroos Abdulaziz and Hussain Abdul-Hussain
From Gulf waters to Syria's airspace, an invisible confrontation between the CIA and the IRGC
30/07/2012
London/Washington, Asharq Al-Awsat- Last February, when a Syrian activist captured footage of what appeared to be an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) on his mobile phone in a rebel-controlled Syrian town near Homs, several reports surfaced suggesting that Tehran might have been supplying Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad with drones used to hunt down opposition activists and members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA).
Since then, Asharq Al-Awsat has acquired satellite images showing drones, reportedly made in Iran, parked at a Syrian military base near Hama. Through interviews with experts and specialists, this newspaper has been able to verify the accuracy of these pictures and confirm the participation of Iranian drones, thought to be operated by radio, in chasing FSA rebels.
Syrian activists and FSA leaders have confirmed spotting UAVs in the skies above Syria, suggesting that drones are often seen on reconnaissance missions of targets that are subsequently bombarded.
Meanwhile, military sources and experts have reported the flight of Iranian, as well as "American and Israeli" drones, over Syria. This means that what might look like a domestic confrontation in Syria can also double as a war by "remote control" between Western and regional intelligence groups, especially between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Iranian Republican Guard Corps (IRGC).
This in turn begs the question: Has the era of sending big armies to hotspots ended? And have traditional military confrontations been replaced with wars controlled from afar?
What we know so far is that, in the midst of a military buildup in the Arabian Gulf, war by "remote control" seems to be taking place in Syrian airspace, with drones playing a central role, especially in light of the ongoing obstruction of military intervention due to complicated calculations by the world's major powers, and the region's main players.
But toy wars might not be bad news for the country with the mightiest army, the US. After two wars that have seen the participation of its air force, navy and ground troops, America's biggest breakthrough came from somewhere else. American drones have successfully operated in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Somalia, taking out Al-Qaeda operatives such as Abu Yehya Al-Libi—killed in a raid in northern Pakistan—and Anwar Al-Awlaqi—targeted in a mountainous region east of the Yemeni capital Sanaa last year. Drones also played a crucial part in the elimination of Badr Mansour, Atiyah Abdulrahman, Elias Kashmiri, and Taliban leader Baytullah Mahsoud.
In the air, on land, and sea
The more success America's drones score, the bigger their role will be in future confrontations. In fact, American success in the air has been so remarkable that Washington decided to take drone systems to the sea, as it prepares to reinforce its military presence in the Gulf through the deployment of Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs). The C-Fox submarines, designed by a German company previously owned by British giant defense manufacturer BAE Systems, are four-foot long, remotely-controlled submarines that can find and detonate Iranian mines. They are disposable, in that they seek their targets—mines—through the Sound Navigation and Ranging (SONAR) system, and detonate upon touch, destroying both themselves and the mines.
The LA Times reported that the first batch of C-Fox had already arrived in the Gulf region. A 3000-feet fiber optic cable has been installed to allow the control of these vehicles remotely.
The new C-Fox UUVs will serve as an important addition to the anti-mine capabilities of the US military in the area, recently reinforced by four mine-sweepers that joined The US Navy in Gulf waters, bringing the total up to eight.
Needless to say, deploying more mine sweepers reflects America's concern that Iranian mines might form the biggest obstacle for commercial maritime activity in case Tehran decides to close the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel that sees the passage of one fifth of the world's oil tankers.
History tells us that even US navy ships might not be immune to Iranian mines. In the 1980s, when these mines were taking a toll on commercial ships, USS Samuel Roberts, a frigate that carries guided bombs, suffered serious damage after hitting one of them.
Who were the professionals?
Returning to the air, a strong case can be made that drones have been active over Syria. After several instances of spotting and many pictures of flyovers in Homs, Hama and other places, sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the bombing that killed a number of top regime security personnel in Damascus could not have happened without accurate information provided from the air.
Andrew Tabler, a prominent US expert on Syria at the Washington Institute for Near East Policies, told Asharq Al-Awsat that "no details about the operation that killed Assad's senior aides have emerged yet, but some think that professional intelligence groups are behind it."
Tabler did not rule out the possibility that the Syrian regime might have shot itself in the foot after leaks indicated that members of the targeted security cell had intended to establish a connection with the UN to discuss post-Assad Syria.
"Because the bombing led to the killing of several people, it does not look like an amateur job to me, but a professional one," said Tabler. "Who were these professionals? I don't know."
Tabler, who spent years in Damascus, said that identifying what happened "becomes more complicated because it is hard to locate the building" where the bombing took place. Some "pictures showed smoke in the building, while in other pictures, the building looked intact."
He argued: "If it were proven that the building was damaged, then it was a drone, but if the building were intact, then it was something else."
Tabler confirmed in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat that the United States collects intelligence through "satellite images as well as human assets on the ground," saying that his country "did not have enough information on the ground, an old problem for the US," but that American intelligence were "doing a much better job today in collecting information inside Syria than in the past."
Tabler argued that Washington is keeping an eye on Syrian chemical weapons "from space and on the ground," and that his information indicates that there are 45 sites where the Syrian regime stocks its arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction. "Where are these sites exactly? I don't know, but I've read reports saying that getting rid of them would take a military operation with the participation of 75,000 troops," he concluded.
Even though the United States has never denied its usage of drones in the Middle East, it declines to say whether it is specifically flying any over Syria.
A source close to the administration, who asked that his name be withheld, told Asharq Al-Awsat that Washington provides the Syrian rebels with satellite images showing the deployment of Assad forces. The source also said that Washington has supplied the rebels with encrypted communication tools that are impenetrable by the Assad regime or Iranian intelligence.
The source added that Washington has been helping the rebels with the establishment of Command-and-Control units, and funding training programs for the opposition to be able to run Syria after Assad, in addition to collecting intelligence on both Assad forces and the rebels, and intercepting phone calls and other kinds of communication.
In this context, a former US Military Intelligence officer, who spent years in the region, told Asharq Al-Awsat that UAVs were indeed flying over Syria and assigned to conduct routine reconnaissance. He said that these "flights were part of a joint effort with the Turkish military command." The Americans and the Turks have been jointly flying UAVs for years, from Turkey's Incirlik airbase, to monitor PKK fighters.
The source argued that Israel does not fly drones over Syria, and that the US and Israel rely on satellite images that allow the monitoring of the movement of heavy weapons, especially Syria's arsenal of chemical weapons.
But other US sources, who also asked to remain anonymous, said that "a big number" of drones fly over Syria to collect intelligence including on Syrian military attacks against the opposition and civilians. The sources said that these flights were not preparing for any military intervention, but were rather collecting evidence and understanding Syrian military movement and communication, which might be later used in case the international community decides to act against the regime in Damascus.
Publically, Washington has remained cagey about its UAV activity, especially over Syria. Asharq Al-Awsat asked the Spokesperson of the US Central Command for comment. He responded by saying: "I have not heard any information in this regard, but even if there was such info, it will remain secret." Likewise, the Department of State declined to comment, even though it has publically reiterated that Washington has been providing humane and non-lethal support to the Syrian opposition.
America's drone flights over Syria remain a heavily guarded secret, which might be understandable given that, together with the Department of Defense, the CIA is responsible for UAV programs.
Other regional players
American officials, however, are not the only ones monitoring Syria. In Turkey, sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that their radars have captured drone activity over Syrian territory. The sources said that these UAVs were used to spy on activists and target them, arguing that these drones were made in Israel.
The Turkish sources drew three conclusions. First, Israel is fully cooperating with the Syrian regime. Second, there might be partial cooperation between the two—in which Tel Aviv provides Damascus with aerial intelligence. Third, Russia could have supplied the regime with these UAVs that it bought from Tel Aviv, which means that Russian officers and experts might be operating them inside Syria.
More evidence on Assad's usage of drones comes from satellite images, posted by a site that collects intelligence. The images unveil new information about Iranian spy drones called Muhajer 4, which were photographed at a military installation near Hama, and are presumably used to spy on activists. Based on pictures, posted on the website OSGEOINT and syndicated elsewhere, the spy drone Muhajer 4 looks small, unarmed, and probably has a limited flight range.
Military experts suggest that the Iranian drones operate on radio waves and are commanded from home base only (as opposed to US drones that are operated worldwide through global positioning satellite technology). The Iranian-made Syrian drones might also have limited capability of transmitting real time video. Meanwhile, US and European officials confirmed that Iran gives the Syrian government a wide range of aide to help him suppress the uprising against Assad’s rule, including high tech surveillance tools and technology to monitor and censor the internet, in addition to arms and ammunition. The officials said that Iranian drones were helping Assad too.
Even if Syrians have drones
A US source close to the administration said that even if Iran or Syria were flying spy drones over rebel territory, that "would not significantly benefit Assad or his forces." He added: "Satellite images allow for the surveillance of heavy weapons and deployment of army battalions, while UAVs – with their real time video transmission – are used to monitor individuals."
The source said: "In the case of Assad, the importance of aerial reconnaissance is minimal because the rebels are not organized in fighting battalions, and are not stationed in fixed places." He said: "The rebels use hit-and-run tactics, which makes monitoring them through satellite irrelevant, and even if Assad or the Iranians use UAVs to hunt down rebel leaders, the limited capabilities of their drones – which can reportedly fly between 20 and 30 miles (32 – 48 kilometers) from their home base – means that rebels can elude these drones the minute they step out of their range."
According to OSGEOINT, the website administered by former US intelligence official George Kaplan, the first time a spy drone was spotted in Syria was in February, when an activist uploaded video footage on YouTube showing what looked like a UAV flying over rebel-controlled Kfarbatna. Later, a drone was spotted at least once in the restive city of Homs.
The Assad regime has not been known for using UAVs, while speculations first suggested that these might have been either American or Israeli drones used to spy on the Syrian regime as a prelude to any potential intervention, but – according to Kaplan – observers soon realized that the Kfarbatna drone was the Iranian-made Muhajer 4, also known as Pahpad, which was launched in 2010 during an Iranian navy drill.
Back then, Amir Ali Hajzadah, Head of the Flight Unit at IRGC, announced that "in addition to air reconnaissance, these planes can facilitate battle supervision through their real time transmission." The Pentagon response at the time was to deploy its own drone, probably the high-flying Global Hawk or Sentinel that cannot be seen, to observe the ongoing civil war in Syria, according to US sources.
Compared to the more complex and bigger UMVs, Muhajer 4 is small, 10 feet in length, and with only limited reconnaissance capabilities. Since Damascus has no satellite communication network, the Iranian drone is probably controlled through radio frequency and within eyesight range. Observers suggest that the Muhajer 4's maximum range is 40 miles.
Satellite images posted online indicate that operating Muhajer 4 takes place from an airbase only 18 miles from Hama. Specialists argue that it is possible that Muhajer 4 sends back real time video footage, through which its operators direct it, unlike American UAVs that can send multiple images to multiple places at far away locations. Satellite images of the Shairat airbase, near Hama, also show what looks like a Muhajer 4 control station, which is a storage-like facility connected to a number of vehicles.
According to observers, Syria is not the only state or group that is benefiting from Iranian-made drone technology. Hezbollah has also relied on drones, while Iran helps Venezuela develop its own unmanned spy planes. What is different in Syria is that, there, the Iranian UAVs help in a campaign of brutal and bloody suppression.

Omar: Drama and politics
By Abdullah Al-Otaibi/Asharq Alawsat
As usual, a new controversy has emerged during Ramadan, this time the “Omar” television series. This program has marked a real transition in the history of Arab drama; whether in terms of the courage of the subject matter, the impressive production values, or the extent of the audience, being screened on a number of Arab television channels from Qatar to Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria. The series has also been dubbed and translated in Indonesia and Turkey, as well as through some private Arab and Muslim oriented media outlets in France. After Ramadan, the series will also be broadcasted in Malaysia, and later on in the US. In fact, I believe that this is the first Arab television program to be dubbed and translated into other languages.
It is clear that the controversy over the program’s religious permissibility or impermissibility remains a subject of disagreement in all its major and minor details. Yet some of those who oppose the “Omar” series tend to exaggerate and aggravate the situation through their sermons, and as such are only demonstrating weaknesses in their jurisprudential stances. It is clear that “Omar” is neither a piece of historical research, nor a prophetical biography or a cultural study; rather it is a work of drama that incorporates the writer's vision. The characters and texts develop gradually and the writer uses means of intimation extremely skillfully.
It must be obvious to any observer that such controversies have prevailed for years. However, this time, some religious preachers are targeting the news and entertainment broadcaster “MBC” in particular. They are even appearing on other television channels to issue fatwas against MBC from there. In this endeavor, they never utter a word of criticism against the channels that host them, simply because these channels serve as a platform for their interests. Some preachers attack MBC on supposed “religious grounds”, yet in reality they simply believe the channel has not granted them enough exposure. Others are jealous of MBC's influence and outreach, believing that religious preachers should be the sole source of social guidance.
Drama, as first expressed by the theatre throughout ancient history, transformed at the beginning of the twentieth century into a more influential and a widespread industry through the art of cinema. Cinema cannot be considered a mere trivial commodity because it has an intellectual, entertainment and cultural impact, and most importantly, its political influence has now become highly significant.
The leadership of the Russian Bolshevik revolution, from Lenin to Stalin, was fully aware of the political importance and influence of drama, specifically the cinema. In 1922, Lenin described cinema as “the most important of all the arts for us". In 1924, Stalin warned that the cinema was the biggest means of mobilizing the masses. This was before the invention of television, which allowed films and drama works to be screened in every single household.
For decades, our region has been engaged in a political struggle between the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia. In this struggle, religious, political, sectarian and ideological elements have all blended in with ambitions of influence and motives of sovereignty. Over time, the struggle spread widely and flourished wherever there were different interests and objectives. Considering the powerful influence of drama, it can be used politically to promote one version of events here or another one there. By its very nature, cinema can convey messages that a book, a research paper or an article cannot, because its large audience incorporates categories that are not usually exposed to news or analysis, let alone the act of reading itself that requires effort and time.
In the background of such a struggle there is the sectarian element between the Sunnis and the Shiites, which has a strong political and religious presence in the region. The key point here is that the Shiite ideology adopted by Iran is basically one that glorifies images and uses them to create everlasting portraits. Iran uses drama at the heart of its religious ceremonies to recall history on sacred occasions such as that of the killing of Ali and Hussein. If it true that the heart of Sunni ideology is the Sharia’a, and what is permissible and impermissible in Islam, then it is also true that the crux of Shiite ideology lies in its rituals, emotions and drama.
The profound role of drama in Shiite ideology and Iran's adoption of the art have paved the way for the promotion of the drama industry in both a distinguished and dangerous manner. For years, Iran has been producing dramas to chronicle religious events according to its own ideological view, producing works on the biographies of a number of prophets and Abrahamic religious characters. Now, Iran is aiming to produce a work on Islam and its early history from its own perspective, aiming to exploit this ideologically and politically.
Intellectually and culturally speaking, we do not need to emphasize that sectarianism is utterly rejected and that each sect is entitled to exhibit its own vision and give its own account of religious events. However, politically the situation seems different, especially when this account of events becomes a weapon in the battle of influence and in the war of domination, where Iran has left no stone unturned.
In modern history, although the Soviet Union was wary of cinema, the US transformed the industry into a new power to add to the existing elements of strength in its possession. Through cinema, the US managed to spread its own elements, principles and thoughts, and most importantly its policies. It has promoted its own account of modern history and international struggles from World War I and II, the Cold War, and contemporary conflicts.
Considering the high illiteracy rates in the Arab world, a question arises: Will we see a depiction of the history of Islam, designed for a mass audience, in this particular period? What would the political impact of this be? Are different forces competing to create such a work of drama in order to serve their interests on the ground today? Or is this scenario a mere theological struggle that does not exist in reality?
The political impact of drama is undeniable, and by accessing the broadest category of audiences, visions and ideas can be consecrated. In fact, this is how many theological struggles transformed into major political factors in both ancient and modern history.
For decades, Iran has been undertaking sectarian and ideological promotion together with political promotion. In the former case, we can see the struggle between different Marjas and loyalties, between followers of the Wali al-Fiqh and some Shiite Marjas who opposed this, uphold older believes, and champion rapprochement with the Zaidi school of thought. In the latter case of political promotion, Iran seems adept at attracting numerous groups of political Islam and its symbols to serve its project under the slogan of jihad and resistance [against Israel], despite the objection shown by traditional Islamic institutes such as al-Azhar, and others that have withstood the tide.
The “Omar” television series was aired and all objections were futile, yet political conflicts will continue to be waged through drama as long as man remains on earth.

Hypocrisy over Hezbollah Arms
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/30/hypocrisy-over-hezbollah-arms/
by Franklin Lamb/Foreign Policy
July 30, 2012
BEIRUT — From this observer’s experience in Lebanon, there is only one cosmic-like event that is nearly as predictable from Ramlet al Baida beach in Beirut, near Shatila Palestinian refugee camp, as the sun coming up like thunder out of Syria across the eastern Bekaa Valley every morning. And that might be the regularity of the on cue from Washington, Riyadh, Doha, and Tel Aviv cacophonous chorus that very frequently these days wafts throughout this country and region: “Hezbollah must give up their weapons!”
As this country begins focused preparation for next year’s parliamentary elections, which are predicted by some analysts to quickly develop into the most expensive in Lebanese history in terms of dollars per vote contracted for by some well financed parties, the Future Movement-led March 14 coalition and their international backers are out of the gates early and currently stressing “the urgent need to disarm Hezbollah in order to deprive Israel of a pretext to attack Lebanon.”
With convincingly sincerity, their leaders intone: “The Israelis are planning to justify aggression against Lebanon, and given Israeli attempts to hold Hezbollah and Iran responsible for the Bulgaria attack at the Black Sea airport of Burgas in which five Israelis and their Bulgarian driver were killed Hezbollah disarmament is essential,” he press releases from the Mutaqtbal headquarters warn.
These are followed by warnings about Israeli accusations that Hezbollah will likely receive chemical weapons from the Syrian regime that is trying to smuggle them into Lebanon as stated in a just issued statement issued at the end of the March 14th coalition’s weekly meeting.
With respect to the Bulgaria attack, the European Union turned down a request on July 24 by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to blacklist Hezbollah as a terror group following the bombing in Bulgaria. Israel blames Iran and Hezbollah for Wednesday’s suicide attack at the Black Sea airport of Burgas in which five Israelis and their Bulgarian driver died.
“There is no consensus or justification for putting Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organizations,” said Cypriot Foreign Minister Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency. Sitting alongside the Cypriot minister at a news conference held after annual EU-Israel talks, Lieberman said: “The time has come to put Hezbollah on the terrorist list of Europe.”
“But it would give the right signal to the Israeli people”, Lieberman counter-argued during his continuing 10 European country anti-Iran and Hezbollah tour funded unknowingly by American taxpayers.
But to Lieberman’s consternation, Kozakou-Marcoullis patiently explained the EU decision that Hezbollah was an organization comprising a party and was “active in Lebanese politics…. Taking into account this and other aspects there is no justification for putting Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organizations,” she said.
Oddly, as though in sync with Lieberman’s timing, the March 14th coalition statement called on the international community to “protect Lebanon from any Israeli attack,” it stressed the need for Hezbollah’s disarmament, arguably the only deterrent that has and will continue to give Israel pause before its likely 6th major aggression against Lebanon, “in order to deprive Israel of the pretext it is using to justify its aggression.”
In its weekly communiqué , the Future Movement continued its silence of how to address Lebanon’s urgent problems which include some of the subjects recently enumerated by Human Rights Watch investigator in Lebanon, Nadim Khoury when he pointed out this month that “Lebanon has to realize that it is actually falling behind on so many important measures that need urgent attention and they include women’s rights, protection of vulnerable groups, lack of protection for the elderly, the right to education, increasing inequality, lack of urban planning – you name it.” Not to mention the elementary civil right to work and to own a home for Palestinian refugees.
There may well be several states on Earth in worse shape than Lebanon, to paraphrase British journalist Patrick Galey, but the lack of security, crumbling infrastructure, stagnating legislation, wobbling economy, spreading protests and regressing human rights, Lebanese citizens could be forgiven for understanding the need for Hezbollah’s weapons of effective deterrence against Israel given the latter’s history of aggressions against Lebanon.
Some in Lebanon have discussed the similarities between the Hezbollah-led Resistance movement based in Lebanon and the New England-based American Resistance to British occupation two and one half centuries ago. Included have been forums that examine the similarities between the events at Karbala and in this region and the martyrdom operations of American patriots in 18th century colonial America.
With respect to politically motivated calls for Hezbollah to disarm, one hears some of the very same responses to the suggestions coming from the American Founding Fathers as they crafted a new resistance “open letter” or Constitution which in point of fact are reported to have influenced Hezbollah’s 1985 and 2009 manifestos as did the American Declaration of Independence to some degree.
As though they understood very well the problems facing the Hezbollah led Resistance and would be foreign occupiers, the American framers argued, not as many National Rifle Association lobbyists do that a gun is the right of every citizen for his personal use, but rather that the Resistance needs deterrent weapons to prevent another occupation.
George Mason, who argued for a bill of rights, said during Virginia’s convention to ratify the Constitution in 1788, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Richard Henry Lee wore (Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788), “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves.…”
As passed by the new American Resistance Congress, the members framed the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution as follows:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The concept that the state should have a monopoly on all arms within a country has long been foreign to Lebanon. Since the end of the Civil War, non-state militias have maintained and even bolstered weapons stocks, stashed in caches around the country. Once Lebanon becomes a real nation state and can defend its people against the serial aggressor to its South, no doubt a mechanism for centralizing the deterrent capacity of Lebanon will likely soon follow.