Matthew 18 Who Is the Greatest

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 21/2012

Bible Quotation for today/The Triumphant Approach to Jerusalem
Luke 19/28-40: "After Jesus said this, he went on in front of them toward Jerusalem. As he came near Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, he sent two disciples ahead with these instructions: Go to the village there ahead of you; as you go in, you will find a colt tied up that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If someone asks you why you are untying it, tell him that the Master needs it. They went on their way and found everything just as Jesus had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, Why are you untying it? The Master needs it, they answered, and they took the colt to Jesus. Then they threw their cloaks over the animal and helped Jesus get on. As he rode on, people spread their cloaks on the road. When he came near Jerusalem, at the place where the road went down the Mount of Olives, the large crowd of his disciples began to thank God and praise him in loud voices for all the great things that they had seen: God bless the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory to God! Then some of the Pharisees in the crowd spoke to Jesus. Teacher, they said, command your disciples to be quiet! Jesus answered, I tell you that if they keep quiet, the stones themselves will start shouting.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Asharq Al-Awsat Interview: US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford/By Mina al-Oraibi/February 20/12
Freedom and Tyranny/By: Michael Ledeen/February 20/12
Inside the torture chamber of Assad's inquisition squads/By:Charlotte McDonald-Gibson/February 20/12
Iran as Victim? University of San Francisco's Stephen Zunes Thinks So/By: by Cinnamon Stillwell and Rima Greene/February 20/12
Romney’s Religion: The Most Scrutinized Doctrines of Mormonism/Kelly OConnell/February 20/12
More like a “Friends of al-Assad” conference/By Tariq Alhomayed/February 20/12
Arms-free Tripoli/Matt Nash and Nadine Elali/ February 20/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 20/12
Iran names Istanbul for nuclear talks, buttresses Assad with Russia
Netanyahu meeting U.S. security official amid Iran tensions
U.S. concerned that Barak is pushing for Israeli attack on Iran
Iran FM: We are ready to face 'worst-case scenario' in defense of nuclear program
U.S., Britain urge Israel not to attack Iran
Mossad better check its sources before backing Iran strike
Iran halts oil sales to British, French companies
IDF to deploy Iron Dome anti-missile system in central Israel
Egypt recalls its ambassador to Syria amid persisting violence
Palestinian television still glorifies terror attacks against Israel
Italian cops seize $6 trillion in fake U.S. Treasury bills
Several wounded in blast near Nigerian church
New STL indictment next week: March 14 sources
Rai calls on state to take care of poor
Hezbollah: No March 14 return even if Assad falls
Beirut banking stocks advance amid slow activity
Lebanon: Heavy weekend storm kills child, leaves destruction in its wake
Sleiman: Defense strategy should benefit from Hezbollah's arms
Jumblat Urges Need to Aid Displaced Syrians as they Continue to Pour into Lebanon
Iran to Export Power to Lebanon, Syria
Storm Subsides after Coating Lebanon in Snow
U.S. Army Chief Says Syria Intervention 'Very Difficult'
Syria's Alawites to fight to death for power: analysts
Syrian security forces clamp down on Damascus
Damascus on the edge after protests
Syria's ancient desert city of Palmyra besieged
Egypt recalls ambassador to Syria

New STL indictment next week: March 14 sources
February 20, 2012/By Van Meguerditchian The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare will submit a new draft indictment in three cases to the pretrial judge before leaving office next week, several March 14 coalition sources told The Daily Star Sunday. According to a source with knowledge of Bellemare’s meetings last month in Beirut, the prosecutor informed Lebanese officials that he would draft the new indictment for the attempted assassinations of former Deputy Prime Minister Elias Murr and MP Marwan Hamadeh, as well as the assassination of former Lebanese Communist Party leader George Hawi.
While the source could not verify whether the new draft would include names other than the four Hezbollah members who were charged last June, the source said Bellemare would submit all documents at hand, including a new indictment. Last week, Prime Minister Najib Mikati told Agence France Presse that Bellemare had informed him that he would submit a new indictment before leaving office on Feb 29. Mikati also said that the STL prosecutor had briefed him on the cases of Murr, Hamadeh and Hawi. The STL has refused to comment on the authenticity of the report. Speaking to The Daily Star, Hamadeh said the new indictment would be submitted very soon. “Indictments are on the verge of being submitted and justice is moving foward to uncover those who assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and the remaining martyrs of the Cedar Revolution,” Hamadeh said. According to Hamadeh, the new indictment will accelerate the trial proceedings, which are expected to start in the coming months. “Trial sessions will most probably start by summer.”

Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai.calls on state to take care of poor
February 20, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai called on the government to take care of the poor in order to enhance their feeling of belonging to Lebanon, and expressed regret that politicians cared only for their private interests. “Among one of the first duties of the government should be to take care of the poor and the needy, so that they will feel the value of belonging to their nation and be proud of it,” Rai said after holding a Mass at Bkirki to mark the start of Lent. Rai complained that officials only cared for their personal interests, and constitutional institutions are almost not functioning. He said that all this leads to the deterioration of the socio-economic conditions in the country. The patriarch noted that the Lent period is that of “change and repairing ties between each other, especially on economic and social levels.”“We are all invited to give to charity as much as we can afford, to help our sisters and brothers, the poor,” he added. Rai said that charity was motivated by love and justice. “This is our biblical culture and the teachings of our church.”

Hezbollah: No March 14 return even if Assad falls
February 20, 2012/By Hussein Dakroub The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Hezbollah MP Nawwaf Musawi said Sunday the opposition March 14 coalition would not be able to regain power even if the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad was brought down by the 11-month-old popular uprising. Speaking during a political gathering in the southern village of Housh in the port city of Tyre, Musawi said the Future Movement-led March 14 parties were betting on the fall of the Assad regime in the hope of regaining power more than a year after Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s government was toppled by the Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance.
“The [March 14 parties’] escalating tone we are hearing reflects the hateful hearts of a group who were forced to leave the government and who know no other way to return to it except by waiting for the downfall of the Syrian regime and by building their glory on the illusion of this downfall,” he added. “This illusion [about the regime’s collapse] has reached its highest level whereby some speakers at BIEL (Beirut International Exhibition and Leisure center) have begun behaving from a position of the victor who dictates conditions, calling them guarantees,” Musawi said. He was referring to last week’s rally marking the seventh anniversary of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s 2005 assassination where March 14 leaders predicted the fall of the Assad regime in their speeches
“Even if their wish for the collapse of the Syrian regime comes to pass – and it will not – they will not be able to change the internal equation in Lebanon,” Musawi said, in a clear reference to the new Parliament majority making up the government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati. Hezbollah and its March 8 allies have a majority in Mikati’s 30-member Cabinet.
The March 14 parties have voiced strong support for Syrian protesters demanding Assad’s ouster, while Hezbollah and its March 8 allies back the Assad regime.
Despite being riven by differences since it was formed last June, the current government had spared Lebanon the “dangers of strife and instability” amid the turbulence in the region as a result of the wave of popular revolts sweeping the Arab world, Musawi said.
“In any political process, we must witness polarization and a relationship that sometimes oscillates between accord and disagreement. This political coalition, which has succeeded in saving Lebanon from strife and managed to form a government coalition, is called upon today to make its experiment successful,” he added.
Musawi stressed the need for the major parties represented in the government to work to narrow differences and try to reach agreements to avoid a split within the government. The Cabinet has not met since Feb. 1 when Mikati suspended sessions following sharp differences with ministers from MP Michel Aoun’s parliamentary Change and Reform bloc over the appointments of Christians to key posts in the public administration. Musawi rejected March 14 parties’ repeated calls for national dialogue on Hezbollah’s arms as well as the imposition of conditions on a national dialogue, stalled since November 2010.
“A dialogue aimed at disarming the resistance is a dialogue demanded by Israel. This will not be achieved in Lebanon. The Lebanese ought to discuss how to protect themselves against possible [Israeli] aggression rather than how to rid themselves of the defensive capabilities that protect them.”
“There is only one way to deal with the resistance and its political coalition and that is dialogue, which should not be conditional but based on protecting Lebanon against Israeli aggression,” Musawi said. “Lebanon is no longer an open arena for an Israeli military picnic every so often. Rather, it derives its immunity today from the resistance’s strength and arms,” he added.
Meanwhile, MP Mohammad Raad, head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, defended the resistance option, saying the current Arab popular uprisings have been inspired by the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the pro-West Shah of Iran.
“Today we are in harsh confrontation with the front of regional and international tyranny and hypocrisy which target our will and insistence on achieving our independence and sovereignty and regaining our dignity and self-confidence,” Raad told a rally in the southern town of Bint Jbeil commemorating the anniversary of slain resistance leaders.
“We are on a line of radical contradiction with the interests of world arrogance and the Zionist enemy,” he said. “This faithful and jihadist resistance ... is the choice that gives glory, pride and dignity to Lebanon and the region.”

Sleiman: Hezbollah arms could be defense boon
February 20, 2012 01:33 AM The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The National Dialogue should explore ways the Lebanese might benefit from Hezbollah’s arms, President Michel Sleiman said in comments published Sunday, adding that there is consensus the Syrian crisis should not spill over into Lebanon. “I have called for dialogue and announced the reason. I said we should gather to discuss a previously proposed national defense strategy that includes the resistance and in which we would discuss the issue of arms,” Sleiman told Al-Mustaqbal newspaper. He also said, “There are three dimensions to the issue of arms in Lebanon: the first is to implement what has been approved regarding arms in Palestinian [camps]; the second is to discuss ways to benefit from Hezbollah’s arms, when to use them and for what purpose; and the third is to demilitarize the cities.”
For Sleiman, there is no fundamental difference between rival political parties over which items to discuss in national dialogue sessions frozen since 2010, but the manner in which certain items have been proposed is inappropriate. Earlier this week, Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said his party was open to dialogue, criticizing the March 14 coalition’s conditions stipulating that the only item to be discussed was Hezbollah’s arms. March 14 politicians have repeatedly urged Hezbollah to disarm, while the resistance party maintains that its weapons are the only means to defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression. Last year, Sleiman called for resuscitating the moribund National Dialogue. His calls, along with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri’s efforts to bridge the gaps between the recalcitrant participants, were to no avail. “On a weekly basis, I discuss with a group of intellectuals and experts various means by which we might revive the National Dialogue. I am keen on my proposals,” Sleiman said.
Sleiman also touched on recent armed clashes in the north of the country, which many feared were a manifestation of Syria’s crisis spilling over into Lebanon, saying: “There is a decision not to ratchet up tensions.”“If Lebanese want to destabilize the country, they can do that. [But] we have the chance and the opportunity to protect this stability and preserve it. It is up to us. We can even prevent the unrest on our border that is affecting us,” Sleiman said. Last week, clashes erupted in Tripoli between supporters and opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime. The fighting lasted two days and resulted in the death of four people and the wounding of several others, including soldiers.
Sleiman said that the fact clashes in Tripoli quickly subsided proved political parties in Lebanon remain intent on preventing the turmoil in Syria from drawing Lebanon into its vortex.
“What I meant by preventing the Syrian situation from affecting Lebanon is that we should prevent it from affecting minorities,” he said, adding: “We should base our thinking on nationality and not minorities.”
The president reiterated that what he knows “is that violence should stop and that everyone should engage in dialogue and pursue reforms under favorable conditions.”
During the president’s interview with the daily, Sleiman dismissed characterizations of the current government as dominated by one party, pointing out that it includes March 8 and independent ministers.
“With its performance, the government has proven that it does not represent only one side,” he said. Asked whether he wanted a “Lebanese Spring” similar to what is happening in Arab countries, Sleiman said: “I am not calling for a Lebanese Spring, but for accountability in all areas – at polling stations, in the matter of freedom of expression and frank talk, and in confronting officials with the truth.”
On the subject of Syria, Sleiman said, “We should let the Syrians determine their destiny.” – The Daily Star

Jumblat Urges Need to Aid Displaced Syrians as they Continue to Pour into Lebanon
by Naharnet /Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat noted that it would be unacceptable for Lebanon to remain idle in its approach towards Syrians who have fled to Lebanon to escape their country’s crackdown against anti-regime protests, reported the daily An Nahar on Sunday. He told the daily: “They should be granted aid and social guarantees regardless of their numbers.”An Nahar revealed that Damascus had informed Lebanese authorities that it had urged them to prevent Syrian women and children from entering Lebanon without “special permission.”It noted a spike in the number of Syrians in recent weeks in the North, as well as the South, especially in the Zaharani, which “prompted some official and political powers to take security measures to monitor their activity.” Some powers warned that these displaced may turn to refugees regardless of the fate of the Syrian regime, cautioning against establishing temporary “Syrian camps that may turn into permanent ones.” Jumblat had said Saturday that Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah should have announced his backing for the Syrian people rather than defend Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime. “I would have hoped that for Syria’s sake he would directly address Assad and tell him that Syria is more important” than anything else, the MP told As Safir. “I wish that he told him to be realistic, particularly that there could no longer be any reform in Syria after all the bloodshed,” the Druze leader said. During a televised speech on Thursday, Nasrallah said he was ready for unconditional dialogue with his March 14 foes and renewed his support for Assad, accusing Arab and Western states of seeking to topple the Syrian president. Nasrallah’s “support for the Syrian people is much more important that his support for the regime and its deluding reform,” the PSP chief told As Safir. “Sayyed Hassan knows what I mean and I don’t want to go into a public confrontation with him.”

Arms-free Tripoli?
Matt Nash and Nadine Elali/Now Lebanon
February 19, 2012
This time, the cart came before the horse. Nearly a week before the latest spat of violence between Tripoli’s Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen neighborhoods, Mosbah al-Ahdab, a former MP from Lebanon’s second-largest city, launched the Civil Moderation Gathering. While the movement is calling for dialogue and unity among all the city’s sects and political factions, it is also requesting an “arms-free” Tripoli. The call for disarmament is the standard response (which goes unheeded) to the frequent flare ups of fighting in the North, and this time was no different. Mufti of Tripoli and North Lebanon Sheikh Malek Shaar requested a city-wide weapons roundup following clashes on February 10 and 11 which killed three and wounded more than 20. The last time the two neighborhoods took up arms against each other (in June 2010) talk of removing guns was all the rage for a few days. This time, however, Ahdab said he thinks things can be different. He spoke to NOW Lebanon in an interview before the violence and said the Civil Moderation Gathering will circulate petitions and focus on bringing more economic development projects to the largely impoverished city (ironically represented in parliament by millionaires). Asked why he thinks this initiative might succeed where so many others have failed, Ahdab said the Civil Moderation Gathering will not be provocative and will take a non-confrontational approach. “We have a positive attitude now,” he said, adding that he believes the majority of people living in Tripoli are sick of fighting and want to work and prosper. Prime Minister Najib Mikati, who has made billions in the private sector, repeatedly said he wants to bring economic revival to the city. Removing the arms, however, could prove far more difficult. The idea of disarming the city immediately begs the question: Where did the weapons come from in the first place? Just like the question of who started the fighting last week, answers vary depending on whom you ask.
Sunni fighters in Bab al-Tabbaneh insisted that Hezbollah is funneling money and weapons into Tripoli. They particularly accused an Islamist group called Tawheed, allied with the Party of God, of arming and said the group owned a weapons depot that exploded during the night of February 10. Sheikh Bilal Shaaban, leader of Tawheed, flatly denied both charges. “The Tawheed movement and Hezbollah are not arming,” he told NOW Lebanon. “As for the third party [i.e. the Future Movement], and in light of the depot incident, they have to defend themselves. If you ask security forces, you will know who is responsible for the depot.”Future MPs have denied any connection to the depot. In background interviews with people from Tripoli, NOW Lebanon has repeatedly been told that every political faction in the city is paying young jobless men a monthly salary to do essentially nothing while also giving them weapons. No one, however, would admit that directly on the record, and NOW Lebanon was not able to independently verify these claims. It is clear from the fighting, however, that there are weapons in Tripoli. The Sunni fighters NOW Lebanon spoke with last week said they purchased their arms and ammo themselves. At one point, as men were peeking out from behind buildings to shoot in the direction of Jabal Mohsen, one man turned to NOW Lebanon and said, “Let’s send Sheikh Saad [Hariri] a message: We don’t have bullets.” Azzam Ayoubi – a representative of Jamaa al-Islamiya in the North, which is Lebanon’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and is allied with the Future Movement – told NOW Lebanon, “There hasn’t been new arming based on the information we have. There has been no new effort to arm. The arming was there, it existed, but it was there then for a reason, so that at any point in time, it can be used for purposes like these.” Ayoubi was referring to the recent clashes.While admitting the challenges ahead are numerous, Ahdab is confident the Civil Moderation Gathering will be successful. “There are no voices requesting moderation,” he said. “We have to be heard as moderates.”

U.S. concerned that Barak is pushing for Israeli attack on Iran
By Amos Harel /Haaretz
The Barack Obama administration believes Netanyahu is still sitting on the fence over a future military strike on Iran. Published 02:27 20.02.12
Latest update 02:27 20.02.12
Visits to Jerusalem by senior U.S. officials this week reflect a growing concern in Washington over the possibility that Israel will decide to attack nuclear sites in Iran. The Americans are particularly worried about the hawkish line that Defense Minister Ehud Barak has adopted on the matter. They apparently have the impression, however, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to come to a final stance on the dispute.
The number of visits that have been made here by senior members of President Barack Obama’s administration in recent months is unusual. A delegation headed by U.S. National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon arrived Saturday evening; and later this week, Israel will host James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence. On separate visits this past fall, the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David Petraeus, paid a visit to Israel, as did U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, whose trip here came shortly after a visit to the United States by Barak. Last month, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, came to Israel, not long after taking office. In another two weeks, Netanyahu will be in Washington to deliver an address before the policy conference of the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The Israeli premier is also expected to meet with Obama in the course of the visit. Even prior to that, next week, Defense Minister Barak will apparently make his own trip to the U.S. capital to meet with senior administration officials.
This air bridge between Israel and the United States has one primary purpose − to make clear to Israel that the time has not yet come for military action against Iran’s nuclear program, and that any premature assault would disrupt the increasingly stringent process of international sanctions against Iran that Obama has been leading.
In discussions with their Israeli counterparts, senior U.S. administration officials have said the sanctions regime that the Americans have spearheaded is unprecedented in its severity and more time is needed to gauge its impact on the regime in Tehran. Within the Israeli cabinet, there are also ministers who acknowledge that the sanctions exceeded most of the expectations Israel held until a few months ago.
On Saturday, Iran announced an immediate halt to the sale of oil to Britain and France. The move came in response to the tough stance the two European countries have taken on the Iranian nuclear program, and in reaction to
the European embargo on Iranian oil that is due to take effect in July.
In a television interview at the beginning of the month, Obama said it was his understanding that Netanyahu was allowing more time to gauge the success of the sanctions and had not yet decided whether to attack Iran. However, others in the Obama administration have voicing more concerns. Defense Secretary Panetta has been quoted as saying he thinks Israel is close to a decision to attack this spring. In a CNN interview broadcast yesterday, Gen. Dempsey of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said such timing would not be prudent and would undermine the stability of the region.
For his part, British Foreign Secretary William Hague also said an Israeli assault would not be wise.
Washington, like Jerusalem, appears to be under the impression that Barak will play a key role in Netanyahu’s decision-making. According to various assessments, in the constellation of forces within the senior forum of eight capital ministers, Barak represents the hawkish camp, while ministers Moshe Ya’alon, Dan Meridor and Benny Begin are leading the opposition to an assault at this time.
In a report in the New York Times about two weeks ago, U.S. administration officials were critical of Barak, who has warned against the prospect within a few months of Iran entering a “zone of immunity,” after which it would be impossible to destroy its nuclear facilities. Barak defines the “zone of immunity” in accordance with Iran’s progress in installing centrifuges at the Fordow underground site near Qom, the location of which would make an aerial assault much more difficult.
The officials have contended that Israel is placing undue importance on the “zone of immunity” issue and mentioned Netanyahu’s request that his ministers keep quiet about Iran. Since then, other than the Israeli premier, only one senior Israeli continues to constantly make statements on Iran − Defense Minister Barak, who again made expansive comments on the issue in Japan and Singapore last week.
Support for Barak’s position came yesterday from Vienna, where the International Atomic Energy Agency is based.
The Associated Press quoted senior diplomats in the Austrian capital as warning that the Iranians recently carried out significant work at the Fordow site.

Iran names Istanbul for nuclear talks, buttresses Assad with Russia
DEBKAfile Special Report February 19, 2012/Iran continues to behave as though it is calling the shots. The first formal announcement of the resumption of Iran-world powers nuclear talks (confirming debkafile’s exclusive) came from its Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Selahi who Sunday, Feb. 19, named the venue as Istanbul, Turkey. Saturday, two Iranian warships got away with delivering arms for Bashar Assad’s crackdown on protest without US or Israeli interference.
They docked at Tartus port Saturday alongside a Russian naval flotilla, symbolizing their joint effort to preserve Assad.
US and Israeli naval craft were entitled by UN sanctions to intercept and search the Kharq supply ship carrying illegal arms and military equipment for Bashar Assad’s army as it sailed past Israel’s Mediterranean coast with the Sahid Qandi destroyer. But they abstained from doing so for fear of a firefight at sea with the Iranian destroyer.
The Egyptian Suez authorities were equally wary of trouble and so did not exercise their authority to search the arms vessel.
The US and Israel therefore let Iran get away with establishing three disagreeable facts:
1. A precedent for bringing arms to the Assad regime and the Lebanese Hizballah group without being challenged;
2. Flaunting its comradeship with Russia for buttressing the Assad regime and warding off Western-Arab military intervention by their military strength. Its warships entered Tartus and docked alongisde the Russian naval flotilla.
3. Tehran felt it could safely ignore the warning that “Israel is watching Iran’s military movements in the Mediterranean” which came from “military sources” tardily after the two warships were berthed at Tartus ready to unload their cargo.
Israel did not interfere either when exactly a year ago, the Kharq passed through the Suez Canal on its way past the Israeli coast to deliver missiles for Hizballah, even though Defense Minister Ehud Barak said at the time that the Israel Navy would halt the ship if it was laden with arms.
A whole year has gone by and Israel is still not geared for stemming the flow of Iranian weapons to its enemies. Inaction this time is bound to detract from Israel’s military credibility at the very moment that another round of intense US-Israeli talks on Iran is taking place.
Top-flight White House advisers, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Weapons of Mass Destruction Coordinator Gary Seymour and head of the NSC’s Middle East Desk Steve Simon, arrived in Israel Saturday, Feb. 18, for three days of critical talks with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his senior security team headed by Maj. Gen. (Res.) Yaakov Amidror.
debkafile’s sources note that military and intelligence officials conversant with Iran’s nuclear projects are not part of this delegation. This US-Israeli round is therefore designed to hammer out political and diplomatic coordination between the two governments, not the military aspects of a strike against Iran.
The Obama administration is walking on eggs so not to jeopardize the new chances opening up for resumed international negotiations with Iran. Following debkafile's exclusive disclosure at week’s end, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi confirmed Sunday, Feb. 19 that the next round of talks between Iran and six world powers on the country's nuclear program will be held in Istanbul, Turkey. He did not mention a date.
He also reiterated Tehran’s standard refrain that neither sanctions nor any other penalties would make Iran give up its nuclear aspirations.
In this sense, the dispute between Washington and Israel over whether or not sanctions are effective is academic. Still, as an added incentive for the Netanyahu government to hold its fire against Iran, Washington persuaded the Brussels-based Swift financial clearinghouse used by 210 countries to agree to shut Iran out of its network, thereby choking off much of its international trade.
However, as debkafile reveals here for the first time, Tehran had already taken the precaution of opening alternative lines to KTT, a company which provides certain financial and trading services to some European, Far Eastern and Muslim governments. It is registered with the Government of Pakistan's Department of Export & Import and Ministry of Defense.
Shortly after the Donilon team landed in Israel, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff made these comments to a CNN TV interviewer for broadcast Sunday, Feb. 19: “It’s not prudent at this point for Israel to decide to attack Iran. It would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives.”
He went on to say that the U.S. government is confident the Israelis “understand our concerns.” But then added: “I wouldn’t suggest, sitting here today, that we’ve persuaded them that our view is the correct view and that they are acting in an ill-advised fashion.”
debkafile’s military and intelligence sources note that Israeli is paying a heavy strategic price for the interminable wrangling over an attack on Iran going back and forth between Washington and Jerusalem for months. It is forcing the Netanyahu government to sit on its hands in circumstances where inaction is dangerous and watch its deterrent strength drain away. Therefore, not a finger was lifted to break up Iran’s latest breakthrough to a seaborne route for replenishing Assad’s depleted arsenals.

Mossad better check its sources before backing Iran strike
By Amir Oren /Haaretz
Before a country goes to war, it must check its sources well - and even more itself. 1973 is a clear example - not the first one and not the last one - of fatal contempt. It may happen again.
Let's assume that Israel has a top spy in Tehran, the son-in-law of the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, or his predecessor, Ayatollah Khomeini. And let's assume the quality material the spy is relaying to Mossad is being pumped into the veins of the most senior ranks of decision makers, waiting to hear what he has to say on the most important question of them all: has Iran crossed the line between developing a nuclear infrastructure and building a nuclear weapon?
An affirmative answer will put an end to the disagreement between Israel and its friends in the west, on deciding whether it is still possible to wait before embarking on a military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities. Such a spy could turn out to be an asset who actually works against his masters' interests.
The Iranian spy is just a fable, an imaginary parallel to the Egyptian Ashraf Marwan, Gamal Abdel Nasser's son-in-law and the man who gave Israel Anwar Sadat's secrets. (Marwan died in mysterious circumstances in June 2007, falling from the fifth floor of his London apartment. )
What are your thoughts on this issue? Follow Haaretz.com on Facebook and share your views.
Last week saw the start of yet another round in the debate between Mossad and Military Intelligence on Marwan: was he a loyal agent who saved Israel with his last-minute warning about 1973's Yom Kippur War, or did he mislead and make Israel drop its guard? During earlier rounds, Zvi Zamir - the head of Mossad from 1968-74 - clashed with Eli Zeira, the head of Military Intelligence during the year which preceded the Yom Kippur War. This time, it was Zeira's successor at Military Intelligence, Shlomo Gazit, who criticized the way Marwan was handled by Zamir.
In an article written in a periodical of the intelligence community, Gazit rejected the status granted to Marwan as a super source "who volunteered and conscripted himself." He was considered "more valuable than gold" and also cost a great deal of "gold," criticizes Gazit.
"The head of Mossad also contributed to this unusual situation, and he took an exceptional step, which runs contrary to the principles of intelligence work," accuses Gazit. Zamir "decided to disseminate the original reports received from Marwan to a limited number among the senior political-military leadership" - then Prime Minister Golda Meir, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, minister Israel Galili, Chief of Staff David Elazar, a handful of generals - instead of first passing them through the research filter of Military Intelligence and then cross-checking them with other materials for a more considered assessment.
"Thus was created a new and strange reality, where the decision makers had to choose between the drily-written analysis documents - prepared in the careful intelligence jargon - and the exciting reports of Marwan," becoming hooked to the point of dependency.
From mid-September 1973, "troubling reports accumulated, first on the Syrian front and then also on the Egyptian front, which under normal circumstances would have seen Israel responding to them with seriousness and concern, declaring a state of readiness at the Israel Defense Forces and perhaps even calling in reserves." However, "so long as Marwan's reports kept coming in and the reports were not evaluated, dealing with the troubling information was delayed."
Gazit considers the most serious possibility to be that Marwan was not actually a double agent, "because that would mean we fell into a hole we ourselves had dug, with the exalted status given to the agent by his handlers, those evaluating his reports and especially those at the top, who eagerly read his exciting reports."
The source whose reports go directly to the top is rare indeed (leaders also directly receive information from their counterparts, including Golda from King Hussein ). The general problem is that senior decision makers with a defense background may believe that their experience and skills free them from the methodical process of intelligence analysis - especially when their mind is already made up. Must Ehud Barak, who was head of Military Intelligence when current chief Aviv Kochavi was a 19-year-old corporal, rely on the ant work of the professionals?
Of course, it is not the method that is troubling those who wish to bomb Iran, but the result. Were Military Intelligence and Mossad to lie to themselves and provide data fully supporting an operation, Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would use this to justify their fervor. Before a country goes to war, it must check its sources well - and even more itself. 1973 is a clear example - not the first one and not the last one - of fatal contempt. It may happen again.

Freedom and Tyranny
Michael Ledeen
I’m sure Mark Levin would agree that it’s no accident. This president, who so vigorously asserts and imposes state power against Americans, is much more comfortable supporting dissident movements against American friends than against American enemies.
At a certain point, after unconscionable dithering, he announced that Qadaffi must go, and he ordered our armed forces to help that happen. Qadaffi wasn’t killing Americans.
Now he has his feckless secretary of state announce that, while Assad must also go, we will not support–not even from way behind–those fighting against Bashar Assad, who has killed lots of Americans. With one caveat: if Assad says it’s ok, then we might do it. (Really)
Try that again, just to make sure it’s clear: Assad kills Americans, but we won’t lift an armed finger to bring him down. Qadaffi wasn’t killing Americans and our air power destroyed him. And then there’s central issue, which we all know: Khamenei kills Americans all the time, as has his regime for 33 years, but when the Iranian people rise up against him, the American president assures Khamenei that we still want to make a deal with him.
Remember that this president is presenting himself as a tough guy, because he killed bin Laden, smashed al Qaeda, and toppled Qadaffi. Actually the defeat of AQ in Iraq was Bush’s fault, but no matter. The important point is that this president isn’t interested in bringing American power to bear on the state sponsors of the terrorists who kill our guys. Obama kills terrorists, the tail of the snake. He doesn’t go for the head, or rather the heads, which feed in Damascus and Tehran.
The whole macabre Kabuki dance around Assad is shameful. Humiliating. Embarrassing. Poor General Dempsey actually confessed to the Senate that we don’t really know all that much about the Syrian opposition. (Can you spell “intelligence failure”?) But then he turned around and said:
The Free Syrian Army, which is, generally speaking, the centerpiece of the opposition, is for the most part domestic, although we also know that other regional actors are providing support. That complicates the situation…
As if we had a clear picture of the makeup of the anti-Qadaffi forces, or, for that matter, of the forces driving the crowds in Tahrir Square, Cairo, the masses who acted in Springtime for Arabia, the failed musical to which so many sang and danced just a few yesterdays ago.
Actually, the “complication” stemming from our lack of full understanding is not a complication, but rather a bit of political misdirection. The one group of dissidents about whom we should have quite a clear picture is the Iranian Green Movement. They want an end to the Islamic Republic. They want an end to Iranian sponsorship of terrorists. They want to reenter the Western world.
This president doesn’t talk about that. He is obsessed with nukes, as if Iran would only be a real threat to us if the mullahs had atomic warheads. Let him come with us to Bethesda Naval Hospital some day, and we’ll introduce him to some wounded warriors who can tell him how evil, how menacing, and how lethal the Islamic Republic is right here an now. Even though it’s nukeless.
Doesn’t logic just grab you by the throat and make you say that Obama consistently acts as if he wants greater tyranny over Americans, both at home and abroad?
If not, how do you explain it?

Inside the torture chamber of Assad's inquisition squads
Charlotte McDonald-Gibson - The Independent
It was a single egg that made Jolan, a 28-year-old activist, realise he was going survive Syria's notorious torture chambers. He was blindfolded and locked in what he describes as a metal coffin, and each morning his tormentors would push a small piece of bread and a hard-boiled egg through a narrow opening by his head. But his cramped box – so short he could not straighten his legs – was tilted and his hands were bound, so for five days the egg would simply roll away and drop to the floor through a hole by his feet,
Days earlier, Jolan had been sitting in a park in Damascus on a sunny morning, waiting for a friend from the burgeoning protest movement aimed at forcing President Bashar al-Assad from power. Instead, about 30 regime security personnel surrounded him. Before he could even think about fleeing, a rifle butt to the back of the head knocked him out cold.
Trussed and forced to relieve himself where he lay, Jolan did not know how long he would be there. He did not know how he could survive. But he knew that somehow he must eat the egg. "So the fifth day," he says, "I put my heel in this hole and I stopped the egg rolling out. I managed to push the egg all the way up my body to my mouth. It was filthy, it still had the shell on it, but I ate it and, when I did, I knew I was going to live.
Jolan, who gave a pseudonym because he remains active in Syria's protest movement, is one of thousands of political prisoners who human rights groups say have been thrown in jail by a regime determined to use its full force to crush the biggest threat to its rule since the Assad family took power 41 years ago. From a secret location in Damascus, Jolan gave a detailed testimony to The Independent on Sunday of his torture during 21 weeks in detention. Although his full account is impossible to corroborate independently, Human Rights Watch, the international watchdog, confirmed that many of the torture techniques he described are commonplace. Many Syrian rights groups have also documented Jolan's time in detention.
The regime has denied the allegations of torture in its prisons. Its spokesmen say they are fighting an armed uprising sponsored by Islamist groups. But Human Rights Watch has interviewed more than 100 people detained since the protests began in March last year, and the group has collected harrowing testimony of torture against children as young as 13 and of deaths in custody.
For Jolan, his seven days in the metal box was the first of dozens of humiliations and torments. Next, still blindfolded, he was put in a tiny room just one metre high, where he was forced to stand, bent double, for another seven days. Then his captors finally started to interrogate him.
For eight hours a day they asked me everything about co-ordination, about the people of the revolution. They wanted to know how they worked, how they take the injured from place to place," he says.
Jolan refused to talk, causing the torment to become even more cruel. He was given 50 lashes with a metal cable in the morning and 50 in the evening. He was then subjected to what Nadim Houry of Human Rights Watch describes as the "dulab" method. A tyre is forced over the victim's neck and his legs so he is folded forward. He is then tipped on his back, immobile, and beaten. Another day, Jolan says, he was suspended from the ceiling by a cable. On his 45th day in detention, they finally took the blindfold off. But Jolan was not prepared for the sight that greeted him. "When I opened my eyes, I could see two girls who were taken from the demonstrations. They were religious girls – usually they would wear the veil – but they were totally naked: the only item they were wearing was a blindfold," he says. "From this moment, I started crying."
With this image etched on his mind, he was taken back to the interrogation room and told that unless he talked, his mother and sister would be hauled in, also stripped naked and tortured in front of him. The UN report details similar "psychological torture, including sexual threats against them and their families".
But still Jolan refused to talk. Exasperated, his captors transferred him to the Adra civilian prison in Damascus, where he was kept in filthy, cramped surroundings. Over the next few months he was called before a court to answer a litany of charges, including attacking the standing of the state, encouraging problems with minorities, going to a protest without a permit, and setting up an unlicensed field hospital. He was allowed a lawyer, but says his statements were ignored in the court. Jolan says he was saved only by pressure from some international human rights organisations. Eventually, towards the end of December, he was freed with a 1,000 Syrian pound (£11) fine.
Since then, he has continued his work, moving around by night to safe houses to collect supplies, trying to gather more crowds for the weekly demonstrations after Friday prayers. There are physical signs of his time behind bars – he is gaunt, and is missing four front teeth from the beatings. He chain smokes nervously. But he is determined to fight on. Fifteen days ago, the authorities told his uncle that Jolan must stop his activism or face "a bullet in the head". So he switched mobile phone numbers and went underground for 10 days.
Mr Houry says: "Syria's torture chambers belong to the Middle Ages. The security forces believe that by torturing people, including children, they will reinstate the wall of fear in Syria. But these torturers should know that their methods have only served to energise the protesters and that it is only a matter of time until they face accountability."
Syrians flee to Jordan as violence escalates
Syrian refugees fleeing to Jordan have described a dramatic escalation in violence and a mounting toll of dead and wounded in the southern city of Daraa and the country's battered central region. Activists said 26 civilians were killed on Friday, many of them in the central city of Homs.
The fighting in Homs, coupled with fresh violence in Daraa, has triggered a new wave of wounded refugees crossing into Jordan. In the past two days, 170 families – around 850 people – have fled to Ramtha, seven miles from the border. Most were from Daraa. At the hospital in Ramtha, newly installed gates protect hospital rooms where wounded Syrians are being treated, guarded by Jordanian security police.
Syria has seen one of the bloodiest crackdowns since the wave of Arab uprisings began more than a year ago. The United Nations says that more than 5,400 people were killed last year, and the number of dead and injured continues to rise daily. In addition, 25,000 people are estimated to have sought refuge in neighbouring countries and more than 70,000 are internally displaced.
David Cameron has said Britain is sending food rations for 20,000 people and medical supplies for those affected by fighting in Homs and elsewhere.
**Reform Party of Syria Note: This is the legacy of the Assad era the world ignored but Syrians and Lebanese will never forget. This is what people like Martin Indyk perpetuated in the name of peace.

If The Middle East Was a Shopping Mall, Arab Lives Would Be The "For Sale" Signs
Farid Ghadry Blog
There is evil in every man. How it is expressed and what are its limitations differentiates one man from another.
Those with extreme evil though are a very rare species. When discovered, men with lesser evil but with more power will inevitably get attracted to it like a divorced rich man is attracted to a gun for hire to dispose of his alimony. That's why the Assad regime existed for so long. Yes, it is evil many would argue privately but it serves a good purpose for the greater good of humanity.
The relationships between two democratic countries, who value life, while true to serving their mutual interests, are a time-tested concept. We witness it every day between France and Germany or the US and Britain. Their people enjoy strong rights based on thoughtful laws and their governments co-exist harmoniously in times of peace; and when wars strike, they patch their differences quickly for another long era of peace. In fact, they use the history of those wars to defend against them.
So are the relationships between autocratic countries like Syria and Sudan but with one minor difference: There are no laws that respect human dignity. Life to regimes of tyranny is cheaper than the bullet used to kill with. And because autocracies are generally evil, other countries with pressing needs take advantage of this weakness to conclude their affairs.
The Assad family with a run-away DNA of horrors has and remains a unique offering for countries around the world. It's a resource that comes once every few hundred years and evil men elsewhere are not about to miss this grand opportunity to press further their interests. On that basis, Assad survived for as long as it had.
The KGB trained Assad to serve it and the CIA took advantage of its flexibility to expedite its business. The French DGSE and the British MI5 distanced themselves from its evil by playing nice and the Israeli Mossad distanced itself by playing tough when necessary. Everyone treated the regime as untouchable because to each it was a trough in the desert. But while everyone had their reasons, the Syrian people were always left to foot the bill. We served at the mercy of other countries and interests because our own region collectively does not value life.
We cannot blame the Europeans, the Americans or even the Russians; we are to blame for our own environment. You see, when the Arab League defends Bachir of Sudan, it opens the door wide open for human rights abuses with a global approach. If the Middle East was a shopping mall, our own human life would be the "For Sale" sign. We are cheap and that's why everyone comes shopping there. That's why the Assad regime, a combination of extreme evil in an environment facilitating that evil, has been useful to many. The regime stands for "80% off" human life. Countries would be fools not to shop in the Assad store of horrors. But with Assad about to go and the Arab League left intact with the same political disregard for human life, which country will serve the role Assad served? Which store will hold the "80% off" sign? For that question, we need to poll the shoppers.
Copyrights © Reform Party of Syria

Romney’s Religion: The Most Scrutinized Doctrines of Mormonism
Kelly OConnell /Sunday, February 19, 2012 /Canada Free Press
Regarding the 2012 presidential election, it is extremely important for Conservatives to prepare pro-actively for attacks. For instance, if Mitt Romney truly is the presumptive GOP nominee, well then we must familiarize ourselves with the most frequently criticized elements of Mormonism. Even if this enquiry into an honorable man’s religion is against our instincts. This is so because most Americans simply don’t know LDS theology, and the element of surprise can be used against the GOP.
For if history has taught Conservatives anything, it is that the perceived weaknesses of our candidates, fairly portrayed or not, will become fodder for the mainstream media. An example being the late Christopher Hitchen’s dyspeptic article, Romney’s Mormon Problem; Mitt Romney and the weird and sinister beliefs of Mormonism.
Undoubtedly the good works of the Mormon faith are remarkable, but Mitt will be at the mercy of the reaction of the ignorant to the more controversial parts of his beliefs. This is not to suggest that Romney could never become a great president because of his beliefs, but simply that his religion might cost him the opportunity. For this reason, this brief outline of LDS belief, especially of the more controversial elements is presented.
I. Brief Introduction to Mormon History
In 1820, Joseph Smith, a young man of 14 years old living in Manchester, New York, was visited by God and Jesus. who informed him every Christian denomination was an abomination in their eyes. Here writes Smith in his autobiographical Pearl of Great Price, a portion of the Book of Mormon.
I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight; that those professors were all corrupt…
In 1823, an angel named Moroni revealed to Joseph the existence of certain golden plates of ancient language, and where they were buried in a hill. The angel came in a vision, explaining many things about the true nature of God. In 1827, the plates were translated from Reformed Egyptian, becoming the basis for the Book of Mormon, a history of the North American continent. This included the exploits of a lost tribe of Jews, sent here by God to create a remnant for the Second Coming of Christ, becoming known as the “Latter Day Saints” as a continuation of earlier biblical saints.
Smith attracted a group of followers who mimicked his polygamous lifestyle, and were driven from town to town, deeper and deeper West as their practices made them anathema to everyday Americans. Finally, Joseph Smith was arrested for destroying printing press used to defame the Mormons in Carthage, IL. Here Smith was jailed, yet when an angry mob stormed the jail Smith used a smuggled gun to fight back, but was shot dead. He died a religious martyr, according to his followers. Brigham Young then brought the group to Utah where they established world headquarters of the LDS empire.
II. Most Common Criticisms Leveled at the Latter Day Saints Church
A. Continuing Revelation
The most persistent criticism of the Mormon church is their belief that the works of Joseph Smith represent a continuation of the canon of scripture. Christians point to the work of the early church in establishing this position by way of the condemnation of Montanus, whose ideas were officially censured in the 2nd century AD. The Heresy of Montanism is described by Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, in part, as being “It asserted, above all, the continuance of prophecy, and hence it went generally under the name of the nova prophetia.”
Smith’s output of scripture included the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. His followers claim the power of the works, as well as the LDS Church’s remarkable vitality and growth prove the accuracy of Smith’s vision.
B. Joseph’s Smith’s Character
Joseph Smith’s critics complain that he was a dishonest character. Is this correct? His naysayers say he was prosecuted and convicted of running a confidence game, according to NY state court records. Claims one source,
NORWICH—County historians have rediscovered historical records proving the founder of the Mormon Church was arrested on several occasions while living in Chenango County. These include legal bills from separate charges filed against Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, now the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). The religious founder, the bills show, was arrested three times in the county between 1826 and 1830 for cases involved Smith’s involvement in “glass looking,” or searching for treasure, and “being a disorderly person.”
Mormons respond that such criticism is based upon biased history motivated by prejudice or jealousy.
C. Jesus of Mormonism
The Christ of Mormonism is superficially at odds with the Biblical personality, admits the head of the church:
“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak’” (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7).
The Jesus of Mormonism is the brother of Satan. Ensign, the official magazine of the LDS church says:
On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers… But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother.
Further, the Mormon God is neither a Trinity, nor monotheistic, as the next section explains. But Mormons respond that one cannot expect a previous revelation to agree exactly with subsequent ones, or there would be no point to further revelations.
D. Polytheism & Human Godhood Evolution
Critics say Mormonism is technically a polytheistic religion, as Smith reveals in his Book of Abraham translation, part of LDS scripture, in chapter 4:3-4:
And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light. And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.
Another source describes LDS beliefs on the gods:
The Mormon Church teaches a plurality of Gods. They believe God the Father (Elohim) was once a man on a separate world who attained godhood. He then had many spirit children with his wives, the oldest one being Jesus. According to LDS beliefs, we were all Elohim’s spirit children before our carnal existence. Therefore, Jesus is our eldest brother. As former LDS Prophet Brigham Young taught: “How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity.” Therefore, the number of gods is practically limitless.
Deeper teachings in Mormonism also promote the idea that obedient Mormons can evolve into gods as McKeever describes:
“Although it is not found in any of Mormonism’s Standard Works, an expression which precisely defines the LDS teaching that men can become Gods was coined by fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God! According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation ... They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).”
Mormons dislike discussing this issue, and refuse the term “polytheist” for their religion. Instead they point out that there is only one God in this world, which is all we need to acknowledge. But we can be sure the topic will be raised repeatedly during a Romney election.
E. Polygamy
Famously, Mormons historically practiced polygamy, a notion championed by founder Joseph Smith, despite his first wife deserting him for the activity, according to Todd Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness, The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. The practice made Mormons notorious to their “gentile” neighbors, one reason the sect repeatedly relocated in its early years. In fact, Abraham Lincoln ran with a “Defense of Marriage” plank in his platform for president, and later encouraged the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, meant to shut down LDS plural marriage in the Utah Territory.
The LDS Church teaches that obedient Mormons will evolve into godhood in the afterlife where they may take multiple wives for heavenly marriages. Says the introduction to LDS scripture Doctrine & Covenants Section 132:
“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives “
While the LDS no longer officially practice plural marriage, many offshoot sects still engage in this lifestyle, as notoriously reported in places like Colorado City, Utah. More importantly, Mormons teach that polygamy will again be allowed for Mormons in the afterlife. But defenders claim that all the prophets of the Old Testament were polygamists. Further, that since the LDS have changed their official stance on polygamy, the criticism no longer applies.
F. Pre-existence & Spirit Babies
Mormon doctrine teaches that humans lived in a pre-existant state, being produced in celestial marital relations as “spirit babies.” The official Mormon scholarly publication Journal of Discourse, stated in Vol. 4, p. 218: ”We were first begotten as spirit babies in heaven and then born naturally on earth.” This teaching also indicates that Mormons believe intercourse will continue in the next life.
Mormon apologists claim teachings such as these nowhere directly contradict any Scripture.
I. Racism & Children of Cain
Mormonism historically taught dark skin is the “Mark of Cain,” being a curse put upon Blacks for the rebellion of their forefathers in the pre-existence. Joseph Smith did not have a high view of Blacks, stating “Had I anything to do with the negro , I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization.’” Brigham Young especially had an extreme bias against Blacks. He stated ““But let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332)” Young also claimed,
This people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are…You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.
The LDS Church stood to lose their IRS tax exempt status in the 1970s for discrimination, but before this could happen, the Mormon Prophet had a revelation in 1978 that Blacks could attain the highest heaven, and not just as servants but ordained priests. Yet, the teaching has deep roots, as LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie further explains:
Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions impose(d) on them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God, and his murder of Able being a black skin…Noah’s son married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood…the negro are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concern(ed)...” (Mormon Doctrine, 527-28; 1966 orig. ed).
The LDS Church can fight back and claim that all of America used to be racist slave-holders and obnoxious bigots, so why pile on the Mormons? Especially, since they have come so far so quickly on race relations. But does this open the door for Obama’s very race-oriented supporters to claim Romney’s church has a despicably racist history?
J. Book of Abraham
The Book of Abraham, along with DNA studies of American Natives, have become the bête noire of the modern LDS church. This is because the language code of the famed Rosetta Stone was cracked, allowing ancient Egyptian to be properly translated. This then made possible Joseph Smith’s own translation to be tested.
And what did Joseph Smith claim his Egyptian papyrus named the Book of Abraham said? He stated the Egyptian words and figures depicted Abraham and Joseph of the Bible. Yet when trained Egyptologists studied the documents, this was not verified. Instead, it turned out the papyri were very ordinary Egyptian funerary documents, fragments of the Book of the Dead. This flew in the face of the LDS teaching that the Mormon Prophet can translate accurately any language, living or dead.
According to one Egyptologist, a typical comparison between Young’s work and theirs went something like this:
Joseph Smith said that Facsimile No. 1 was of a bird as the “Angel of the Lord” with “Abraham fastened upon an altar,” “being offered up as a sacrifice by a false priest. The pots under the altar were various gods “Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, Pharaoh,” etc.
In reality, this is “an embalming scene showing the deceased lying on a lion-couch.”
These facts are passed off as the debate between philologists over the definitions of obscure foreign word definitions. It is hard to know how the public at large, many of them hearing details on this for the first time, will react.
K. Lost Tribe & DNA
The Book of Mormon describes voyages to the Americas by ancient Israelites in 2 Nephi 1:9:
Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; ; [The Americas] and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves.
In other words, Joseph Smith taught native Americans are descended from the Twelve Tribes of Israel. But does science back up this claim? Unfortunately not, according to geneticist Simon G. Southerton in his Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church. Southerton states studies of mitochondrial DNA of Native Americans conclusively prove the Mormon claim of descent from Israeli immigrants is unsupported by DNA evidence. The LDS lost many adherents as a result.
This debate can be claimed just an argument between scientists. But what will an increasingly sceptical public think after hearing these points pounded over and over?
Conclusion
Mitt Romney could be the best candidate in the entire 2012 race. And yet, if his backers do not understand Mormon doctrines, or are not prepared to defend these to a skeptical mainstream media and American electorate, the race might be lost before it’s even begun.
*Kelly can be reached at: hibernian1@gmail.com

Iran as Victim? University of San Francisco's Stephen Zunes Thinks So
by Cinnamon Stillwell and Rima Greene
FrontPageMagazine.com
February 16, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3175/stephen-zunes-iran
A crowd of would-be revolutionaries gathered last month at Revolution Books in Berkeley to hear Stephen Zunes—chair of the program in Middle Eastern studies and professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco—speak on a panel with the improbable title, "U.S.-Israeli Assault on Iran Escalates: The Danger of War Grows." The title originated with an article by co-panelist Larry Everest, author and correspondent for Revolution, the newspaper for the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, an organization whose cult of personality revolves around well-known Stalinist Bob Avakian. Fittingly, event posters on the walls sported slogans such as "Re-visioning Socialism" and "Another World is Possible," and the shelves were filled with books by Avakian and other communists.
Revolution Books inhabits a choice retail location just blocks from the University of California, Berkeley campus, and in contrast with other events featuring left-wing academics whose talks are assigned to students, the audience in this instance was largely middle-aged to elderly. Spanish speakers provided simultaneous translations in the rear seats, producing a continuous background hum, while a very casually dressed woman entered, radio to her ear, listening to President Obama's 2012 State of the Union address.
All who entered were handed a copy of Revolution along with a flier for International A.N.S.W.E.R.'s then-forthcoming "national day of action" in San Francisco, which trumpeted the do-nothing rallying cry, "No War on Iran, No Sanctions, No Interventions, No Assassinations!" Like the rally to come, the atmosphere at Revolution Books was fiercely anti-American, anti-Israel, and apologetic towards, even supportive of, the Iranian regime.
nod to the setting, Zunes proclaimed at the outset, "I'm not a communist," but his repetitive references to "imperialists" demonstrated his familiarity with leftist jargon. He elaborated: "A lot of what I'm going to say overlaps, but I am coming from a slightly different angle."
Affirming the contention of the preceding speaker, Larry Everest, that the Iranian regime had allegedly given up pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003 according to a 2007—and later discredited—National Intelligence Estimate, Zunes added, "No one who is intellectually honest could disagree with your analysis." Was International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Yukiya Amano intellectually dishonest when he stated last month that the IAEA, "has credible information that Iran is engaged in activities relevant to the development of nuclear explosives"?
Zunes reiterated a position he took in a 2009 article—on the heels of Iran's stolen election—titled, "Why U.S. Neocons Want Ahmadinejad to Win":
What's important is that Neocons and the imperialists in this country want the green revolution crushed. They need each other to justify the kinds of policies the U.S. imperialists want.
This logic, such as it is, concludes that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provides a handy excuse for so-called warmongers in the U.S. to block the Obama administration's diplomatic overtures to Iran. Such a conspiracy theory ignores the fact that Neoconservatives and others on the right were strong critics of the Obama administration's refusal to offer moral support to the green revolution at its outset.
Zunes insisted that U.S. intervention only inspires the Iranian people to side with their government:
Everyone emphasizes the Islamic characteristics of Iran, but what's really kept the regime in power is nationalism. The Iranians are the most nationalistic people in the entire world . . . it's something the regime can capitalize on when it hears these threats [of sanctions]. What we don't hear in the media is that the opposition supports the government in its conflict with the U.S. They oppose U.S. intervention.
Yet dissident voices within Iran continue to express disgust with the regime and a lack of animosity towards the U.S. For instance, a young Iranian woman who corresponds regularly with American journalist Michael Yon recently sent him the following:
To make the long story short, people in Iran, not just youth, hate the government and want to move out of the country as soon as they can. . . . The Iranians do not hate you nor do they hate ur [sic] government. This is all the media. . . . No one is against you here except for those on the government's side.
Iranian exiles who were tortured in Iran's Evin Prison provided letters and live testimony at the UN Watch-organized event, "We Have A Dream: Global Summit Against Discrimination and Persecution," held in September, 2011 to coincide with the United Nations 66th Session of the General Assembly. To no avail, the organizers begged the international community to intervene.
Of such voices, Zunes had nothing to say, and he casually discounted Iranian exiles living in the U.S., many of whom fear for their lives:
There have been some U.S.-funded opposition groups. Most of these are tied to exiles who have virtually no support inside the country, no impact on uprisings . . . there have been all sorts of sordid interventions . . . you have a few wannabes in the exile community, particularly in L.A.
As for the Iranian regime's threats to annihilate Israel, Zunes blithely assured the audience that:
Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Get real. It's a repressive regime, but they are not suicidal. Israel has massive deterrents as does the US and other allies.
This would come as news to the Iranian mullahs, who are adherents to Mahdism, the apocalyptic belief in the return of the twelfth Imam who, at the end of times, will wage war against unbelievers and the forces of evil and establish a worldwide Islamic state. Might a nuclear conflict with Israel spark such a fanatical scenario? Zunes never raised the question.
Echoing a well-worn canard originated by University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole, Zunes claimed:
And by the way, Ahmadinijad, he's really hardcore, he's anti-Semitic, but he never said 'Israel should be wiped off the map.' That idiom doesn't even exist in Farsi. What he's doing is quoting Ayatollah Khamenei from twenty years ago. . . . What he said was the regime occupying Jerusalem should 'vanish from the pages of time'. . . . Ahmadinejad clarified that in a later interview. He's talking about a unified Palestine. He's not talking about killing the Jews . . . he's talking about regime change.
Zunes might want to consult Nazila Fathi of the New York Times Tehran bureau, who provided a translation of Ahmadinejad's October 26, 2005 speech at "The World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran—the source of the quote in question. His exact words were: "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement." In addition, and as noted by Iran expert Michael Rubin, "the Islamic Republic provides its own clarification. In its official translations, it headlined Ahmadinejad's call to 'wipe Israel off the map.'" The Iranian regime's genocidal incitement can been seen on propaganda billboards across the country and heard in countless statements from officials, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who recently called Israel a "'cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut." It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Zunes claimed that a potential attack on Israel is not up to Ahmadinejad because, as he put it, "He's not the commander-in-chief. It's up to the Guardian Council—a committee—and as a rule committees don't go for crazy provocative acts."
Apparently, a committee would never try to: assassinate a Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C.; kill its own nuclear scientists for talking to the IAEA; use its proxy, Hezbollah, to blow up U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut; kidnap the entire U.S. embassy staff; bomb a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires; attempt to take over Lebanon; terrorize and assassinate Iranian dissidents in other countries; supply weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah; help train the 9/11 terrorists; nor order all Muslims worldwide to kill a writer for alleged blasphemy. Yet all of this was done in the name of the Khomeinist Islamic revolution.
Zunes referred to the current scenario in which Israel, according to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's recent statement to the media, could attack Iran's nuclear facilities in the spring, by asking if,
Israel [would] do something on its own? Obama has made clear he would not tolerate that. You saw Eisenhower in 1956 . . . when it comes down to real important national security issues, Israel can't change U.S. policies. But even if they don't plan to go to war, we prepare and threaten war . . . it makes it difficult to stop.
In Zunes's mind, the U.S. and Israel are always the instigators of war, rather than the bellicose Iranian regime that has terrorized not only its own population, but much of the civilized world. He would do better to direct his closing call to "prevent another war in the Middle East" to Tehran.
Berkeley resident Rima Greene co-wrote this article with Cinnamon Stillwell, the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

LIC Co-Hosts Panel Presentation on "The Road to 1559" in New York
February 14, 2012
The Lebanese Information Center (LIC) joined the Lebanese American Renaissance Partnership (LARP) in organizing and co-hosting a panel presentation on the the book “The Road to 1559” by Stephen Kaufman. The event was set at the Beekman Hotel in Manhattan, NY and attended by a number of foreign diplomats from the United Nations, representatives from think tank Institutes, and members of the general public. The panelists were Ambassador Richard Murphy, former Assistant Secretary of State, Ambassador Terje Roed-Larsen, UN Special Representative for the implementation of UNSCR 1559, Mr. J. Scott Carpenter, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, and Dr. Joseph Gebeily, LIC President. Mrs. Rita Zehinni, New York correspondent for the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation moderated the event.
Mr. Walid Maalouf, LARP president and former US Public Delegate to the UN gave the opening remarks starting with a request for a moment of silence in memory of the martyrs that fell in defense of the sovereignty and freedom of Lebanon, as well as in memory of late PM Rafiq Hariri on this 7th commemoration of his martyrdom. Mr. Maalouf then proceeded to welcome the audience and the panelists and to thank the Lebanese Information Center and its president, Dr. Joseph Gebeily, for co-hosting the event. He then proceeded to providing a succinct presentation on the period that preceded the passing of 1559 and the numerous preparations that went into it. The first of the presenters was Ambassador Richard Murphy who gave a brief history of his involvement in the Middle East Diplomatic Mission during his tenure, and the persistently negative role that the Assad Baathist regime played in Lebanon.
Ambassador Terje Roed-Larsen then assumed the podium detailing the period following the passing of 1559. Ambassador Roed-Larsen considered that the martyrs of the Cedar Revolution were martyred because they supported the resolution. Ambassador Roed-Larsen disclosed that he had warned PM Hariri of the mortal threat against him a mere 48hrs. prior to his assassination and implored him to leave Lebanon. He then proceeded to describe the arduousness of his mission and considered that the current events in Syria are the biggest proof to the brutality of the regime.
Mr. J. Scott Carpenter, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs, explained that the goal of 1559 was to assist the Lebanese people in their quest for freedom and sovereignty, lauding the immense sacrifices of the Lebanese and considered that the Syrian people are today, in turn, enduring these same hardships against the same regime. Mr. Carpenter then moved on to express his appreciation and admiration of the Lebanese-American community and its leadership in lobbying for the resolution.
Dr. Gebeily concluded the panel presentation with his remarks where he highlighted the efforts of the Lebanese-American community and organizations. He described the exceptional set of circumstances that surrounded the birth of 1559. A set of circumstances that he described as the convergence of 3 separate tracks:
1. The American track, with the evolution of American foreign policy under the Bush administration: “from a practical indifference towards the Syrian occupation to a solid commitment to Lebanese Sovereignty.”
2. The Lebanese track, and the evolution of the political environment to one which supported the voice of opposition to the Syrian occupation.
3. The resurgence of American Lebanese activism in the US which worked tirelessly to lobby the US government and the UN to support the sovereignty of Lebanon.
Dr. Gebeily then highlighted the invaluable role of patriarch Sfeir in fostering the environment that lead to 1559 and considered this resolution as the signal of the end for the rule of Bashar Assad.
The event concluded with a Q&A session.

Asharq Al-Awsat Interview: US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford
By Mina al-Oraibi
London, Asharq Al-Awsat- Robert Ford is an American diplomat and the current United States Ambassador to Syria (2010-present). After graduating with an MA from John Hopkins University, Washington D.C., Ford has gone on to serve in the US Foreign Service for the past 26 years. Being fluent in Turkish and Arabic, he has worked extensively in the Middle East, with previous notable postings in Cairo, Algiers and Baghdad.
Since the outbreak of the Syrian uprising in January 2011, Ford gained increasing media attention for his actions in the country. In July 2011, Ford visited the city of Hama, which was under siege at the time, and then visited the site of mass graves in Jisr al-Shughur several months later. The US then opted to withdraw him from Syria in October, following an “intimidation campaign” carried out against him by pro-Assad supporters. He returned to his post in December; however on the 6th February 2012 the US announced that it had suspended all embassy operations in Damascus.
Ford spoke to Asharq al-Awsat recently to give his view on the ongoing Syrian crisis. He discussed the potential for a diplomatic or military solution, the fragmented state of the Syrian opposition, and the role that the US is playing in the current situation. Ford also revealed the work he has been undertaking since returning to America from Damascus earlier this month. The following is the text from the interview:
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Can the Syrian crisis to be solved diplomatically?
[Ford] It won’t be easy to reach a diplomatic solution, and I believe that the Russian and Chinese veto at the UN Security Council have only made things more difficult; but I believe this is still possible. We must work more broadly with our partners in the international community, and there is a meeting taking place next week in Tunisia for the “Friends of Syria”. In the end, a military solution is not possible, therefore we must work towards a political and diplomatic solution; a military solution will only lead to….the possibility of the outbreak of a civil war.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] When you say a political and diplomatic solution…do you mean within the framework of the Arab League initiative that is calling on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down and hand over powers to his deputy?
[Ford] We have strongly supported the Arab League’s efforts, in terms of sending observers [to Syria], although there were not enough observers to protect the civilians. However the [Arab League] observer mission was able to prove who was behind the killing, and it was revealed that in most places, the Syrian army was responsible for this. As for the roadmap that has been drawn up by the Arab League…this is a road map, and so does not include details, which is only logical. In the end, it is up to the Syrian people themselves to put the details in place regarding how power is transferred. This is an issue that we, and other friends of Syria, have discussed with the Syrian opposition. The Arab League has provided the general framework, and it is up to the Syrians themselves to put the details in place.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] There are many divisions within the ranks of the Syrian opposition, how can we overcome this, and develop a plan for the transition of power, particularly when the situation on the ground is deteriorating?
[Ford] The time factor is essential, and it is up to the Syrian opposition to develop quickly by putting forward ideas to the people of Syria and informing them that there are other possible options. President al-Assad has put forward a program of reform, including a referendum on the constitution within 10 days, which is within a very short period of time. We do not know if voter regulations are in place, or if the text of the referendum ballot has been agreed upon…we do not know if the Syrian people have been granted enough time to study the proposed constitution, and I do not believe that those who oppose the text of this constitution have been able to express their objections on official Syrian television channels or the “Addounia TV” channel or elsewhere. The opposition must show the Syrian people that there is another path, and the earlier they are able to do this, the better it will be. However no foreign power, even the friends of Syria, can do this on their behalf. Some of the lessons that we must learn from countries like Iraq is that people in these countries have to reach solutions for themselves.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] To what degree is the US involved in the Syrian crisis? Is Washington providing advice and expertise to the Syrian opposition, for example?
[Ford] Let us be clear, we have not drawn up a transitional plan for Syria; this is not the task for a foreign government like that of the United States. However I can confirm that we are speaking to the Syrian opposition; we are sharing our assessment regarding what is happening on the ground in Syria, in additional to our assessments of the political and security situation. When speaking in Syria, I would stress that violence weakens the opposition, and that this represents a genuine threat to them. Even when I visited Hama last July, I stressed the importance of refraining from utilizing violence. Unfortunately, the brutal violence being carried out by the government has led to opposing violence [by the Syrian opposition]. The violence that we are seeing today is far greater than the violence yesterday. I spoke to them [Syrian opposition] about my experience in Iraq, and the experiences of the Iraqi people in dealing with such issues. Despite the fact that the situation in Syria is different from the situation in Iraq, there are experiences that can be learnt from.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] When you say you spoke with the Syrian opposition, who precisely are you talking about?
[Ford] I do not want to divulge names…
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Of course, however as for Washington being in contact with factions of the Syrian opposition, are we talking about the Syrian National Council [SNC], or the Free Syrian Army [FSA]?
[Ford] We are speaking with a number of [Syrian opposition] factions; we are speaking with a large group of people inside Syria, including well-known opposition parties who operate publicly as well as groups connected with Syrian councils and agencies. Our message is the same: violence will make finding a political solution more difficult, whilst there is no security solution [to the Syrian crisis]; for suppression is not a solution, neither is civil war. Therefore the opposition must know how to coordinate alliances, and convince the al-Assad regime that it must step down to allow the peaceful transition of power. This is in the interests of all Syrians, whether Alawites or Christians or Sunnis or Druze or businessmen or military…all segments of Syrian society have an interest in ensuring peaceful transition of power.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Talk about the Syrian opposition usually focuses on the SNC or the FSA, but not the Syrian opposition leadership within the country. Are there fears of divisions within the Syrian opposition at home and abroad?
[Ford] The people within the country are the ones facing the most challenges, and at the end they are the ones who will have to apply [transition of power]. The SNC has ties within the country, and I do not want to underestimate this. However some within Syria are confused about why the SNC is not working at a faster pace – and we understand these concerns – however ultimately the SNC is a leading faction within the Syrian opposition, and it is developing and growing stronger – which is a gradual process – although many people wish this was faster. There are other elements of the Syrian opposition inside Syria who have not completely bound themselves to the SNC, and I do not know if this is a necessity. The question is; does everybody agree on a certain vision or specific plan? For me, what is necessary is coordination on a transitional plan. The ranks of the opposition do not have to unite, but there must be agreement on a plan, for in the event that the plan succeeds, they will compete with one another over power. They must reach an agreement over a vision for the country, and begin to move forward on this. In our own experience in the US [during the American Revolution] we did not have a unified opposition front, but rather a congress filled with different ideas, but there was agreement on removing British colonial rule from the country.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Will the Syrian opposition be invited to attend the “Friends of Syria” meeting in Tunisia?
[Ford] I do not know, we’re not hosting this meeting…this question should be directed to the Tunisians.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Do you think it would be beneficial if the Syrian opposition were invited to attend?
[Ford] I think it would be beneficial if representatives of the Syrian opposition abroad who know and have good relations with the international community attended this meeting, as they can explain the problems in Syria. At the same time, it is also necessary to invite people from within Syria; it would be beneficial if they attended because it will help if the other attendants can hear from the people living in Syria. However as I said, it is not my place to issue such invitations.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Some people are saying that the time has come to arm the Syrian opposition, but there are fears of the consequences of this. What is your opinion on this issue?
[Ford] My question is, after the opposition is armed, where will the solution come from? We see people in many capitals around the world thinking about this option, and there are some people in the US Republican party and others in Washington think-tanks who are putting forward this idea. However the unity of the Syrian army at the present time makes it difficult to think that it is within the capabilities of the FSA or any other armed opposition group – even if they are provided with more weapons – to overthrow the Syrian regime by force. In fact, this will only result in more violence. Instead of this, we must focus our efforts to push the Syrian government, via political, diplomatic and economic pressure, to stop its attacks on civilians. With concerted and intense efforts in this regard, we can make President al-Assad understand that he is not in a position to continue to rule, and that he cannot return to the embrace of the international community, and so it would be better for himself and his family to leave now and let others in the Syrian government negotiate over the transition of power.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Whilst it is true that the door is still open for the Syrian leadership to leave power peacefully; do you truly believe that after all this, al-Assad will simply accept this?
[Ford] I do not want to go into a psychological evaluation of the Syrian president, but I believe that he has a strategy, namely to suppress the opposition and put forward a program of very limited – if not superficial – reform and then in time regain his position in the international community, as occurred in 2005 following the assassination of Rafik Hariri, when Syria faced international isolation. Following this, and after many years, al-Assad managed to return to enjoying good relations with the international community. However he must understand that the situation today is not like it was in the year 2005 or 2006; the death toll is far greater than it was in 2005, and the suppression has exceeded the bounds which the international community can accept, therefore there is no way for this government – in its current form – to return to its previous position with the Syrian people. It is clear that this government has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the Syrian people, whilst it has also lost its international legitimacy. Therefore, it cannot return [to its previous position]. It is not a case of al-Assad suppressing the protesters and then playing the waiting game, the Syrian regime has no choice but to leave, whether this happens sooner or later. The economic pressure, which is real and dangerous today, will increase, particularly as we continue to intensify the sanctions and work with our partners to target those financing the government. Things will only become more difficult [for al-Assad]; therefore the earlier negotiations take place, the better possibilities there are [for al-Assad]. As for the legitimacy of president al-Assad, there can be no doubt that there are people in Syria, for example in Damascus and in the coastal areas, who continue to support him, however large areas of the country reject him, from Idlib to Deraa to Al-Bukamal and Deir Ezzor, not to mention the Kurdish regions of the country, and areas around Damascus, as well as areas within the capital itself, such as al-Midan, Barzeh, and elsewhere. If the security apparatus allowed demonstrations we would have seen huge protests taking place in Damascus, however it is clear that the government itself is aware that al-Assad has lost his legitimacy because of the actions that they have been forced to take, including suppressing the Syrian people. Therefor al-Assad would be doing a service to his country if he left and allowed the transition of power.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What about the possibility of putting in place buffer zones or “humanitarian corridors” in Syria? Do you support this idea? Is this even possible without military intervention?
[Ford] I have not read the details of what the French are suggesting [in this regard], however with the escalation in terms of bombardment and the use of tanks against regions like Rastan, Deraa, Zabadani, and Homs; there has been a dramatic rise in the number of Syrians who have been displaced from their homes. The Syrian Red Crescent organization estimates the number of displaced at 65,000 within Syria, and that’s a huge increase compared to between 10,000 and 15,000 just two months ago. There are new waves of refugees flooding into Lebanon and Turkey, so the humanitarian aspect of what is happening in Syria has become more dangerous over the past month, and the [Syrian] government is responsible for this. It is the government that has escalated the situation; for only one side is using tanks. We, as Americans, are looking for ways to allocate resources to help the Syrian refugees. This is a growing danger, and represents a threat to regional stability, not to mention a humanitarian disaster. Therefore, we will look for ways to quickly help Syria’s displaced and refugees, and this will also be discussed in Tunisia [during the forthcoming “Friends of Syria” meeting].
[Asharq Al-Awsat] How does this differ from talk about “humanitarian corridors”?
[Ford] I do not know what the French intend to propose, but we understand that there is a deteriorating humanitarian crisis in Syria, and we must think about ways of providing assistance from medical supplies and foodstuff, as well as how ensure this reaches Syrians within the country, which will represent a challenge. The Syrian government must not prevent humanitarian aid [from reaching the people of Syria].
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Can the Russians or Chinese assist with this?
[Ford] I think it would be a surprise if the Russians or Chinese object to providing assistance to the people of Syria who have been forced from their homes due to artillery bombardment. How would they explain such an objection?
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Do you think returning to the UN Security Council to discuss a new draft resolution is out of the question at this time?
[Ford] At the present time, our attention is focused on working outside of the channels of the UN, for example, via the Friends of Syria meeting that is scheduled to take place in Tunisia. We will look at how to utilize this Friends of Syria group to strengthen the political and economic pressure [on the Syrian government], and provide aid to the Syrian opposition which has an essential role to play. The group will look at increasing economic pressure, for example. The Arab League is also talking about economic sanctions; however we need to study this, as well as how such sanctions will be applied. The US Treasury Department has expertise in imposing sanctions on countries like Iran, and perhaps it can provide expertise to Arab states on imposing sanctions. We will also discuss political and diplomatic pressure, in addition to helping the opposition. However this does not mean that we will not see a reason to return to the UN Security Council in the future.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] You have spoken about the regional implications of the Syrian refugees, but there are other implications, including the possibility of the violence in Syria taking root elsewhere, such as the clashes which broke out in Lebanon earlier this week. Do you think it is likely that the conflict in Syria will spread to other parts of the region?
[Ford] I think everybody in the international community should be aware that the developments in Syria are moving in a bad direction; the level of violence now is far greater than it was in May, 2011, or even September, 2011. There are extremist elements on the scene; we have seen car bombs exploding in the middle of Damascus, and it is most likely that Islamist extremists are behind this. Whilst the death toll amongst the Syrian government forces is increasing, and it is believed that this now stands at between 20 and 25 a day. The death toll amongst the civilians is far greater than at any time before; it began with around 10 per day, however this has now reached 70 civilians being killed per day. This is appalling. There are Alawite families who are leaving Damascus for the coastal areas out of fear for what might happen, whilst Christian families are afraid for their future, and so the situation is very bad. This is something that will have an impact on Lebanon and Turkey, in addition to Jordan and Iraq. The Syrian crisis is a threat to regional security, and that is why we were so frustrated by the UN Security Council’s failure.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] The US embassy in Syria has been closed, however the Syrian embassy in Washington remains open, despite the fact that Damascus has withdrawn its ambassador. Does Washington intend to ask Syria to close its US embassy?
[Ford] I went to the Syrian Foreign Minister to inform them of our decision to suspend the operations of our embassy in Damascus, and this was after we waited a longer time for them to respond to our security fears, and in the end we decided it was not possible to continue to wait. At this point, the first question that a Syrian Foreign Ministry official asked me was: are you cutting-off diplomatic relations [with Syria]? I answered: no, we are not closing the operations of our embassies for political reasons, we are doing this due to security fears, and we have been very clear about this. As for Syria’s embassy in Washington, we will not be closing this embassy; it is continuing its operations.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] When the announcement was made that you would be leaving Syria, it was also made clear that you would remain US Ambassador to Syria. Now that you are no longer based in the country, can you tell us what you have been doing?
[Ford] We have a large team that is monitoring Syrian affairs, which are very important, particularly due to the humanitarian disaster being suffered by the Syrian people, in addition to the threat this represents to regional security. I appreciate that the US Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] and the State Department gave me the task of heading this team in Washington. I have conducted a number of meetings in Paris, and I will be returning to Washington soon, where we will be working on several initiatives, including increasing the diplomatic, political and economic pressures [on the al-Assad regime], as well as looking at how to provide humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, in addition to helping the Syrian opposition. It is important that we look for ways to communicate with the Syrians inside the country, and this will be much more difficult after we suspend the operations of our embassy in Syria [the US closed its embassy in Syria on 6 February, 2012], but we will look for innovative ways to communicate with the Syrian people and we will try to work with our partners to achieve a peaceful political transition, which is our main objective at this time.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Have you had any contact with the Damascus government since you left Syria?
[Ford] No, I have not had any contact, but there is a Syrian embassy in Washington and we can communicate with the al-Assad government through it.

More like a “Friends of al-Assad” conference!
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
If the Tunisian foreign ministry says it will not invite the Syrian National Council (SNC) to the upcoming “Friends of the Syrian People” conference, while both Russia and China will be invited, then the question here is: Who will this conference actually benefit? Or, why was this event not called the “Friends of al-Assad” conference in the first place?
How strange for the Tunisian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Rafik Abdessalem, to say that “there will certainly not be an official SNC representative” at the Friends of the Syrian People conference, indicating that the relevant authorities had “discussed the subject”. He added that “each thing [will come] in time”, hoping to soon see the formation of a Syrian opposition with “real representation”.
The truth is that it is not fair to talk about the Syrian opposition being fragmented, especially in light of al-Assad’s criminal dictatorial regime that has ruled for over forty years, via father and son, but the question is: Who united the Iraqi opposition before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, other than the American Zalmay Khalilzad in London? Who would have united the Libyan opposition were it not for the French and the Qataris? Let us not forget that prior to the fall of Gaddafi; Abdel-Fattah Younis was assassinated, in what did not seem to be an act of vengeance as much as it resembled the killing of Ahmed Shah Massoud, i.e. the removal of a key figure from the political scene in preparation for a new phase.
The Tunisian conference is meant to support the Syrian revolution and send a clear message to the al-Assad regime, not the opposite. Inviting the Russians and Chinese is tantamount to emptying the Tunisian conference of its contents, and this is al-Assad’s forté. The conference scheduled to take place in Tunisia should not serve as a supplement to the Security Council, attended by Moscow and Beijing, but rather it should be a conference making decisions in the interest of the unarmed Syrians, not only to stop the killings, but also to initiate the transitional phase, as per the desire of the Syrian revolution that has been adopted by the Arab League.
So, it seems there is a desire today to hold a conference for the “Friends of al-Assad”, inviting Moscow, Beijing and Beirut, some Arab League officials, and even Cairo, and they can hold this wherever they want. However, the Friends of the Syrian People conference must invite the SNC first and foremost, fully recognizing it of course, as well as those countries active and willing to end the suffering of the Syrians and put an end to al-Assad’s crimes, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, and the Europeans such as France, Britain and Germany, in addition to America. This is in order to carry out real decisions and actions that are felt by the unarmed Syrians, especially those who have been subjected to a devastating bombardment over the past two weeks, namely the people of Homs, Daraa and Idlib.
As I have explained, the Friends of the Syrian People conference must produce decisions and practical steps to provide the Syrian opposition with all types of support, including weapons and the imposition of secure humanitarian corridors, as well as taking possible steps to exert diplomatic efforts, whether in the Security Council again or outside of it. This is in order to put an end to the al-Assad era, and to ensure that the courts can pursue those who have committed crimes against humanity in Syria, in accordance with the recent Arab resolutions.
This is what is required from the Friends of the Syrian People conference, and any gathering that does not adopt such measures must be called the Friends of al-Assad conference!