Matthew 18 Who Is the Greatest

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 23/2012

Bible Quotation for today/The Parable of the Tenants in the Vineyard
Luke 20/09-18: "Then Jesus told the people this parable: There was once a man who planted a vineyard, rented it out to tenants, and then left home for a long time. When the time came to gather the grapes, he sent a slave to the tenants to receive from them his share of the harvest. But the tenants beat the slave and sent him back without a thing. So he sent another slave; but the tenants beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him back without a thing. Then he sent a third slave; the tenants wounded him, too, and threw him out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my own dear son; surely they will respect him! But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, This is the owner's son. Let's kill him, and his property will be ours! So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What, then, will the owner of the vineyard do to the tenants? Jesus asked. He will come and kill those men, and turn the vineyard over to other tenants. When the people heard this, they said, Surely not! Jesus looked at them and asked, What, then, does this scripture mean?
The stone which the builders rejected as worthless turned out to be the most important of all. Everyone who falls on that stone will be cut to pieces; and if that stone falls on someone, that person will be crushed to dust.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Only two countries are able to attack Iran: U.S. and Israel/By Moshe Arens/Haaretz/February 22/12
Revolutions expose the frailties of Arab armies/By Dr. Amal Al-Hazzani/February 22/12
Netanyahu is demolishing the strategic alliance with U.S./By Sefi Rachlevsky/Haaretz/February 22/12
Celebrating the fall of Damascus/By Tariq Alhomayed/February 22/12
Syria’s civil war rages, as Alawites press on/By DANIEL BRODIE/J.Post/February 22/12
Iranian opposition eyes Syria/Shane Farrell/February 21/12
Bashar's 'Iron Fist'/by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi and Oskar Svadkovsky/The American Spectator/February 22/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 22/12
Bashar's 'Iron Fist'/by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi and Oskar Svadkovsky/The American Spectator/February 22/12
Chamoun compares Aoun to “Hitler, Mussolini”
Iran’s supreme leader: Tehran not seeking atomic weapon
Russia backs ICRC call for daily Syria truce
DEBKAfile Special Report/ Tehran steps into US-Israel Iran row with threat of pre-emptive strike
Azerbaijan: Iranian, Hezbollah operatives arrested for plotting attack against foreign targets
Iran to take pre-emptive action if endangered, warns top general
IAEA: Tehran talks failed to secure agreement
Iran Says Talks with IAEA Will Continue
Obama to address AIPAC annual conference
Azerbaijan: Iranian, Hezbollah operatives arrested for plotting attack against foreign targets
IDF forces find powerful explosive device on Israel-Egypt border
Rights Group: At Least 46 Journalists Killed in 2011
IDF forces find powerful explosive device on Israel-Egypt border
U.S. Wary on Arming Syria Opposition
Jordan to attend international meeting on Syria
At least 65 Syrians killed in fresh assault on Homs
Homs blitz prompts yet more calls for cease-fire in Syria
Red Cross Urges Daily Truce in Syria, U.N. Calls for Unimpeded Access
Syrian Muslim Brotherhood supports Lebanon’s sovereignty
Aid and safety lacking for Syrian refugees in the Bekaa
Politician fifth suspect in Hariri assassination: report
Aoun exploits Nahhas resignation
Issue of Nahhas resignation under consideration: Aoun
Lebanon to miss 'Friends of Syria' conference
Parliament to tackle Metn electricity issue
Future bloc MPs slam Nasrallah’s response to Hariri’s speech
Qabbani, Hezbollah call for boosting of national, Islamic unity
Suleiman Says Personal Interests Should be Turned into Public Good
Notorious Jamil Sayed: Sayyed: Miqati’s Position as Prime Minister is a Catastrophe for Lebanon

IAEA: Tehran talks failed to secure agreement
By REUTERS 02/22/2012/VIENNA - The UN nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday it had failed to secure an agreement with Iran during two days of talks over disputed atomic activities and that the Islamic Republic had rejected a request to visit a key military site. In the second such trip in less than a month, a senior team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had traveled to Tehran to press Iranian officials to start addressing mounting concerns that the Islamic Republic may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons. The outcome seems likely to add to already soaring tension between Iran and Western powers, which have ratcheted up sanctions on the major oil producer in recent months. "During both the first and second round of discussions, the agency team requested access to the military site at Parchin. Iran did not grant permission for this visit to take place," the Vienna-based IAEA said in a statement after the Feb 20-21 talks. The IAEA named Parchin in a detailed report in November that lent independent weight to Western fears that Iran was working to develop an atomic bomb, an allegation Iranian officials reject. "It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin. We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached," said IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano.Earlier, Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told the country's ISNA news agency that Tehran expected to hold more talks with the UN agency, whose task it is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the world. But Amano's spokeswoman, Gill Tudor, made clear no further meetings were planned: "At this point in time there is no agreement on further discussions," she said.

Azerbaijan: Iranian, Hezbollah operatives arrested for plotting attack against foreign targets
By Barak Ravid/Haaretz/Last month, three men were detained after planning to attack Israelis employed by a Jewish school in the capital Baku. Azerbaijan's national security agency announced on Tuesday that it has arrested several activists belonging to the Iranian intelligence service and Hezbollah. The operatives are suspected of planning terrorist attacks against foreigners in the capital Baku.
The state-owned television channel reported that the suspects began gathering intelligence and bought explosives, guns and ammunition. Last month, three men were detained after planning to attack two Israelis employed by a Jewish school in Baku. The Azeri ministry said at the time that it had arrested a cell that planned to "kill public activists," before it became apparent that the intended victims were two Israeli Chabad emissaries, a rabbi and a teacher employed by the "Chabad Or Avner" Jewish school in Baku. The government said that the three men, named as Rasim Aliyev, Ali Huseynov and Balaqardash Dadashov, received smuggled arms and equipment from Iranian agents. The action was apparently planned as retaliation to the gunning down of Iranian nuclear scientists. Last week, an Iranian man was seriously wounded in Bangkok when a bomb he was carrying exploded and blew one of his legs off. Shortly before, there had been an explosion in a house the man was renting in the Ekamai area of central Bangkok, government spokeswoman Thitima Chaisaeng told reporters. The blasts came a day after a twin bomb attack targeted Israeli embassy staff in India and Georgia. Israel accused arch-enemies Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah of being behind those attacks. Iran denied involvement in the New Delhi and Tbilisi bombs.

Tehran steps into US-Israel Iran row with threat of pre-emptive strike
DEBKAfile Special Report February 21, 2012/Deputy Chief of Iran’s Armed Forces Gen. Mohammad Hejazi issued a new threat Tuesday, Feb. 21: “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests… we will act without waiting for their actions.”
debkafile’s military sources report that an Iranian preemptive attack on Israel has been in the air for some weeks. It became realistic because the dragging out of the argument between Washington and Jerusalem over a military strike and the two government’s indecisiveness gave Tehran a golden opportunity to further its interests.
It bestowed on Iran the gift of entering into talks on its nuclear program with the six world powers (P5 plus 1) free of a military threat and therefore in a superior bargaining position. For openers, Tehran has already pocketed the Obama administration’s promise of permission to continue to enrich uranium up to 5 percent in any quantity and will be more than ready to lay down more demands.
Gen. Hejazi’s threat of a preemptive strike against Israel also serves the Islamic regime in its run-up to a general election on March 3. It aims to show the Iranian voter and Middle East public that Iran has successfully turned US and Israeli aggression against Iran against them and demonstrated they are no more than paper tigers incapable of carrying through on their rhetoric. The military initiative therefore stays in Iran’s hands.
In Tehran, the standard Israeli cliché of “We don’t’ advise anyone to test our resolve” has worn thin.
By letting two Iranian warships bearing arms for Assad pass Israel’s coast on its way to Tartus without interference, Israel encouraged Tehran to assume that, in the last reckoning, it will abstain from a unilateral strike to eradicate Iran’s nuclear facilities without Washington’s blessing.
The Netanyahu government’s resolve is expected to melt away under the bulldozer assault of one American emissary after another touching down at Ben-Gurion airport to corner them into backing down.
Once Israel lets its hands be tied, Tehran calculates, it will become progressively harder to break them loose, so that if Tehran does carry out a limited “preemptive” missile attack on the Jewish state, Jerusalem will again bow to Washington and let itself be coerced into not responding.
Thursday, Feb. 23, US National Director of Intelligence James Clapper arrives in Israel to tackle its military and intelligence chiefs on the question, after US National Defense Director Tom Donilon spent three days in fruitless discussions with government leaders Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff tried his hand at persuasion earlier this month. This cycle of pressure will peak with Netanyahu’s White House talks with President Obama on March 5.
The Iranians felt confident enough to safely deny requests from the team of IAEA inspectors who arrived in Tehran Monday for access suspect nuclear locations and meetings with scientists employed in their nuclear program. Gen. Hejazi’s words were backed up by a four-day air defense exercise, dubbed Sarallah (God’s Revenge), in the south of the country. The Islamic Republic also took another initiative by cutting off oil exports to Britain and France and so turning the tables on the European Union’s oil embargo on Tehran.

Only two countries are able to attack Iran: U.S. and Israel
By Moshe Arens/Haaretz
There are only two countries in the world with the military capability to carry out an effective military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities: the U.S. and Israel. For the past 12 years the world has been watching the progress of Iran's nuclear program. Its ultimate aim is to attain nuclear weaponry and is supported by a growing arsenal of long-range ballistic missiles. Step by step Iran has progressed over the years, seemingly determined to reach its goal. So what is going to happen next? Can the Iranians still be stopped, and if so by what means? Although there may be disagreements here and there - in Jerusalem, Washington, D.C. and the capitals of Europe - there is agreement on four important points:
1. Iran is working actively to obtain nuclear weapons. Whatever doubts existed on this matter over the years have been dispelled.
2. A nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian ayatollahs represents a danger to the world. Although repeated Iranian threats to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth have created the impression that it is only Israel that would be endangered by an Iranian nuclear weapon, it is now recognized that a nuclear Iran would spell danger to the entire world.
3. The use of economic sanctions to convince the Iranians to end their nuclear weapons project is far preferable to the use of military force to achieve this aim.
4. It is pretty late in the game. A lot of time slipped by while the very existence of the Iranian nuclear bomb project was being debated, and more time while attempts were being made to convince the Iranians that it was in their best interests to abandon the program. All this time, the project advanced. Now it is clear that they are close to achieving their goal and there is little time left to take effective action.
There are two major villains in this extended drama. Firstly, Mohamed ElBaradei, who served three terms (1997-2009 ) as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA ), the international organization charged with the task of inhibiting the use of nuclear energy for military purposes. During his tenure he repeatedly downplayed claims of any possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program. He received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in 2005. Only after he was replaced at the IAEA by Yukiya Amano has the alarm been raised.
Secondly, U.S. intelligence agencies released a report in 2007 claiming that Iran had halted its drive toward building an atom bomb in 2003. The basis or purpose for this patently wrong estimate was never made clear. But it brought about a relaxation in the international effort to halt Iran's atomic bomb project.
On entering the White House in 2009, President Barack Obama extended his hand to the Iranian rulers, hoping to engage them in negotiations that would put an end to their nuclear ambitions. Effective sanctions against the Iranian regime have only been imposed by a good part of the international community during the past few months. Are they going to be sufficient, and have they come in time? That is the question engaging the heads of government in Jerusalem, Washington and the capitals of Europe.
The military option - the one that has been "on the table" for the past few years - is still there, and is obviously problematic in light of the consequences that are likely to follow (some of which are in the realm of the unknown ). But there is no doubt that a military strike would set back Iran's nuclear project significantly.
It may come as a surprise to some that, at this time, there are only two countries in the world with the military capability to carry out an effective military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. They are the U.S. and Israel. There may not be any country able to deal effectively with an Iranian state in possession of nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu is demolishing the strategic alliance with U.S.
By Sefi Rachlevsky/Haaretz
The Netanyahu government had 20 months to set up an excellent firefighting service in advance of the planned war, but did nothing.
In an interview with The New York Times, Defense Minister Ehud Barak listed three conditions for going to war against Iran, a threefold test: Military action must significantly delay Iran's nuclear program; it must result in minimal harm to Israel's home front; and it must receive massive American and international support. As prime minister, Barak brandished the test of results as his sword, and fell on it several months later. But now, the same old song is playing again.
On Barak's new test, the government would earn a maximum grade of 3 out of 10 - a failing grade. The state commission of inquiry should get to work now. The failures of the 1973 Yom Kippur War will look negligible by comparison.
The scope of the failure to protect the home front, the degree to which it has been abandoned by leaders who, along with their families and their cronies, will take refuge in a nuclear fallout shelter - or else flee responsibility by going to China, where Home Front Defense Minister Matan Vilnai just became ambassador - is almost incomprehensible. That is what we learn from the State Comptroller's Report on the neglect that led to the Mount Carmel forest fire. That's the mountain that was supposed to be the final fortress in 1942.
During the Second Lebanon War of 2006, the land was ablaze. Missiles started fires and destroyed houses. An attack on Iran would set the land on fire sevenfold.
Investigations into the war in Lebanon focused on the lack of even minimal civil defense and firefighting capabilities. The Netanyahu government had 20 months to set up an excellent firefighting service in advance of the planned war - the war to which every move made by the Netanyahu-Barak duo since 2008 has been leading. Instead, it did nothing.
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz and Interior Minister Eli Yishai are unimportant. The story is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A man preparing for a war involving the home front who "forgot" that Israel lacks a fire service worthy of the name cannot stay in office. A prime minister who remembered but didn't act must go. Failing to prepare the firefighting service for the fires and rescues of the big home-front war is no different than sending the planes to Iran without a payload. Yet even after the Carmel fire, the do-nothing attitude toward the home front continued.
Nevertheless, the abandonment of the home front is secondary to the main failure. For even under the "Barak test" for an initiated war, the home front depends on an alliance with the West.
Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, bequeathed his country one fundamental rule: An alliance with at least one great power is a prerequisite for any military venture. To secure it, absolutely everything must be done. That's why Israel conditioned its involvement in the 1956 Sinai Campaign on a French air force squadron protecting the home front. That's why it waited to go to war in 1967. That's why it made peace with Egypt before bombing Iraq's nuclear reactor. That's why the Oslo agreement and the disengagement from Gaza preceded receipt of the strategic submarines from Germany, the bombing of the Syrian reactor and Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.
It's impossible to overstate the importance of an alliance with the West, and especially the United States, prior to Israel's first confrontation with a regional power. It's not "just" about American planes, bombs and refueling. It's not "just" about information from the NATO radar in Turkey; or about ending the war before it drags on longer than the eight year Iran-Iraq war, as senior Mossad officials have warned it could; or even about finishing the process of halting Iran's nuclear program, which Israel lacks the capacity to do on its own.
Israel's entire deterrent posture - which is what prevents the 200,000 missiles aimed at it from actually being launched - stems from its alliance with the United States. If Israel is viewed in this region not as part of the American world order, but as America's foe, this deterrence will be destroyed.
Netanyahu's views are closer to those of settler rabbi Dov Lior than they are to mine. But any reasonable person, when preparing for an apocalyptic confrontation of this sort, would do everything in his power to at least appear moderate, so that the West would embrace him. Saying the words "an agreement based on the 1967 borders" is even less than the minimum necessary to prepare for this conflict; the same goes for establishing a centrist government.
And if, as Netanyahu claims, U.S. President Barack Obama is hostile, that is all the more reason why he should have compelled Obama's support by means of a democratic, peace-seeking Israel, instead of destroying our strategic security by means of an Israel that rides roughshod over democracy and seeks to double the size of the illegal outpost of Migron. Instead of close coordination, there are two phone calls a year with Obama. Instead of an intimate alliance, Israel is seen by the Obama administration as seeking to time the war in a way that would topple the Democrats from power.
And indeed, in a recent poll, 51 percent of Americans favored sitting on the fence in the event of an Israel-Iran war; only 39 percent favored siding with Israel. In Netanyahu's terms, this is a strategic Holocaust. In our own terms, this is "the failure," as the Yom Kippur War is termed.
In the face of this failure, the Israeli officer corps must all become Eli Geva, who refused to order his brigade into Beirut during the 1982 Lebanon War. Coming from a government that has betrayed its most basic obligations, an order for the planes to take off would be a patently illegal order. It can be implemented - perhaps - only by privates: The rank tabs must be left on the table.
When Netanyahu binds Tel Aviv on the altar by demolishing the strategic alliance with the United States, perhaps he sees the sunken Irgun ship Altalena there rather than his son. But no heavenly hand will descend to prevent this madness, the way an angel prevented Abraham from sacrificing Isaac. An Israeli hand must therefore be the one to refuse the order and stop the madness

Celebrating the fall of Damascus
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
The protests that took place in Mezzeh – in the heart of Damascus –surprised everybody; the Syrian regime, regional and international states, particularly those that have been cautious [over the situation in Syria], in addition to al-Assad regime supporters. This is also something that applies to the politicians. This means that everybody, in the coming days, will celebrate the fall of Damascus.
Those monitoring the situation in Syria will have noticed positional changes and unexpected reversals [on Syria], which is something that may even reach defections from the al-Assad regime itself! Regionally speaking, we see Egypt withdrawing its ambassador from Damascus and all the talk is now about the necessity of Egypt cutting its relations with the al-Assad regime; indeed surprise has been expressed from within Egypt itself that it has taken Cairo this long to take this position. Some people are attributing the latest Egyptian position to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood escalation against the al-Assad regime, which is something that has embarrassed the decision-makers in Cairo. This may be true, but the most important reason is what happened in Damascus, for after protesters dramatically took to the streets there – which is something that did not even happen in Tripoli during the revolution against Gaddafi – nothing remains for the al-Assad regime or the cautious [states]. Indeed what many have failed to pay attention to is the fact that the Damascus protests took place just 700 meters away from al-Assad’s palace! This is something that could have an impact on the composition of the al-Assad regime itself, accelerating the internal divisions within the regime, as we previously mentioned, particularly as there is information about the approaching moment of division, which will be revealed in the coming days. The shaking of the capital, any capital, means that that the regime has begun to shudder. There is also now explicit talk about some businessmen leaving Syria to save themselves, and their money, not to mention claims that the al-Assad government is practically divided in reality.
The other indication that the politicians will celebrate the fall of Damascus is the statement issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, which contradicts what was put forward by the al-Assad regime media following the visit paid by the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister to the country. Whilst the al-Assad media claimed that the Chinese envoy had expressed Beijing’s complete support for the al-Assad regime, the statement issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister had informed al-Assad of Beijing’s endorsement of the Arab initiative. This is an extremely important indication, for it means that China is trying to redeem the terrible mistake it made at the UN Security Council, whilst it is also trying to distance itself from the latest crimes committed by the al-Assad regime.
The other issue here is Russia publicly stating that Moscow is still waiting for a Gulf response on its request for a meeting, which is what we revealed last week, and undoubtedly the question that poses itself in the reader’s mind at this instance is: why has the Sino-Russian tone [on Syria] changed now? The logical answer to this is that the recent actions taken by Damascus has forced, and will force, everybody – including Beijing and Moscow – to celebrate the fall of Damascus, whilst the horror of the massacres being carried out by the al-Assad regime in Syria does not allow any state to form an alliance with a state that kills children. One might say: what about Iran? Here the answer is completely difference, for al-Assad’s survival is a case of life and death for Tehran, because the collapse of the al-Assad regime no doubt means cutting the hand of Iran in the region! Therefore, after al-Assad has shed the blood of the Syrians, and faced the protests in Mezzeh, we have to wait in suspense for what follows the fall of Damascus.

Revolutions expose the frailties of Arab armies
By Dr. Amal Al-Hazzani/Asharq Alawsat
From the October 1973 war against Israel up until a year ago, we used to sincerely believe that the Arab states were seeking to build up their armies, although their readiness was unconvincing at the time, and that soon these armies would be ready to wage a war to liberate the occupied territories. However, the year 2011 was a real shock, for it brought us the naked truth of a bitter reality: there is no single Arab army that can maintain control of its internal situation, let alone wage a regional war. In Egypt we find the oldest army in the history of the Middle East, the largest Arab army in terms of size, and one that has fought fierce wars against Israel. However, following the 2011 revolution, the Egyptian army has taken on a completely different appearance, contrary to its former prestige and power, and the firm stances it always adopted in the face of hardships and challenges throughout the course of history, such as the brave decision to protect people's lives and state institutions during the Tahrir Square demonstrations. Now the army seems too feeble to protect itself or the security of its senior officials, hence its affiliates have been subjected to physical and psychological abuse at the hands of callow youths, who are unfamiliar with the major wars conducted by the Egyptian army in the past. Such youths only know the army's historical value through their school curriculums or the stories of their grandparents. The Egyptian army has lost control of the street, and although it succeeded in penetrating the Bar Lev Line during its war against Israel in 1973, it failed miserably to have any impact upon Tahrir Square.
Perhaps, the only person who managed to interpret Egypt's future realistically was the late President Anwar al-Sadat. In fact, by signing the peace agreement with Israel, he saved the Egyptian people a hundred years or more in efforts to liberate the Sinai soil, which the Egyptians now rely upon as a reliable source of one-third of the country's economy.
In Syria, the so-called “Fortress of Arabism”, the situation is even worse. The army that imposes military service upon every single Syrian youth - despite all its intelligence apparatuses, battalions and brigades - failed to confront unarmed protestors demonstrating without weapons, only using their loud voices in opposition. The Syrian regime sought the assistance of thousands of members from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah to quell the demonstrations, simply because it trusted them and deemed them to be more loyal to than the members of its regular army, who promptly defected from their leaders. Yet Syria never sought the assistance of Iran or Hezbollah to liberate the Golan Heights, which could have tipped the balance of power with Israel. Rather, it only appealed to them for immediate assistance to keep the Bashar al-Assad regime in power.
In Libya, the situation is almost farcical. In the year 2000, Muammar Gaddafi wanted to declare a war on Israel, yet he had no qualified army to do so. He never considered training one up properly, fearing that it could rise against him someday. During the Libyan revolution, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi blamed the Libyan army for its violent handling of the demonstrators. According to Saif al-Islam, the army was reckless because it was not properly trained to deal with riots, so how could such an army ever deal with the riots provoked by Israel?
As for Yemen, the truth is that the army there is in a better condition than many other regional countries, for one significant and sorrowful reason: the Yemeni arena continues to experience consecutive civil wars, and as a result, the army and security troops are constantly engaged in genuine field exercises that are far better than the exercise drills provide by military training colleges and institutes. This prompted Yemeni President to always boast that a Yemeni citizen is a sniper by nature since his early childhood. However, despite being dominated mainly by relatives of the President, the army recently failed to end the war with the protestors on the streets. It is true that the president was not defeated, yet he did not win either. In the end, he only succeeded in transforming elements of the Yemeni army into street fighters battling one another. So, has the reality of the Arab armies been buried under a layer of propaganda? The answer is partially yes, because the vast majority of Arabs used to believe that the Arab military and logistical solidarity alone could destroy Israel. The Egyptian army's size, the Syrian army's belief in resistance, and the Gulf states' logistical support could all contribute to Israel's defeat.
The conclusion we can draw today is that military objectives cannot be fulfilled by the size of the army or by military spending, nor can they be attained by mere slogans. Rather, military objectives can only be fulfilled by the country's internal stability, and an entrenched sense of patriotism that prompts citizens to obey their leaders willingly, even if they are not fully convinced of the objectives. We saw this in America with the army of George W. Bush, half of whom were not convinced by the war [against Iraq], yet they remained committed as a military force, although not in agreement with the political regime.

The Scottish Samurai and the Egyptian Frenchmen
By Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Alawsat
Some of those interested in taking lessons from history like to compare the path taken by the modern Egyptian state, founded by the Albanian Muhammad Ali in the 19th century, with the path of Japan, which witnessed the restoration of its emperorship and an industrial revolution during the same historical period. This comparison takes into account the differences in culture, circumstances and geography, as well as the similarities in feelings of suspicion towards foreigners that prevailed in both countries at the time. In the 19th century, the direction was the same in both Egypt and Japan, namely an attempt to modernize and address the existing underdevelopment of the two societies, by importing science and knowledge from abroad, and by sending expeditions to the Western colonial powers in Europe and applying their economic and military systems. This is effectively what happened, and Japan succeeded in building a great industrial power that is still active to this day, despite its defeat in the Second World War after trying to expand and intimidate its neighbors. Meanwhile, the story of the modern Egyptian state is quite different, where it seems to be a case of two steps forward and one step back.
The glaring similarity between the two is the pivotal role played by Western individuals, mainly 19th century adventurers, in making history in both countries and helping to build a modern state. The history of the two countries still remembers them dearly, such as the Scottish merchant Thomas Glover in Japan, and Colonel Sève, otherwise known as Suleiman Pasha of France, one of the officers in Napoleon’s French army in Egypt. Some see the latter as the engineer behind the construction of the modern Egyptian army, after decades of Ottoman rule when Egypt did not have a military establishment of its own. People in Egypt still use the name “Suleiman Pasha Square” for the square where his statue once stood, before it was relocated after the 1952 revolution, when the square was renamed after the businessman Talaat Harb. Thomas Glover was an adventurous Scottish merchant sent to Shanghai by his British company when he was still in his twenties. In the year 1829 he moved to Nagasaki in Japan, which at the time was a city considered very hostile towards foreigners, because of the unfair treaties imposed upon them. His initial goal was to trade in green tea, yet he soon found himself falling in love with the Japanese Samurai tradition, and became embroiled in the struggles of the Samurai clans who wanted to restore the prestige of Japan’s emperor, and so he began to deal with them in arms and gunpowder. Later, he was behind the first initiative to send high-achieving Japanese students to the West, and introduced the first railroad to Japan, through the Meiji government. He was behind the construction of the first dry dock for ships, and the construction of the first modern Japanese warship. As a result, many see him as one of the fundamental elements in the creation of modern Japan. He was nicknamed the “Scottish Samurai” and awarded the Order of the Rising Sun.
The story of Colonel Sève, or Suleiman Pasha of France, also stems from his love of the country [Egypt] and his famous conversion to Islam, and in many ways is similar to the tale of the “Scottish Samurai”. Colonel Sève was a French adventurer whom Muhammad Ali admired, and so he was entrusted with training the early nucleus of the modern Egyptian army. He educated them on modern Western methods in 1819, and established the first military school. He was a key player in the modern Egyptian state, and went on to receive the title of Pasha. Colonel Sève was the great grandfather of Queen Nazli, the mother of King Farouk, the last King of Egypt.
Thomas Glover and Suleiman Pasha were not the only two Western adventurers who came into contact with the history of Egypt and Japan and enriched it, there are others who are less famous or played less of a role. This was a feature of the times, as it would not have been possible for a renaissance to take place in two very traditional societies back then without contact with the outside world, and gaining knowledge from abroad. Thomas Glover’s former residence in Japan still remains as a museum, and is visited by nearly two million people a year, many of them school students. Suleiman Pasha’s statue was moved from downtown Cairo to the military museum in 1952, after the new regime was keen to erase what had preceded it. Perhaps this explains the different paths of the two countries, because state building is a cumulative process that corrects, commends and develops all that has happened before, and the fruits are harvested after many decades. But if we decide every few decades to start from scratch again, then there is no hope.

Report: Fifth Suspect in Hariri Murder Indictment is a Politician
by Naharnet/Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare has named a fifth civilian suspect in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri’s Feb. 2005 assassination, informed diplomatic sources said on Tuesday.
The sources told al-Liwaa daily that the suspect is a politician and not a party militant or a member of a secret security service. Bellemare will name the new suspect in an amended version of the indictment that was issued last year accusing four Hizbullah members of involvement in Hariri’s murder, an international judicial source said. Bellemare thanked the Lebanese in an open letter released Monday, just over a week before he is to resign from his position. U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon hasn’t yet named a new prosecutor. Al-Liwaa’s report came after al-Akhbar daily quoted sources close to the prosecutor’s office as saying last Friday that Bellemare referred a new indictment to Pre-Trial Judge Daniel Fransen in the assassination attempts of MP Marwan Hamadeh, ex-Defense Minister Elias Murr, and the murder of former Communist party leader George Hawi. The three attacks have been linked to Hariri’s assassination.

National waste of time
February 20, 2012 /Now Lebanon
President Michel Sleiman feels he is overcoming the impasse by calling for the resumption of a national dialogue to discuss the issue of who should and shouldn’t carry the guns in Lebanon. (presidency.gov.lb)
President Michel Sleiman may feel he is overcoming the impasse by calling for the resumption of a national dialogue to discuss the issue of who should and shouldn’t carry the guns in Lebanon.
He has, after all, quite rightly identified that “there are three dimensions” to the matter: those weapons in the Palestinian camps held by the various factions, those held by all political parties in Lebanon’s towns and cities, and finally Hezbollah’s massive arsenal, most of which is in the south of the country and trained on Israel. The latter has been given a veneer of legitimacy by being earmarked for inclusion in the oft-discussed national defense strategy, a process that seeks to find ways “to benefit from Hezbollah’s arms, when to use them and for what purpose.”
Who is Sleiman trying to kid? The national defense strategy is a chimera, a function that allows the Party of God to maintain its weapons while appearing to side with reason and debate. Does he honestly believe that Hezbollah would put its weapons at the disposal of the state when they are the very stick that allows it to beat the state whenever it feels like it?
In the wake of the 2000 Israeli withdrawal, there had been suggestions that the party’s military know-how—personnel and materiel—could be absorbed under the army’s command. But that was before Hezbollah showed its true thuggish colors on the streets of Beirut in May 2008. That was before we realized it was just another militia, albeit one that was better armed than most Arab countries.
There is no longer a need for a Resistance, and we must remove the myth and the paranoia surrounding calls for its disarmament. Ask the person in the street if Lebanon needs a private army to biff the Israelis and many will say yes simply because there is a perception that without it the country would be swept away by the combined tsunami of Israel’s military ambitions and the long-standing dream of annexing Lebanon into a bigger Zionist empire. Others will see the Hezbollah’s disarmament as a bid to disembowel Shia dignity.
Both are knee-jerk reactions. There is no evidence of Israeli expansionist desires, save for the bogus “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a work that has been debunked but which many in Lebanon cling to as proof that they live on the edge of the abyss, while the threat of military action is actually higher as long as Hezbollah remains armed, belligerent and threatening Israel’s northern border. As for it being a slap in the face to the Shia, well this is clearly nonsense. Those who see Hezbollah’s weapons as an expression of confessional pride should remember that no sect should be above the state. Period.
A third, more moderate, school would argue that having an armed militia running the show is not a perfect arrangement, but until the army is strong enough to defend Lebanon’s borders, there is no alternative. It is a position that many feel comfortable with because it does not fully endorse Hezbollah and at the same time makes an implicit call to strengthen the army.
The reality is that they are simply kicking the proverbial can further down the road. There will never be a concerted move to strengthen the army as long as Hezbollah holds the reins of power in Lebanon. The party has never accepted American offers of military aid for all the usual reasons, and now the Americans are reluctant to give aid to a country run by what it sees, rightly or wrongly, as a terror group. The only recent offer of aid has been from Iran, the country that finances Hezbollah, which it sees as an extension of its armed forces. So not much progress will be made there, one feels.
To quote Prime Minister Najib Mikati in 2006, Hezbollah’s armed wing is a "cancer," one that inhibits Lebanon’s progress as a genuine state with functioning institutions and which will one day metastasize and plunge the country or the region into war. With the war drums beating over Iran, it may already be too late.

Syrian Muslim Brotherhood supports Lebanon’s sovereignty
February 21, 2012 /The leader of Syria's Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Riad Shakfa, said in an interview published on Tuesday that “Lebanon is a united entity that must be respected.”
“The problems between Lebanon and Syria must be respected on the basis of mutual respect,” Shakfa told Al-Liwaa newspaper.“The regime of the Baath Party has [injected] many thorny files to its ties with Lebanon, incited sects against each other and harmed the Lebanese and Syrian people equally.” He also called for demarcating the Lebanese-Syrian border and “having diplomatic, and not security, ties with Lebanon.”“The issue of Lebanese detainees in Syrian jails must be resolved, and the detainees must be [released].”Lebanon’s political scene is split between supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and the March 14 pro-Western camp.-NOW Lebanon

Mansour Says Lebanon to Boycott 'Friends of Syria' Conference
by Naharnet /Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour confirmed on Tuesday that Lebanon will boycott “Friends of Syria” international conference that will be held in Tunis this week. “In harmony with our decision to disassociate Lebanon from developments in Syria, we will not join the conference in Tunis,” Mansour told OTV. He stressed that Lebanon’s stance is taking into consideration the country’s best interests. The Friends of Syria group will meet for the first time on Friday after being created in a response to a joint veto by Russia and China of a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Syrian President Bashar Assad for the violence. The group is backed by members of the European Union as well as some Arab nations and the United States.The pan-Arab daily al-Hayat reported on Tuesday that Lebanon is still studying the decision on whether to participate in the conference. “Lebanon doesn’t want to take part in the conflict (in Syria),” according to foreign ministry sources. Al-Hayat reported that Lebanon’s response to the invitation sent by Tunisian Foreign Minister Rafik Abdessalem hasn’t been made yet. Lebanon is witnessing a sharp rift between its March 14-led opposition and the March 8 alliance on the developments in Syria. Activists say more than 6,000 people have died in the Assad regime's 11-month crackdown on dissent. The foreign ministry sources noted that Lebanon can’t join a meeting that clearly aims at supporting the opposition groups, which would be considered as supporting a side against another.

Aoun: Dispute is Now between us and Nahhas, We Thank him for his Service
by Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun revealed on Tuesday that he has not yet decided whether he will accept Labor Minister Charbel Nahhas’ resignation. He said after the Change and Reform bloc’s weekly meeting: “The dispute over the transportation allowance is now between us and Nahhas.” “The government no longer has anything to do with the dispute and we have taken our time in handling the issue in order to preserve the rights of employers and employees,” he explained. “We thank him for his service and high competency in his work,” added the MP. “His circumstances no longer allow him to continue on working with us,” Aoun continued. The FPM leader recounted the developments that led to Nahhas’ resignation, saying that two days before the government approved the wage hike, the Shura Council had convened to eliminate a number of illegal laws. “We therefore supported his rejection of the transportation allowance and began to find ways to resolve the dispute,” he added. He revealed that an agreement was reached between him, Speaker Nabih Berri, and Prime Minister Najib Miqati over a draft law on the allowance. “We have respected the law and, with all respect to Nahhas, no one’s will is more powerful than the Change and Reform bloc,” stressed Aoun. The MP concluded the meeting by implying that he would accept Nahhas’ resignation, by saying: “His replacement will be from the FPM.” Nahhas informed Aoun on Tuesday his intention to resign after refusing to sign the transportation allowance decree. OTV denied that Nahhas had submitted his resignation to Miqati; however, if the reports were true, then acting Labor Minister Nicolas Fattoush will be required to sign the decree. The transportation allowance decree is at the center of a dispute between Miqati and Nahhas, who refuses to sign the decision for allegedly being “illegal.”

Iranian opposition eyes Syria
Shane Farrell, February 21, 2012 /Now Lebanon
A YouTube video posted in December, 2011, purportedly showing Iranian activists burning a picture of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. (YouTube) With demonstrations against nearly five decades of Baath Party rule now in their twelfth month in Syria, Iranian opposition members are keeping a watchful eye on developments, hoping that regime change in Damascus will produce the same in Tehran.
The governments of both nations have been strong allies, politically and economically, for many years. More recently, opposition members from both countries appear to be fostering closer ties and have expressed mutual support. A YouTube video posted in December, 2011, for example, purports to show a small group of Iranian activists holding a Syrian opposition flag and burning a picture of Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s embattled president. On Friday, meanwhile, 160 Iranian opposition members signed a document pledging support for and thanking the Syrian National Council, the principal opposition body outside the country. But the Iranian opposition has been significantly less active than its Arab neighbors since a string of anti-government uprisings have swept the Middle East over the past year. Ali Ansari, Professor at St. Andrews University and author of numerous books on Iran, wrote in an October 2011 report, “That a new wave of protests has not gripped the country is in large part due to the sheer exhaustion of the opposition following the six months of protest from June 2009, and the systematic and comprehensive state repression that followed. Moreover Iranians, haunted by the consequences of 1979 [Iranian Revolution], are not enthusiastic in pursuing a path in which the endgame is unclear.”
But Ali Nourizadeh, a prominent Iranian opposition member and analyst at the London-based Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, predicts that regime change in Syria will be the catalyst to further demonstrations in Iran, which will lead to the end of the current government in Tehran. Some analysts disagree. “Iran is a different case; it is very different from Arab countries because [Iran underwent] a revolution 32 years ago which makes everything different,” said Mahdi Khalagie, Iran expert and Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute. “We cannot compare ourselves to [countries] that have no precedent.” The current Iranian opposition, according to Khalagie, is disorganized and lacks a clear objective. While some members favor an end to the Islamic Republic, others want to keep the system but merely reform specific policies, Khalagie said. Moreover, the opposition suffers from a lack of leadership, he added. The political leaders of 2009’s uprising, Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, were arrested last February after backing another major anti-government protest. Both men remain under house arrest. Nourizadeh, however, disputes Khalagie’s criticism of the opposition. “In the last two years there have been major steps at least in understanding one another,” he said, pointing to a conference in Sweden earlier this month in which 50 members of the opposition sought to find common ground.
Journalist Mustafa Fahas agrees that the opposition has galvanized for this purpose, citing recent demonstrations as proof. However, like Khalagie, Fahas sees a new Iranian revolution as unlikely, due largely to a lack of leadership. He also stressed that the opposition is most likely expecting or hoping for a clash between followers of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and those of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “There are conflicting interests, accusations, scandals [and a belief that] one of them is going to get rid of the other,” Fahas said. “So the reformists must be thinking, ‘Instead of uniting them against us, let’s make them fight each other.’” *Nadine Elali contributed reporting.

Activist says two Western journalists killed in Syria
February 22, 2012 /Two Western journalists were killed on Wednesday in shelling by Syrian regime forces of the flashpoint city of Homs, an activist said. The two were killed when a shell crashed into a makeshift media center set up by anti-regime activists in Baba Amr district, under siege since February 4, activist Omar Shaker told AFP from the area. He added that three other foreign journalists were wounded. French television reporter Gilles Jacquier was killed in Homs last month as a shell exploded amid a group of journalists covering protests in the city on a visit organized by the Syrian authorities.
-AFP/NOW Lebanon

The Dealers of Hope
Farid Ghadry Blog/Reform Party of Syria
When the Assads savagely kill
When Obama admits no will
When the Russians coldly chill
When the Chinese think oil drill
When the Arab League aims downhill
When Erdogan lacks the goodwill
Syrians still have hope
Watch Iranian rappers express support for the Syrian people. Powerful lyrics.
Thank you to the young people of Iran

Russia backs ICRC call for daily Syria truce
February 22, 2012 /Russia on Wednesday expressed "serious concern" about the humanitarian situation in Syria and said it backed an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) call for a daily two-hour truce that could provide help to civilians. "We are seriously concerned by incoming reports about the difficult humanitarian situation in Syria," said Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Alexander Lukashevich. "We actively support the efforts of the International Committee of the Red Cross" to establish a truce, Lukashevich told a weekly press briefing.
"It is presumed that this pause will be used to provide humanitarian assistance to the nation's population."The ICRC has been in talks with Syrian authorities and rebels to try to agree a temporary halt to the fighting so it can get access to the worst affected areas.Lukashevich said Russia had submitted to the UN Security Council a proposal for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to send a special envoy to Damascus to negotiate the provision of humanitarian assistance to those who need it most. Russia has emerged as President Bashar al-Assad's closest international ally and its support for a truce puts pressure on the regime to open the border to foreign supplies. But Moscow has refused to single out Assad for criticism and on Wednesday again called on both his forces and the armed opposition to end the violence. "We once again urge all Syrian sides to end the violence. This concerns both the official authorities and the opposition, which must disassociate itself from extremists," Lukashevich said.
-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Chamoun compares Aoun to “Hitler, Mussolini”
February 22, 2012
National Liberal Party (NLP) leader MP Dori Chamoun has likened Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel to “[former leader of the Nazi Party] Adolf Hitler and [former Italian fascist leader] Benito Mussolini.” “Aoun has not yet become aware that the era of dictatorships is gone,” Chamoun said during an interview with the Kuwaiti newspaper As-Seyassah. The NLP leader also described the status quo of the Change and Reform bloc “as tragic.” He added: “Aoun is clinging to [his aim of reaching] the Lebanese presidency to the extent of madness; deeming himself more important than the [current] president of the Lebanese Republic and even Saint Mar Maroun.” “[Aoun] might be even believing that he is Jesus Christ on earth,” Chamoun said. Chamoun also said that the Syrian regime will “collapse soon” and called on Syria’s allies in Lebanon to reconsider their stances “because they have become unable to support the regime [of President al-Assad] to the extent to committing suicide [for its sake].” Lebanon’s political scene is split between supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, led by Hezbollah, and the March 14 pro-Western camp. -NOW Lebanon

Iran’s supreme leader: Tehran not seeking atomic weapon
February 22, 2012 /Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei insisted on Wednesday that his country is not seeking an atomic weapon, following an unsuccessful visit to Tehran by UN nuclear watchdog officials. "We are not after an atomic weapon. We want to break the supremacy [of the world powers] that relies on nuclear weapons. God willing, the nation will reach this goal," he said during meeting with Iranian nuclear scientists, according to an official government statement. "Despite what the [Western] enemy says, nuclear energy is directly linked to our national interests," Khamenei said, urging the scientists to "continue the important and substantial" nuclear work. Khamenei's reiteration of Iran's longheld stance came after a five-strong delegation from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency left Tehran empty-handed following two days of talks focused on suspected military aspects of Iran's nuclear programme. The UN nuclear inspector heading the team, Herman Nackaerts, said on his return to Vienna that the Iranians had not permitted the team to visit a military site in Parchin where apparently non-peaceful activities had been detected.
He added: “We could not formalize the way forward," signaling that the delegation left with no further talks scheduled. The IAEA delegation was to submit its report, "then we will have to see what are the next steps," Nackaerts said. Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, was quoted by the Iranian news agency ISNA as saying Tuesday that the talks had been intensive and covered "cooperation and mutual understanding" between the two sides."These negotiations will continue in the future," Soltanieh said.-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Bashar's 'Iron Fist'
by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi and Oskar Svadkovsky
The American Spectator
February 21, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3177/bashar-assad-iron-fist
The iron fist against "terrorist gangs" as promised by Bashar Assad got off to a fairly impressive start two weeks ago. Homs -- the Benghazi of the Syrian rebels -- has been subjected to massive and sustained shelling for days, causing hundreds of fatalities among the defenders. With the fist heading for its third week, however, the spectacular artillery barrages seem to have delivered little.
This is not the first time during the uprising that the Syrian army has stormed urban areas. In July and August, the army recaptured Hama, Deir ez Zor, and Latakia after these had been taken over by crowds of protesters reinforced by army defectors.
However, while it took the Syrian army approximately five days to regain control of Hama and two days to take Deir ez Zor, Latakia turned into a drawn out battle that lasted several days. Homs was shelled, but an all out assault failed to follow.
This time Homs is clearly the primary objective. But once again the shelling failed to be backed by meaningful advances of ground forces. Whatever the reason the Syrian army is always struggling in Homs, by now, the death tolls in Homs have dropped to the low dozens as many locals have apparently fled the city. Large chunks of Homs have become ghost towns populated primarily by insurgents and a particularly hardened version of local residents. The "shock and awe" effect of the first days is fading away as the remaining population is getting used to the daily bombardment. "We are safe. They can't hit here," said a local guide to a BBC reporter as shells and mortars were falling all around.
Elsewhere, according to Reuters, many opposition centers have been transformed into a bunch of mini-Homs and half-Homs. All of them seem to be subjected to the same kind of artillery siege and blockade, but Zabadani was apparently the only prominent opposition stronghold to fall into the regime's hands until now. An attack on Rastan was repelled. A CNN reporter, who traveled to Northern Syria, found much of its countryside under the control of the opposition; and while the fighters are waiting for Bashar's tanks to appear in force every moment, these are yet to come. In fact, the situation may be no better in other parts of Syria, but many areas are harder to reach for reporters (the Idlib province in the north is adjacent to Turkey).
There is an obvious danger for the regime in projecting weakness for so long. Many Sunni soldiers are deterred from switching sides only by the perception that the regime is strong enough to defeat the rebels. Failure to take over Homs anytime soon is likely to trigger an avalanche of defections. Homs is a must now. It's become the bare minimum for the survival of the regime.
This is not to say that the opposite is true, as throughout this uprising the rebels have demonstrated a high ability to recover and re-infiltrate lost areas. Some besieged towns were repeatedly reported to have already been brought under the regime's control in the past. For example, this is the second time the army is storming Rastan.
Large chunks of Syria, including the cradle of the revolution in Deraa, are part of a massive tribal belt stretching from the Persian Gulf across several countries in the region, with Bedouin tribes reportedly at the forefront of the armed resistance in many areas. The tribal dimension of the uprising makes for a curious historical analogy. Bashar's situation is beginning to resemble the military campaign waged by the Emperor Tiberius' adopted son Germanicus in 15-6 CE, who unsuccessfully tried to subdue under Roman rule the German tribes that lived beyond the Rhine. Even when Germanicus was able to defeat the Germans in an engagement, the tribes were able to re-group so quickly that in the end he could only achieve short-lived, skirmish victories: true conquest was simply impossible.
The prevailing expert opinion at the beginning of the current campaign against the rebels used to be that the rate of defections was rather low and the bulk of the armed forces remained intact. For example, in his recent article on Syria, Israeli analyst Jonathan Spyer estimated that the regime can still marshal 300,000 troops, as opposed to at most 20,000 guerrillas in the Free Syrian Army. Yet, after two weeks of an iron fist that appears unable to decisively hammer the opposition anywhere, one question is begging to be asked: Where exactly is Bashar hiding his 300,000 strong army? The Syrian army may have more troops than it appears from its muddling in Homs, given that it apparently pursues offensives on several fronts at once. Yet, the army is clearly severely short on ground-troops. For it is no longer capable of being present in all areas of revolt nor mustering enough forces anywhere to smash the opposition with a decisive local Blitzkrieg.
Two weeks ago Mustafa Ahmad Al-Sheikh, a high level defector, who has fled to Turkey, claimed that the Syrian army was so depleted by defections that he expected it to collapse by the end of this month. This assessment was dismissed by many as rebel propaganda, but now Al-Sheikh is starting to look closer to reality than his critics. In fact, not so long ago the same Al-Sheikh estimated that he needed a whole year to topple the regime with guerrilla tactics and at that time he was not treated as a rebel propagandist.
With each passing day that the Syrian army remains bogged down in Homs and elsewhere, the graver the consequences for the regime. Two weeks of intense bombardment televised on Al-Jazeera and other Arabic channels have already triggered a tsunami of outrage across the Arab world. Weapons and foreign fighters are reported to be streaming into Syria from neighboring Arab countries and Turkey.
More ominously for the regime, it has finally witnessed jihad declared against it by radical Islamists, including al Qaeda. The religious and sectarian dimensions of the conflict are clearly escalating. A good example of the latest trend is a video, purportedly from Homs, that shows Free Syrian Army soldiers with members of al-Qa'ida.
In the background, alongside the banners of the Free Syrian Army, there are the familiar black flags of al Qaeda's Iraqi branch, with the black background and white Arabic script, featuring the Shahadah on top and a circular logo bearing the words "Allah, Rasul Mohammed." The black background indicates the Islamist militants' mindset: they are fighting in Dar al-Harb against an infidel regime. This point is corroborated by the fact that they identify the Free Syrian Army with the "mumineen" ("believers").
In the Missile East, failure to trumpet one's strength can have severe consequences. You cannot promise to come down with an iron fist and then fail to deliver. By now even roosters in Homs are no longer impressed with Bashar's artillery. If there is still some of this iron fist we haven't seen until today, Assad Junior had better show it now. Otherwise, the chickens may soon come Homs to roost for his regime.
Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University, and an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum. Oskar Svadkovsky is a computer networking professional based in Tel Aviv, and the owner of the Happy Arab News Service blog. He graduated in Indian and Chinese Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Once Upon an Arab League
Farid Ghadry Blog/Reform Party of Syria
The Arab League's highest priority is the safety of its members, which in essence is the safety of the families that rule the member countries. Every drop of oil and every cubic foot of gas is harnessed towards that singular obsession. Even when one of its members is a Genocidal maniac, like Omar al-Bachir of Sudan, the Arab League will go out of its way to protect its members at the expense of its own people.
During the height of the Arab Spring, six of the twenty-two member countries were about to break away from the traditional status quo of the Arab League's dominant constitution. These were Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria. Of those, only Tunisia, and to a certain degree Libya, have succeeded. Egypt is back to its old Mubarak ways with extremist actors in control, the Yemen uprising has been stifled and so has the Bahraini one.
Syria remains in limbo but the Arab League has resisted the inevitable regime change for almost one year at the expense of its own political credit. Knowing the futility of its action, the Arab League, at this instant, is working very hard on not changing the system by welcoming a new family within its exclusive club.
Those who have been stifled were in danger of becoming proxy tools to the extremist religious elements in the region like al-Qaeda and the Iranian Mullahs. In suffocating the revolutions in those countries, it served simultaneously the interests of the Arab League because it was imperative to keep their club membership strong and the interests of the west to eradicate extremism.
Countries, like Lebanon and to a lesser degree Iraq, are a thorn in the Arab League backs. Their democracies are contagious and if there is one enemy the Arab League considers lethal, it is power of the voting booth. This is the reason why countries, like Saudi Arabia, work extra hard to steer Lebanon and why organizations like Hezbollah are a double threat. This is also the same reason why the Arab League fears Iraq because its threatened politicians create leverage for Iran inside the Arab League other members cannot control.
But within this stew from hell, there are member countries who will break away from the Arab League if given the chance and transition into either full parliamentarian democracies or constitutional monarchies. The heavy-handed approach by countries like Saudi Arabia prevents members like Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, UAE, and possibly Oman from choosing their own paths. If the Arab League is willing to protect a mass murderer to keep a tight knot, then one can imagine the control it exercises over all the members to remain loyal.
This is where the UN and nations around the world fail the region by either not capitalizing on the inner tensions and possibilities for a better future or by maintaining the status quo because of commercial and political interests. This is why the Arab Spring first round started with a bang but ended with a sputter.
The Arab League is an old dinosaur that cannot possibly survive within the context of a Facebook freedom at home and tyranny on the street. We are witnessing those tensions today in Syria because the revolution there has exposed the Arab League true intentions. Even though the Arab street remains in denial over this naked truth, it won't be long before it transitions to anger; one that is not based on the same reasons we witnessed in Tunisia dealing with individual freedoms and economic parity but on one with a more collective approach dealing with universal human rights.
That's the real earthquake in the post tremors we called the Arab Spring. If this phenomena was the one-off factory workers walking out on management, the next one will be a well planned unionized strike.
That is why many of us fight extremism. We see the tidal wave coming and our job is to make sure it does not leave any sharks behind it.