Matthew 18 Who Is the Greatest

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 25/2012

Bible Quotation for today/The Question about Rising from Death
Luke 20/27-39: "Then some Sadducees, who say that people will not rise from death, came to Jesus and said, Teacher, Moses wrote this law for us: If a man dies and leaves a wife but no children, that man's brother must marry the widow so that they can have children who will be considered the dead man's children. Once there were seven brothers; the oldest got married and died without having children. Then the second one married the woman, and then the third. The same thing happened to all seven—they died without having children. Last of all, the woman died. Now, on the day when the dead rise to life, whose wife will she be? All seven of them had married her. Jesus answered them, The men and women of this age marry, but the men and women who are worthy to rise from death and live in the age to come will not then marry. They will be like angels and cannot die. They are the children of God, because they have risen from death. And Moses clearly proves that the dead are raised to life. In the passage about the burning bush he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is the God of the living, not of the dead, for to him all are alive. Some of the teachers of the Law spoke up, A good answer, Teacher! For they did not dare ask him any more questions.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Is Davutoğlu back from Washington/By Tariq Alhomayed/February 24/12
The Arab Spring on the verge of oblivion/By Hussein Shobokshi/February 24/12
America and the Al-Qaeda Boogeyman/By Emad El Din Adeeb/February 24/12
The General's faulty insurance policy/By Amir Taheri/ February 24/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 24/12
Angry Muslim Mob Surrounds Christian Orphanage Workers, Attacks Employee
US, France, UK, Turkey, Italy prepare for military intervention in Syria
Clinton suggests Syrian rebels will get arms
US ambassador To Israel on Iran: All options are open
Peres: A nuclear Iran would be a catastrophe
Barak slams Peres for his objection to possible Israeli attack on Iran
Lieberman denounces public statements on Iran as 'harmful'
If Israel strikes Iran, it'll be because Obama didn’t stop it
Iran will bend when facing an unwinnable conflict
Iran set to expand nuclear activity in underground facility, sources say
Canada's PM, Harper eloquent on Iran threat, says former Israeli security adviser and spy
Iran talks failure sparks confrontation fears
Canada's Statement After the London Conference on Somalia
UN Security Council condemns terror attacks on Israeli diplomats
French journalist wounded in Syria pleads for evacuation
Sleiman slams Israel, Kahwagi urges army remain vigilant
IAEA to explain “failed” Iran mission, diplomats say
US says Assad regime's assault on Syrians “heinous”
Clinton: Syrian National Council shows alternative to Assad
Wounded British photographer in Syria calls for help
New TV: Wounded foreigners to be moved from Syria to Lebanon
Iran’s defense minister: Hezbollah’s fighters ‘purest Mujahedeen’
Iran says Syrian government will not fall
Syrian forces fire tear gas at Aleppo protest
US Republican rivals unite against Iran, Syria
U.K., France, Lebanese Red Cross working to transfer reporters from Syria
Israel confirms wall to replace technical fence
Murr, Tashnag Party reaffirm alliance
U.N. extends STL mandate for 3 years
Iran will bend when facing an unwinnable conflict
63 Killed amid 'Terrifying Explosions' in Homs,
Lebanon's Parliament session ended over spending dispute
Lebanon's PM, Mikati, and President Sleiman emerge winners in deal to end Cabinet crisis
Tunis meet seeks relief for Syrians
Lebanon still appeals to investors: IDAL
President Gemayel: Unity protects Lebanon from Syria chaos
Scenes from the Orange Room
Sami Gemayel calls for investigating government’s spending
Lebanese army deploys reinforcements in North Lebanon

US, France, UK, Turkey, Italy prepare for military intervention in Syria
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 23, 2012/Despite public denials, military preparations for intervention in the horrendous Syrian crisis are quietly afoot in Washington, Paris, Rome, London and Ankara. President Barack Obama is poised for a final decision after the Pentagon submits operational plans for protecting Syrian rebels and beleaguered populations from the brutal assaults of Bashar Assad’s army, debkafile’s Washington sources disclose. This process is also underway in allied capitals which joined the US in the Libyan operation that ended Muammar Qaddafi’s rule in August, 2011. They are waiting for a White House decision before going forward. In Libya, foreign intervention began as an operation to protect the Libyan population against its ruler’s outrageous crackdown on dissent. It was mandated by UN Security Council. There is no chance of this in the Syrian case because it will be blocked by a Russian veto. Therefore, Western countries are planning military action of limited scope outside the purview of the world body, possibly on behalf of “Friends of Syria,” a group of 80 world nations which meets for the first time in Tunis Friday, Feb. 24, to hammer out practical steps for terminating the bloodbath pursued by the Assad regime. The foreign ministers and senior officials – Russia has excluded itself – will certainly be further galvanized into action by the tragic deaths of two notable journalists Wednesday, Feb. 22, on the 19th day of the shelling of Homs. Preparations for the event are taking place at the Foreign Office in London. Wednesday, Foreign Secretary William Hague said: Governments around the world have the responsibility to act…and to redouble our efforts to stop the Assad regime’s despicable campaign of terror.” Hague pointedly said nothing about removing the Syrian ruler. Nor did he spell out the efforts need to stop the campaign of terror. debkafile’s military sources note that he left these issues open because a decision by President Obama about if and how the US will act is pending until the Pentagon submits operational plans to Commander-in-Chief Obama. The US president is also waiting for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s report on the mood at the Tunis conference. He wants to know in particular if Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and the UAR will support US-led Western intervention in Syria, both politically and financially. The Sunday Times correspondent Marie Colvin and the French Figaro video-photographer Remi Ochik died Wednesday in the heavy shelling of a fortified building which housed Western journalists making their way into Homs under the protection of Syrian rebels. Three other Western journalists were injured. Western military sources reported Thursday that this undercover Western press center was maintained by the rebels in tight secrecy. The building was practically gutted by a direct hit, suggesting that Syrian forces located it with the help of advanced electronic measures.
Another Western source noted that the journalists covering the atrocities in Homs from this hideout used coded channels of communications protected by anti-jamming and anti-tracking devices. The Syrians must therefore have called on Russian satellites or advanced Iranian electronic systems to locate it. The authorities in Damascus decided to treat the press hideout as the first step in overt Western intervention in the Syrian conflict. It was accordingly razed totally with its occupants.

US ambassador To Israel on Iran: All options are open
Yair Altman Published: 02.23.12/Ynetnew
Dan Shapiro tells US Jewish leaders that while economic pressure showed certain effect on Tehran, Washington also prepared other means of action
United States Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro said Thursday at the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations that Israel and the US are fully coordinated in regards to the Iranian issues. He added that "all options are open" and that the US has prepared means to implement those options.
The US ambassador said that sanctions on Iran were working and that more economic pressure must be put on the Islamic Republic to make it abandon its nuclear program. He gave examples to the sanctions' success pointing to the Iranian currency devaluation . Shapiro said that while Tehran has yet to abandon its nuclear ambitions, the US continues to push hard in that direction and has made sure that means for "other options" are available. The ambassador said that US and Israeli defense officials held various meetings and noted that the two nations are highly coordinated in relation to the Iran issue. Shapiro added that Israel rightfully regards Iran and its nuclear ambitions as a major threat, both on her, the US and its allies in the region.
President Shimon Peres also addressed the conference and reiterated the message that all options are on the table. "We really mean it," he added. "Israel is a sovereign state and has the right to defend itself against any threat." The president said he is aware of global sanctions against the Islamic Republic but claimed that this was no reason to stop being vigilant. He said that Israel has witnessed President Barack Obama's ability to lead a coalition together with Europe and other countries against Iran and added that those nations' leaders share Israel's outlook of increasing sanctions while keeping all options open.

Barak slams Peres for his objection to possible Israeli attack on Iran
By Barak Ravid /Haaretz
Barak says Peres' conduct similar to that in the early 1980s when he opposed bombing the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Defense Minister Ehud Barak strongly criticized President Shimon Peres yesterday, after a Haaretz report revealed that Peres is expected to tell U.S. President Barack Obama that he does not believe Israel should attack Iran in the near future. The two presidents are due to meet in Washington, D.C., on Sunday March 4. "With all due respect to various officeholders from the past and present, the rumor that there is [only] one government in Israel has also reached the United States," Barak said sarcastically in private conversations, adding: "In the end, there is an elected [Israeli] government that makes the decisions and that is its responsibility."
During Barak's criticism of the Israeli president, he made reference to Peres' conduct in the early 1980s when Israel attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, when Menachem Begin was prime minister.
"It's the same Shimon Peres who in 1981 opposed the bombing of the reactor in Iraq," the defense minister said.
"Peres argued then that Begin was leading us to a holocaust, and there are those who claim that, to this day, Peres thinks the attack on the reactor was a mistake. Imagine what would have happened if the Americans and their allies had attempted to get [Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait if he had three atomic bombs. The Americans said in retrospect that Begin was farsighted," Barak reportedly said. Barak's harsh criticism of Peres is unusual in that over the past three years, the defense minister has carefully accorded respect to Peres, even meeting with him every Sunday before cabinet meetings.
Nonetheless, tension between the two has been simmering for over a year on the Iranian issue, as far back as the tenure of former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.
In Barak's office, Ashkenazi - who opposed an assault on Iran - was thought to have enlisted Peres as a supporter of his stance during his dispute on the issue with Barak.
Yesterday's Haaretz report about Peres raised eyebrows in both the Prime Minister's Office and in Barak's bureau. Sources close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the premier was surprised to read Peres' comments in the newspaper. They called the comments very disturbing, and added that although the president has the right to express an opinion, ultimately there is only one prime minister in Israel, and he's the one who is responsible for making decisions.
Peres and Netanyahu are scheduled to meet today, which will give them an opportunity to discuss the issue. Yesterday morning, however, staff from the two offices were already on the telephone with each other in an effort to head off a crisis. Peres' advisers denied the comments attributed to the Israeli president on the Iranian issue and also denied that he intended to convey such a message to President Obama. After contact with Peres' office from the Prime Minister's Office and from Barak's office, Peres committed to redress the situation in a speech later in the day to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, toeing Netanyahu and Barak's line.
Peres delivered the speech yesterday and underlined the fact that Israel is a sovereign country that has the right and the ability to defend itself. "When we say that all options are on the table on Iran, we really mean it," he told his audience. The president called a nuclear Iran a threat not only to Israel but to the entire world.

Canada's PM, Harper eloquent on Iran threat, says former Israeli security adviser and spy
By Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - Israel's former national security adviser, also a seasoned ex-spy, says Stephen Harper has offered an eloquent, perceptive assessment of the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran.
The prime minister has faced criticism in some circles for amplifying the drumbeats of war with Iran for repeatedly saying the regime would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons and that it poses a "grave threat to peace and security."Harper's assessment is "eloquent," said Uzi Arad, a former national security adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a member of Mossad, the country's intelligence service, for 22 years prior to that. "I thought that he, at the same time, took the high moral ground as well as the perceptive strategic view of the matter. This is my humble reaction to the leader of a great nation," Arad told The Canadian Press Thursday. Arad offered the assessment after a hardline speech to hundreds attending a military symposium in Ottawa in which he advocated threatening Iran with attack as a way to force a diplomatic solution that would end its nuclear ambitions.
He highlighted Harper's recent remarks in the speech.
"The prime minister of Canada has similarly echoed that objective and provided an explanation to it: his fear that should Iran ever come into possessing nuclear weapons, the propensity for use, in the context of crisis or anything else, is so much greater than has been before with any other adversary, because of the combination of fanaticism and militancy that the Iranian regime has been characterized by."
Arad said that Netanyahu has also "noted the genocidal attributes of some of the declarations coming from the leaders of Iran when they refer to Israel."Harper hosts Netanyahu in Ottawa next week, a little more than a month after Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird visited Israel and said that it had no greater friend than Canada.
Iran denies it is trying to harness the technology needed to build a nuclear weapon, and says it is simply pursuing a peaceful energy program. The West, Canada included, doesn't believe that.
There is mounting speculation over whether Israel would launch a preemptive attack on Iran to disable its nuclear facilities — an act that many analysts say would cause catastrophic geopolitical fallout.
But Arad argued that a nuclear-armed Iran would cause "ominous" changes to the Middle East, including a proliferation of nuclear weapons by other countries in the volatile region.
Arad stressed that he was no longer in the Israeli government, and that his views were his own.
John Noble, a retired veteran diplomat, who served as a Canadian ambassador to Greece and Switzerland, challenged Arad sharply after his speech.
"I'm in the minority view, which you outlined, that we could live with a nuclear Iran," Noble told Arad in front of hundreds of seated onlookers at the Conference of Defence Associations annual meeting.
"If I were worried about proliferation, if I were worried about a bomb I would worry more about the bomb the Pakistanis have, and the lack of control. That's a country which is a failed state," Noble added.
"What happens to Pakistan and India when they have the bomb? Suddenly they decide they can't use it. Your country has had a bomb for a long time. It has never used it."
Arad did not address Noble's assertion about Israel's nuclear capability, a topic the Jewish state does not publicly discuss.
Arad said he agreed with some of what Noble was saying. He reiterated the message of his speech: that Iran can be forced "under duress" to agree to a diplomatic solution that would see it abandon nuclear energy. But Arad said that could not happen unless the international community delivers a clear military ultimatum to Iran to comply with United Nations resolutions calling for it to stop its nuclear enrichment programs or face an attack. "War need not be the inevitable outcome if statesmanship and resolution is practised."
He said a deal is possible that would bring a "non-violent end" to the standoff with Iran but not without a show of force. "The best use of the military threat is not to get there. And the only way not to get there is by making it credible," he said. That includes directly threatening Iran's oil exports, but Arad didn't specify how. Arad said any military attack on Iran would be a "surgical business" far less complicated than the attempts at regime change and democracy building in Afghanistan and Iraq. "That is a job that can be done efficiently and effectively with no collateral damage," he said. Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Gen. Walt Natynczyk, the chief of the defence staff, are to address the conference on Friday.

Iran talks failure sparks confrontation fears
By Fredrik Dahl and Parisa Hafezi | Reuters.
Play Video.Rising Gas Prices Threaten the …
VIENNA/TEHRAN (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog's latest mission to Iran failed to budge a defiant Tehran over its disputed nuclear program, sending oil prices to a nine-month high over fears of an increasing risk of confrontation with the West. The United States criticized Iran on Wednesday over the collapse of the International Atomic Energy Agency's talks in Tehran, saying it again showed the Islamic Republic's refusal to abide by international obligations over its nuclear program. Expressing defiance, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran's nuclear policies would not change despite mounting international pressure against what the West says are Tehran's plans to obtain nuclear bombs."With God's help, and without paying attention to propaganda, Iran's nuclear course should continue firmly and seriously," he said on state TV. "Pressures, sanctions and assassinations will bear no fruit. No obstacles can stop Iran's nuclear work."
A team from the Vienna-based IAEA had hoped to inspect a site at Parchin, southeast of Tehran, where the agency believes there is a facility to test explosives. But the IAEA said Iran "did not grant permission."The failure of the two-day IAEA visit could hamper any resumption of wider nuclear negotiations between Iran and six world powers - the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany - as the sense grows that Tehran feels it is being backed into a corner.The standoff has rattled oil markets. On Wednesday, London-traded benchmark Brent crude for April delivery rose for a third day - up $1.24 a barrel at $122.90, a nine-month high. U.S. crude futures for April were up 3 cents at $106.28 a barrel.In Washington, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the United States was evaluating Iran's intentions."This particular action (over the IAEA mission) by Iran suggests that they have not changed their behavior when it comes to abiding by their international obligations," Carney told reporters.Iran rejects accusations that its nuclear program is a covert bid to develop a nuclear weapons capability, saying it is seeking to produce only electricity.
As Western sanctions mount, ordinary Iranians are suffering from the effects of soaring prices and a collapsing currency. Several Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed over the past two years in bomb attacks that Tehran has blamed on its arch-adversary Israel. Major oil importer Japan was in final talks with Washington on an agreement for cuts in Iranian crude oil imports that could amount to a higher-than-expected 20 percent or more a year, a newspaper reported on Thursday.
China, India and Japan, the top three buyers of Iranian oil, are all planning cuts of at least 10 percent. They buy about 45 percent of Tehran's crude exports.
IRAN'S DEFIANT STANCE
In response to Western pressure and sanctions, Iran has issued a series of statements asserting its right to self-defense and threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil tanker route.
The collapse of the nuclear talks occurred as Iran seems increasingly isolated, with some experts seeing Tehran's defiance in response to sanctions against its oil industry and financial institutions as evidence that it is in no mood to compromise with the West.Parliamentary elections on March 2 are expected to be won by supporters of Khamenei, an implacable enemy of the West.The United States and Israel have not ruled out using force against Iran if they conclude that diplomacy and sanctions will not stop it from developing a nuclear bomb. In Jerusalem, Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman dismissed appeals by world powers to avoid any pre-emptive attacks against Iran's nuclear program.
Lieberman said that "with all due respect I have for the United states and Russia, it's none of their business. The security of Israel and its residents, Israel's future, is the responsibility of Israel's government."
The failure of the IAEA's mission may increase the chances of a strike by Israel on Iran, some analysts say. But this would be "catastrophic for the region and for the whole system of international relations," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said.
Referring to Iran's role in the failure of the IAEA mission, French Deputy Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal said: "It is another missed opportunity. This refusal to cooperate adds to the recent statements made by Iranian officials welcoming the progress of their nuclear activities."In the view of some analysts, the Iranians may be trying to keep their opponents guessing as to their capabilities, a diplomatic strategy that has served them well in the past. "But they may be overdoing the smoke and mirrors and as a result leaving themselves more vulnerable," said professor Rosemary Hollis of London's City University. Iranian analyst Mohammad Marandi said providing the West with any more access than necessary to nuclear sites would be a sign of weakness. "Under the current conditions it is not in Iran's interest to cooperate more than is necessary because the West is waging a war against the Iranian nation," he told Reuters.
IAEA "DISAPPOINTED" OVER OUTCOME
Earlier, Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said Tehran expected to hold more talks with the U.N. agency, but IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano's spokeswoman said no further meetings were planned."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 IAEA said in a statement."It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin. We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached," Amano said.
A Western official, who declined to be identified, said: "We think that if Iran has nothing to hide, why do they behave in that way?" Iran's refusal to curb sensitive atomic activities which can have both civilian and military purposes and its record of years of nuclear secrecy have drawn increasingly tough U.N. and separate U.S. and European measures. An IAEA report in November suggested Iran had pursued military nuclear technology. It helped precipitate the latest sanctions by the European Union and United States.(Editing By Ralph Gowling)

The General's faulty insurance policy
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
As students of history know, war is too serious a matter to be left to generals. Generals are always ready to fight the last war, not the next. The Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) General Muhammad-Ali Aziz-Jaafari is no exception. This week, he presided over one of the biggest military exercises that IRGC has run on land. Code-named Al-Fajr (The Dawn), the exercise was aimed at testing Iran’s military capacities against an invading army. The exercise complements naval manoeuvres conducted last month with the aim of demonstrating Iran’s ability to close the Strait of Hormuz. The successive sea and land exercises depict the outline of war plans imagined by General Jaafari. “We are preparing for defence along the coasts of the Persian Gulf where aggression by enemies of the Islamic Republic is most probable,” Jaafari told reporters last Sunday. “We believe that war is a possibility and want to be prepared.”
Although Jaafari did not name the United States as the probable “invader”, he said that his strategy took into account “lessons learned from America’s experience in neighbouring countries.”
“We have studied what the Americans did and have prepared to counter their actions,” he asserted. The general also said that the IRGC was preparing for “defence in depth”. According to him, the feared invasion would affect four southern provinces: Khuzestan, Fars, Hormozgan and Kerman. He also added the central province of Yazd for no specified reasons.
It is difficult to see how Jaafari’s plan reflects “the American experience in neighbouring countries.”The American interventions in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Iraq in 2003 differed sharply in conception and execution. In Afghanistan, the US and allies concentrated on air attacks, leaving the fighting on land, including the liberation of Kabul, to Afghan forces under the Northern Alliance. In contrast, in Iraq the US directly intervened on land with an expeditionary force that skirted major population areas and drove straight to Baghdad.
One can be certain that if the US decides to invade Iran, which few think it will, its war-plan would be different from what we saw in Afghanistan and Iraq. US war planners know that Iran is a highly centralised state in which what matters is who controls the capital Tehran. In the 19th century, the Qajar Shahs lost over 650,000 square kilometres of territory, the size of France, to Russia but ruled for a further 100 years because they managed to hang on to Tehran. The US would have no interest in conquering five Iranian provinces if the regime that causes the trouble remains intact in Tehran. The aim of the US could not be the dismantlement of Iran as a nation-state but the destruction of a regime that casts itself as challenger to Pax-Americana in the region and beyond. In any case, no US leader is likely to launch a war if it means massive commitment on land for months if not years. The guerrilla war that Jaafari promises belongs to another scenario.
Ironically, that scenario was scripted by Iranian and American military planners in 1974 as part of a strategy to deal with a possible invasion of Iran by the Soviet Union. The idea was that, in case the Soviets invaded, Iran’s best forces would withdraw to the south of the Zagross, one of the three mountain ranges that together form the Iranian Plateau, where four of the five provinces featured in Jaafari’s plan are located. Once there, Iranian forces would fight to halt Soviet advances until American and other allies came to the rescue.
One objective of the move south of Zagross was to secure Iran’s oilfields of which almost 90 per cent are located in Khuzestan and Fars provinces. (For military purposes the province of Bushehr is regarded as part of Fars and the province of Kohkiluyeh as part of Khuzestan.) Another objective was to keep the Strait of Hormuz open so that oil exports to the Free World continued unhindered.
The plan was taught at the Iranian National Defence College as one of several scenarios for war with the Soviet Union. It is quite possible that Jaafari found a copy in military archives in Tehran and decided to rehash it. If he did that, he would not be the first general to plan a future war in terms of a previous one that, in this case, didn’t even happen.
However, Jaafari has made a number of errors. First, the original “south of the Zagross” plan might have made sense in the context of a Third World War. It would make no sense in a regional war aimed at forcing Iran to change its behavior or, failing that, regime change in Tehran. Secondly, in the original scenario the invasion was to come from the north, with the southern provinces cast as safe havens for Iranian forces. In Jaafari’s version the invasion is supposed to come from the south, putting the four provinces on the frontline. Logically, Jaafari should prepare for movement in the opposite direction, withdrawing from the south to suck the invader deep into Iran, and then fight him along a shorter line north of Zagross. Finally, in the original plan Iran was assigned a tactical delaying role in the context of a global war. It was obvious that, alone, Iran could not stop a Soviet invasion let alone defeat the nuclear-armed aggressor. In Jaafari’s version, however, Iran would be alone with no cavalry rushing to the rescue. Jaafari is intelligent enough not to expect his mercenaries from Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad to play that role. To sum up, the IRGC chief has taken an old plan, turned it upside down, and is presenting it as Iran’s insurance policy. Jaafari may be a slick salesman. But, let’s hope that the ruling elite in Tehran are not naïve enough to lead the country to war on the basis of Jaafari’s plan.

If Israel strikes Iran, it'll be because Obama didn’t stop it
By Ari Shavit /Haaretz
While our prime minister won't say so out loud, he is deeply scornful of his predecessors for spending so much time on the Palestinian issue while neglecting the Iranian issue. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has dealt primarily with three things over the past three years: Iran, Iran, and Iran.
In the first instance, Netanyahu was busy making sure Iran was on top of the international agenda. While our prime minister won't say so out loud, he is deeply scornful of his predecessors for spending so much time on the Palestinian issue while neglecting the Iranian issue.
Netanyahu has indeed succeeded in reversing the order, and has made the centrifuges at Natanz the primary concern of the Western world. With the generous help of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron and various Arab leaders, he has succeeded in convincing the international community that the Iranian issue is of utmost importance. In Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, London, and Washington, everyone is now addressing what Netanyahu has been dealing with for a decade. And the diplomatic world is now holding its breath: Will Israel attack or not attack? Will Iran go nuclear or not go nuclear? Will an Israeli-Iranian war inflame the whole Middle East?
In the second instance, Netanyahu made sure that the Iranian threat would top the national agenda. Ten years ago we were still arguing about peace. Five years ago we were arguing about dividing the land - about a permanent settlement, an interim settlement, disengagement, convergence, and the like.
But today the only diplomatic-security issue that people talk about at their Friday night get-togethers is the Iranian issue. Nothing good is happening in the Middle East. As long as the shadow of the Shi'ite bomb casts a pall over all of us, there won't be any diplomatic breakthrough.
In the third instance, Netanyahu was busy building up Israel's abilities to face the Iranian threat. Netanyahu thinks that until he took office, Israel hadn't been preparing properly to confront Iran's cement-lined bunkers. Both Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert felt comfortable believing that the "invisible hand" would resolve the problem. But the invisible hand did no such thing. Yes, Iranian scientists were assassinated and Iranian centrifuges exploded, but at any given moment Iran had more fissionable material than the previous moment. One red line was crossed, and then another, and another. Thus, our prime minister's primary preoccupation over the past few years has been sharpening the Israeli sword. He has made the whole world truly worried that the sword might be unsheathed.
A few years ago Netanyahu held an in-depth discussion with Middle East expert Bernard Lewis. At the end of the talk he was convinced that if the ayatollahs obtained nuclear weapons, they would use them. Since that day, Netanyahu seems convinced that we are living out a rerun of the 1930s.
He hasn't forgotten for a moment that two leaders he happens to admire, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, didn't lift a finger to save European Jewry during the Holocaust. He is convinced that U.S. President Barack Obama won't lift a finger to save Israeli Jewry. Thus he believes solely in the Israeli sword, seeing it as a deep expression and the last defense of the Zionist revolution.
As of now, the military option is proving to be a diplomatic success. It managed to shake the international community out of its apathy and made a definitive contribution to the tightening of the diplomatic and economic siege on Iran.
But the time for playing diplomatic games with the military option is drawing to a close. There's a limit to how many times one can cry wolf. There's a point at which a "hold-me-back" policy exhausts itself. And that's a very dangerous point, because suddenly the military option turns into a real option.
The Netanyahu-Obama meeting in two weeks will be definitive. If the U.S. president wants to prevent a disaster, he must give Netanyahu iron-clad guarantees that the United States will stop Iran in any way necessary and at any price, after the 2012 elections. If Obama doesn't do this, he will obligate Netanyahu to act before the 2012 elections.
The moral responsibility for what may happen does not lie with the heirs of Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion. The moral responsibility will be borne by the man sitting in the chair that was once Franklin Roosevelt's.

Is Davutoğlu back from Washington?
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
We heard the Turkish Foreign Minister speaking in Washington about Syria and the Arab revolutions, but then after that we did not hear a word from the Turks about what is happening in Syria, just as nothing useful so far has come out of Washington on the same subject, despite all these crimes! For the Turks, the question is: has Ahmet Davutoğlu returned from Washington? As for the Americans, this is another story!The Turkish and American stances towards Syria are very confusing, and have reached the point of suspicion. Ankara was late even by the standards of the lagging Arab countries, and we did not hear, for example, that the Turks had withdrawn their ambassador from Damascus, despite all the crimes committed against the unarmed Syrians. As for Washington, there is more cause for suspicion, especially in recent statements about the likelihood of an al-Qaeda presence in Syria! This was said by the Americans before in Libya, with the fall of Gaddafi, and so far we have not seen any concrete evidence of al-Qaeda there. The Americans also said this about Yemen, but then they supported the departure of Ali Abdullah Saleh, and he is living among them in New York! Often, and for a long time, Washington talked about al-Qaeda carrying out operations in Iraq from the Syrian border, under the eyes of the al-Assad regime, so how can it now fear that al-Qaeda is supporting the unarmed Syrians?
This is a puzzling matter, and a cause for doubt and suspicion. What does Washington want exactly? Does it want to continue its series of mistaken interpretations of every issue in the region? In Iraq, Obama has withdrawn his forces in a manner that leaves the country with a new Saddam Hussein. In Egypt, Obama rushed to demand the fall of Mubarak, without asking the military council to wait for the right opportunity, even though Washington knew that the Islamists would be the heir to power. In Damascus, although the Syrian masses are giving the international community and everyone all the incentives requires, Washington continues to wait, and the longer the fall of al-Assad is delayed, the stronger the Islamists will become in Syria. We are not talking about military intervention, but rather hard work to support the Syrian rebels, all forms of support, most importantly weaponry. Do Washington and Obama want to repeat the silence they adopted at the time of the Green Revolution? This is indeed puzzling! If the US Chief of Staff says he does not know who the Syrian opposition are, do the Americans not know that this is normal because the Syrian people are the ones opposing al-Assad, not the social elite? Who initially knew who the Libyan opposition were, or could the Americans tell us who the leader of the Egyptian revolution was?
The tyrant of Damascus has not offered one political solution, but rather he and his troops have turned into occupying forces. His troops have run wild across all Syria, committing the worst and most heinous crimes, throughout the course of an entire year. Despite all this the US Secretary of State is still reluctant to answer the question about the need to support the Syrian revolutionaries with arms, despite all the unarmed Syrians who have been killed in a heartbreaking manner. And yet, the Secretary of State was never reluctant in the cases of Egypt and Libya!
Hence, the question is: If America is acting in the interests of Israel, which is very clear, despite all al-Assad’s crimes, then what is the Turks’ excuse? Has their foreign minister returned from Washington or not?

Canada's Statement After the London Conference on Somalia
February 23, 2012 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement at the conclusion of the London Conference on Somalia:
“I want to thank the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, for hosting this important conference and congratulate the United Kingdom for its efforts in bringing together the many stakeholders whose participation at this conference was vital.“Today we joined the international community in expressing our solidarity with the people of Somalia and acknowledged the important role of the African Union and the United Nations in supporting progress toward peace and stability in Somalia.“While we are encouraged by the recent military successes of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), security represents Somalia’s greatest challenge. Listed terrorist organization Al Shabaab continually targets the vulnerable and blocks the delivery of aid, all while provoking fear in those who are struggling to keep their children alive.“Canada is proud to support AMISOM’s efforts to bring security to Somalia, as we believe this is the first step toward improving the lives of the Somali people. In late 2011, our government announced a contribution of $1 million to the AMISOM trust fund, and today I am pleased to report that the government is supporting the deployment of a formed police unit from Uganda to Somalia. Canada continues to call for unfettered access for humanitarian relief to affected populations.“Canada was encouraged by the good will expressed at this conference and will continue to work with the international community in supporting Somalia as it builds the permanent and durable structures of a safe, secure and stable democratic state.”For information on Canada’s humanitarian and security assistance to Somalia and the Horn of Africa, visit Canada Supports the African Union Mission in Somalia and Canada – Somalia Bilateral Relations.

Suleiman Responding to Netanyahu: Israel is Still Recovering from its Defeat to Lebanon
by Naharnet//President Michel Suleiman condemned on Thursday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent statements on Lebanon, saying that its existence will not be affected by his remarks.
He added in a statement: “Lebanon is the only country to have defeated Israel militarily and the Jewish state is still recovering from it.”Netanyahu had said on Wednesday that an Israeli strike against Lebanon would be supported by the United States and countries of the Arab Gulf.In addition, he remarked that there is no such thing as Lebanon on the world map.He made his statements at a press conference during a trip to Switzerland. Suleiman continued: “Lebanon is thousands of years old.”“Lebanon’s diversity is the complete opposite of Israel’s racist system, which has no place in the world,” stressed the president.He noted that world countries have started to “shift towards pluralism, which is the basis of the Lebanese system.”“Lebanon is one of the founders of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Netanyahu’s statements reflect his contempt for humans,” Suleiman added.

Sleiman slams Israel, Kahwagi urges army remain vigilant
February 23, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanese Army commander Gen. Jean Kahwagi urged officers Thursday to remain prepared for possible aggression by Israel while President Michel Sleiman slammed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on statement against Lebanon. Kahwagi hailed the work of Lebanese troops along the border with Israel, stressing the “need to remain on high alert to confront the historical enemy,” said a statement on the Lebanese Army website. He cited the almost daily Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty, telling officers the Jewish state wants to steal Lebanon’s land and water.
Kahwagi’s remarks came during a meeting with senior officers at his office at the Defense Ministry in suburban Yarze.The Army commander also underlined the “need for cohesion with the southerners and for strengthening ties with the United Nations forces in line with resolution 1701 and for the sake of national interest.”Turning to the north, Kahwagi also praised troops for restoring law and order in Tripoli following last week’s armed clashes between Sunnis and Alawites.Kahwagi vowed to crack down on sectarianism “anywhere.”Also Thursday, the office of President Michel Sleiman issued a statement in which the president slammed statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against Lebanon. “President Michel Sleiman referred to statement by the enemy [Israeli] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who threatened to attack Lebanon and his comments that there would be no Lebanon in the new world map,” the statement said. “Lebanon is thousands of years old and has a place in history and talk like this has no effect on it,” the statement said.“Lebanon, even though it does not enjoy the military and financial assistance that Israel gets, is the only country that militarily defeated Israel, which still suffering from its consequences till this day,” it added.

America and the Al-Qaeda Boogeyman
By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat
As we assess the situation in Syria, there are several important indications that we must pause at and contemplate. In my opinion, the most serious one among them is a recent statement made by the director of US National Intelligence James Clapper on the situation in that country. Clapper stated beyond any doubt that the information available to his agency indicates that there are forces other than the regular Syrian Army using violence against civilians. He said these forces belong to the Al-Qaeda Organization and that, as he put it, they made a clear infiltration of the armed opposition in Syria.
The US intelligence agency chief expressed his concern over the growing presence of Al-Qaeda in Syria. He said a lot of these forces came from bases in Iraq.
It is recalled that the organizations that are loyal to Al-Qaeda intellectually and practically and in terms of funding were in an open-ended war against the Al-Maliki regime and all his security agencies, including the police and army, and against the US Army forces before their withdrawal.
Here emerge the following fundamental questions that we need to carefully ponder:
1. Has the US Administration been convinced of the Russian intelligence information that Russia exchanged with Washington on Moscow's fears of the increasing activity of Al-Qaeda?
2. If Washington has been convinced of this information, will it postpone the United States' decision, albeit temporarily, to work with full force to bring down the regime of President Bashar al-Assad under the principle of "the devil that we know is better than the devil we do not know?"3. Will Washington shift from the term "Syria without the Al-Assad regime" to the view that Syria should be reformed through the Al-Assad gateway?Experiences, particularly recently, taught us that the US Administration has no constant stand on alliances or state of hostility and that Washington can change its stands overnight.
On this basis, the true US policy toward Damascus in the next few weeks must be followed carefully.

The Arab Spring on the verge of oblivion
By Hussein Shobokshi/Asharq AlAwsat
A state of re-evaluation and concern now prevails among many observers interested in the affairs of the Arab world, in the wake of successive revolutions and their subsequent repercussions; a phenomenon that has come to be known as the "Arab Spring". Some believe that this Arab Spring has been diverted from its original noble goals and hijacked from the younger generation, who dazzled the world and captured the imagination in an unprecedented fashion.
We have seen these revolutions hijacked by hardline religious currents, imposing their "alien" views upon people in an alarming manner at times, and at other times prompting ridicule. Elsewhere, other views imposed have been imposed by tribes or clans, which only care for their own personal gains and nothing else, thereby delivering an overall limited insight that serves as kindling for sedition, something that could lead to a raging inferno in the future. As usual, it only takes a small spark to ignite a large fire. Then there are the anarchists who feel a great sense of loss, and in a revengeful manner have seized the opportunity presented by the ongoing chaos and confusion to stir up fear in all those they believe have "triumphed"; i.e. those who reaped political benefits from the revolutions and their repercussions.
Meanwhile, others see what is happening as a natural occurrence during the massive upheavals that people, nations and regions go through. These upheavals influence peoples’ psychology, make them lose self-confidence and render them fearful of the unknown. Hence, their initial reactions are violent and confused. But soon they will become stable again and accustomed to their new situation. Production will increase once again as citizens start to accept the changes in a natural way, and co-exist as before. But, of course, the big problem is that confusion, worry, fear and suspicion are all incredibly strong, overwhelming emotions that block reason and insight, and make judgments more difficult. Consequently, we see a lot of blundering and floundering, as is the case is now.
Any new situation, regardless of its nature, has its winners and losers. Both are either trying to maximize their benefits or minimize their losses.
There are many different elements and ways to further inflame conflicts and disputes existing between different parties on the surface. Perhaps the two most significant, effective and dangerous of all are the media on the one hand and the economy on the other. Today, the media is being used with force and malice to twist facts, highlight certain personalities, and influence the public, sometimes in in order to bury the truth, and other times to draw attention to a story favoring certain parties for different political and economic reasons. As for economic influence, money is still the most powerful element capable of "determining" positions, buying the public’s conscience, and changing stances, principles and slogans.
It would not be an exaggeration if I described the current assessments by some of the original Arab Spring enthusiasts as a state of regret towards the latest developments, and nostalgia for the good old days, as evidenced by their comparisons between how things were and how they have become. Yet this is exactly what some parties want. They fear the "complete" success of the Arab Spring, fearing the total and comprehensive reform of the destructive principles that led to the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. Thus, for these parties, it is imperative to deal with the current events in such a way to guarantee the total failure of the Arab Spring and make people hate, fear and dread this phenomenon which at first seemed beautiful. They seek to turn it into something barbaric, ugly and wrong. Those fearing the "complete" success of the Arab Spring have begun to question the revolutionaries' intentions, goals and aims, gradually associating them with the enemies, traitors, deviants and outside agents. This is the power of the media and money to change a situation from one state to another entirely.
The Arab Spring is threatened by authoritarian parties acting under different guises, striving to repress freedom, undermine dignity and crush hope, because they lived and continue to live under the principles of despotism, tyranny and absolute power. They adopt various means and different names, but these parties all serve the same purpose in the end.
The Arab Spring is not lost yet, but it is being exposed to a hidden and malicious war. Hence it is crucial to guard against this and confront such attempts. The Arab people deserve dignity and freedom just like the rest of the world.

Scenes from the Orange Room
Matt Nash, February 23, 2012
Come 2013, Charbel Nahhas may prove to be a bullet in Michel Aoun’s foot.
Nahhas is not a member of Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement but, prior to his resignation on Tuesday, was allied with the general and part of his 10-member Change and Reform bloc in the cabinet. An economist, Nahhas leans left on fiscal issues and, like Aoun, gives voice to a popular critique of the post-war policies pursued largely at the behest of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Both men argue Hariri “stole” downtown in order to transform it into a playground for the rich, elbowing himself—along with his allies and patrons—into Lebanon’s political scene in the process. They accuse Hariri and his allies of corruption, law breaking and ignoring the plight of the middle and lower classes while plunging the country into massive amounts of debt.
Indeed, it was a deal Hariri struck in 1995 that is at the core of why Nahhas quit as Labor Minister. Then, as now, workers were clamoring for a wage increase to offset the rising cost of living and ease the pain inflicted by the collapse of Lebanon’s currency in the late stages of the war.
Working with the heads of the Lebanese Industrialists Association and the General Confederation of Labor Unions, Hariri orchestrated the increase of the minimum wage and, via a decree meant to be temporary, created the transportation allowance. This was a compromise. Legally, employers are obliged to contribute a percentage of each employee’s salary to the National Social Security Fund each year, which employees receive as a pension when they retire.
The transportation allowance is technically not part of an employee’s official salary, so this 1995 deal gave employees a de facto extra “raise” but shielded employers from having to pay it twice through increased transfers to the NSSF. When raising the minimum wage came up again recently, Nahhas actually wrote an entire new law that would have raised salaries (and included a mechanism for yearly cost-of-living increases) as well as creating an improved national health care system.
His law failed to garner any support, and instead the cabinet first passed a decree upping wages and then moved to raise the transportation (and education) allowance. Nahhas balked and refused to sign the allowance decree.
His reason? These allowances are illegal and should be included in an employee’s official salary so he or she is not “deprived” of a larger pension upon retirement. Aoun backed Nahhas’ refusal to sign the decree, but this seems to have created tension within his bloc in parliament.
Nahhas’ position apparently played a role in Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s decision to suspend cabinet meetings as of February 1, and as the crisis wore on, Ibrahim Kaanan, a member of the FPM and Aoun’s bloc in the legislature, announced on February 18 he’d penned a draft law concerning the allowance that he said would “legalize” it.
Given that this solution still kept the allowance separate from the salary, Nahhas wouldn’t play ball. He handed Aoun his resignation, and on Tuesday the general announced that the fight with Nahhas was no longer between the former minister and the government, but rather between Nahhas and the Change and Reform bloc. (The conspiracy theory has it that Aoun ditched Nahhas in exchange for naming his allies to administrative positions.)
Aoun said that after a meeting first with Amal leader and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and later with Mikati, the bloc and Nahhas would have to part ways. The agreement, in Nahhas’ eyes, is still “illegal.”
The reaction in the Orange Room, the FPM’s online forum, suggests Aoun may suffer blowback over this decision. Admittedly, the Orange Room is not a perfect reflection of sentiment among Aoun’s supporters (and, indeed, plenty of his detractors post regularly), but in my experience, it is a good indicator of broad opinion trends on the ground.
As one would expect, reactions ranged from unflinching support for Aoun to disappointment coupled with resignation over the fact that Aoun is still the “best” given the alternatives. What surprised me, however, is the outpouring of support for Nahhas and the sometimes harsh critiques of Aoun. Again, I’m not trying to say that Aoun will never win an electoral district again based on some posts in an online forum, but I read a recurrent theme that I think will have some resonance on the street.
As one forum-goer posting as “Jean,” put it, using a common acronym for Aoun: “GMA has abandoned Minister Nahas. I always thought he's going to back him up no matter what, because Nahas is the only one who behaved like GMA, by never signing illegal agreements.”
Aoun returned to Lebanon in 2005 and proceeded to score a huge victory in that year’s parliamentary elections. His support slipped, and in the 2009 polls he fared worse than many pundits expected. Siding with Mikati and Berri while letting Nahhas stick to his principles and resign arguably does not make Aoun look good and could turn off independent voters who stuck with him three years ago.

Angry Muslim Mob Surrounds Christian Orphanage Workers, Attacks Employee
Washington, D.C. (February 24, 2012) – International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that on January 27th, an angry Muslim mob surrounded and attacked several Christians orphanage workers who were attempting to assist an impoverished family in the Gopalganj district of Bangladesh.
The Christians were working with the Washington based non-profit Bangla Hope, which founded an orphanage in the country’s capital, Dhaka, in 2005. In an interview with ICC, Mr. Panuel Baroi, a local employee of Bangla Hope, said that the group of orphanage workers were surrounded by an angry mob soon after picking up an 18 month old Bangladeshi girl whose father could no longer support her.
“[The] crowd was very angry and shouting at us…they said we are here stealing babies to convert them to Christianity, that we are making people Christians…suddenly a guy hit me from behind, just below my head. I started falling and somebody held me up” said Mr. Baroi. The crowd also reportedly shouted obscenities and started spitting on the group before the group was detained by local authorities.
After being detained, the authorities interrogated the orphanage workers for approximately six hours. Despite presenting legal documentation for their work, the Bangla Hope employees were forced to leave behind all of the children they had picked up before they could return to the orphanage.
“They saw a baby being given to our workers and then they saw some [Americans]…and assumed it was trafficking” said Ms. Hazel Burns, a Washington based manager for Bangla Hope, in an interview with ICC. Despite this being the first such incident she could recall, Ms. Burns reported that Bangla Hope would probably not be traveling back to the area again in the future.
International Christian Concern’s Regional Manager for Southeast Asia, Ryan Morgan, said “While we are very thankful that this incident did not result in any loss of life, we are also very alarmed by the blatant anti-Christian sentiment displayed and the dangerous precedent such an event can set. We call on federal authorities in Dhaka to enforce the rule of law, to bring those responsible for the attack to justice, and to protect all individuals regardless of their personal religious beliefs, especially when those individuals are working within the law to aid the most vulnerable members of society.”