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.”