LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 22/2012

Bible Quotation for today/Jesus Visits Martha and Mary
Luke 10/38-42: "As Jesus and his disciples went on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha welcomed him in her home. She had a sister named Mary, who sat down at the feet of the Lord and listened to his teaching. Martha was upset over all the work she had to do, so she came and said, Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself Tell her to come and help me! The Lord answered her, Martha, Martha! You are worried and troubled over so many things, but just one is needed. Mary has chosen the right thing, and it will not be taken away from her."

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Is It Time to Intervene in Syria/by James M. Lindsay/Council on Foreign Relations/January 21/12 

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for January 21/12 
Amos Harel / U.S. determined to avert an Israeli strike on Iran, be it with a rebuke or an embrace
Ashton: Major powers open to Iran nuclear talks, despite sanctions
Major powers set to disclose terms for Iran nuclear talks
Uproar after Jewish American newspaper publisher suggests Israel assassinate Barack Obama
Iran general’s remarks on south Lebanon draw March 14 ire
U.S. mulls Syria embassy closure
Sarkozy warns against attacks on French troops in Lebanon
Harb: Still no agreement on election law
Safety work stalled, Ashrafieh residents in limbo
Singer Lara Fabian cancels Lebanon tour
Egyptian protesters mark one year since Tahrir
Number of Syrian refugees registered with UN jumps by 400 in one week
Geagea predicts Assad will be ousted by end of 2012
Bkirki Follow-Up Committee Discusses Electoral Law with Suleiman 
Coordinated Attacks, Gun Battles Kill 162 in Nigerian City
Hariri  Fractures Leg while Skiing in French Alps
Syria abducts Lebanese fishermen, Sleiman calls for release
Damascus: Lebanese Gunmen Fired at Fishermen in Syrian Territorial Waters
Suleiman Demands Release of Lebanese Fishermen Abducted by Syria in the North
Canada Deplores Recent Attacks in Nigeria
Mansour Confirms Lebanese Community in Nigeria Safe
Miqati Sends Envoy to al-Rahi to Ease Tensions over Appointments File
Syria Opposition Lobbies for U.N. Intervention
Council of Europe Mission Says Russia Needs Reforms
Ambush of police truck in Syria kills 14
Activists slam campaigns against Lara Fabian

Canada Deplores Recent Attacks in Nigeria
January 21, 2012 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement on terrorist attacks in Kano, Nigeria, that left scores of people dead or injured, and for which radical terrorist group Boko Haram has reportedly claimed responsibility:
“Canada unequivocally condemns these latest cowardly attacks in Nigeria’s north.
“On behalf of all Canadians, I offer my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those killed and wish a speedy recovery to those hurt by this senseless violence.
“We stand with the people and government of Nigeria in their efforts to combat the vicious scourge of terrorism, bring about stability and maintain unity in the face of this pressing challenge.”

Singer Lara Fabian cancels Lebanon tour
January 20, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: International singer Lara Fabian cancelled her February concerts to Lebanon Thursday after anti-Israeli campaigners rallied against the artist’s visit.
"[Those who] don’t want me to come in their beautiful country; where I already had the chance to sing once before, don't have to worry .I won’t come and disturb your quietness with my physical presence," Fabian wrote on her Facebook wall in what she described as a letter of love to Lebanon. The Campaign to Boycott Israeli Supporters in Lebanon rallied for weeks against her tour, which was set for Feb. 14 and Feb. 15 at Casino du Liban with tickets ranging between LL300,000 ($200) and LL750,000. The campaigners cited an online video showing Fabian singing in a 2008 concert on the anniversary of the creation of Israel. Fabian sang in Hebrew and then later before getting off the stage said: “I love you Israel.” The establishment of Israel in 1948, termed the Naqba – catastrophe –by many in the region, saw the forceful expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland into neighboring states. Lebanon and Israel are technically in a state of war and last fought each other in a 34-day conflict in 2006. There have been other similar incidents where artists have called off their visits to Lebanon over links to or showing sympathy with the Jewish state. In 2009 for example French stand-up comedian Gad Elmaleh canceled his three -day tour to Lebanon after activists, saying Elmaleh was pro-Israeli and served in the Israeli army, rallied against his visit. In her “letter of love,” Fabian, the Belgian-Italian singer, also said that music alone could not alleviate hatred and cultural and religious barriers, adding that she did not want to deal with hatred. "I write you this letter of love, because even if I’m forced to do it from a far, I will sing for YOU my Lebanese friends,” Fabian,42, wrote on her official Facebook page, which includes 16,250 fans, Anti-Israeli campaigners have rallied against various artists they describe as pro-Israeli such as rock band Placebo who performed at Forum De Beyrouth in 2010 and Armin Van Buuren who performed in late 2011 at the same venue. Fabian has sold an estimated 18 million records worldwide and has sang in more than five languages. She has been granted various international awards and is mostly famous for her notable songs such as "I will Love Again," and "Croire."

Activists slam campaigns against Lara Fabian
January 21, 2012/The Daily Star
Lara Fabian is seen in this picture taken from her official Facebook page.
BEIRUT: Activists slammed over the weekend anti-Israeli campaigners who had rallied against a planned, but now canceled, visit by singer Lara Fabian to Lebanon.
“These suspicious campaigns do not affect Israel but reflect on Lebanon's image and reputation,” the Association of Reporters Against Violence said in a statement released Saturday.
On Thursday, Belgian-Italian singer Fabian canceled her tour to Lebanon scheduled for Feb. 14 and Feb. 15 at Casino du Liban after anti-Israeli campaigners rallied against her visit.
The Campaign to Boycott Israeli Supporters in Lebanon cited an online video showing Fabian singing in a 2008 concert on the anniversary of the creation of Israel. Fabian sang in Hebrew and then later before getting off the stage said: “I love you Israel.”
The establishment of Israel in 1948, termed the Nakba (catastrophe) by Palestinians and many in the Arab region, saw the forceful expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland. Lebanon and Israel are technically in a state of war and last fought each other in a 34-day conflict in 2006.
“One of the campaigner's goals is to isolate Lebanon from the world and transform it to the image which Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani of Iran’s elite Al-Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards Corp seeks to create by establishing a state of Islamic jurisprudence,” the Association of Reporters Against Violence said in its statement.
On Friday, local media quoted Suleimani as saying that south Lebanon was under the control of Iran and its ideas. His remarks, carried by Iran’s official news agency IRNA Friday, were mistranslated by Arabic media and interpreted by March 14 politicians to mean that south Lebanon was under Iran’s influence.
The activists said Fabian was the latest victim of campaigners’ moral terror and held Lebanese authorities responsible for the cancellation of the international singer’s tour.
“The Lebanese authorities are responsible for the cancellation and the distortion of Lebanon’s image,” the statement said, adding that the government should have provided the necessary security measures to ensure the safety of performers. “But they [government officials] failed, as usual, to the campaigners and organizations that have nothing to do with Lebanon, its culture and role,” the activists added.
In an apparent reference to Hezbollah, the activists also slammed the tripartite formula of "army, people, the resistance," which they claim is for the purpose of transforming the system in Beirut to a Tehran-style regime. There have been other incidents where artists have called off their visits to Lebanon over links to or showing sympathy with the Jewish state.
In 2009 for example French stand-up comedian Gad Elmaleh canceled his three-day tour to Lebanon after activists, saying Elmaleh was pro-Israeli and served in the Israeli army, rallied against his visit.

Hariri Breaks Leg while Skiing in French Alps
by Naharnet/Former Saad Hariri broke his left leg while skiing in the French Alps, said his press office in a statement on Saturday. He underwent a successful three-hour surgery in the American Hospital of Paris. The former premier will remain in hospital for several days for recuperation. Hariri and his family were spending the holidays in the French Alps. Prime Minister Najib Miqati and Speaker Nabih Berri later telephoned Hariri's family to inquire about his health and wish him a speedy recovery. As Safir newspaper reported in Saturday that the Mustaqbal Movement is expected to hold a political festival at Biel in downtown Beirut on February 14 to commemorate the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Former Premier Saad Hariri is therefore expected to return to Lebanon before mid-February in order to attend the event, revealed a prominent Mustaqbal parliamentary source to the newspaper. Preparations will also be taken in order to stage a popular and political rally to commemorate the March 14 demonstration that was held in 2005. Former PM Saad Hariri left Lebanon in April a few months after his government was overthrown in January. He has since taken to the social networking site Twitter to keep in touch with supporters.He confirmed via Twitter on January 14 that he will be returning to Lebanon soon.

Suleiman Demands Release of Lebanese Fishermen Abducted by Syria in the North
by Naharnet /A 16-year-old Lebanese boy was shot and fatally wounded after gunmen opened fire on a fishing boat on the maritime border with Syria on Saturday, his father and a local official told Agence France Presse. "My wife crossed the border into Syria and has seen his body in the morgue of Bassel Assad hospital" in the coastal city of Tartus, said Ahmad Hamad of his son Maher.
President Michel Suleiman condemned the kidnapping of three Lebanese fishermen after a Syrian fishing boat approached their vessel, opened fire at it, and then took it into Syrian territory.
Suleiman followed up with Prime Minister Najib Miqati and Security Forces leaders, demanding the Syrian authorities to release them immediately.
His stressed the need that the sovereignty of both countries be respected, urging both Lebanon and Syria to reinforce coordination in order to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
For his part, Miqati condemned the attack on Lebanese fishermen saying that the Lebanese-Syrian coordination committee should swiftly resolve the incident and bring back the kidnapped men.
Residents of the border town of al-Arida, where the fishermen come from, consequently blocked the international road leading to Syria by burning tyres in protest over the kidnapping.
MTV said that all border-crossings in northern Lebanon leading to Syria have been closed. A local official, Ali Assad Khaled, mayor of the town of al-Arida, said brothers Fadi and Khaled Hamad and Maher were seized from their boat off the coast of northern Lebanon. "Gunmen on another boat opened fire on the three Lebanese before seizing them and taking them off to Syria," he told AFP, adding that the incident was witnessed by other fishermen who insisted it took place in Lebanese waters. Tensions have been high in recent months along the Lebanese-Syrian border over anti-regime protests taking place in Syria. The Syrian army had repeatedly infiltrated Lebanese border territories in search of dissidents. On December 2, 2011, dozens of terrified families fled their homes in Wadi Khaled after shooting from the Syrian side of the border wounded two men and a woman. In recent months, thousands of people have fled into Lebanon from border districts of Syria as troops have resorted to mounting violence to crush anti-regime protests raging in the neighboring country since March.Source/Agence France Presse

Coordinated Attacks, Gun Battles Kill 162 in Nigerian City
by Naharnet /Bomb attacks targeting security forces and gun battles killed at least 162 people in Nigeria's second-largest city of Kano, sources said, as bodies littered the streets on Saturday.
A curfew was imposed on Kano in Nigeria's mainly Muslim north after it exploded into violence on Friday evening, with eight police and immigration offices or residences targeted.
The main newspaper in the north said that a purported spokesman for Islamist group Boko Haram had claimed responsibility for the violence, saying it was in response to authorities' refusal to release its members from custody.
Scores of such attacks in Nigeria's north have been blamed on Boko Haram, though Friday's would be among the group's most audacious and well-coordinated assaults.
Some 20 huge blasts could be heard in the city as a suicide bomber struck a regional police office and a car bomb rocked state police headquarters after the attacker fled and was shot dead, police sources said. A number of other police posts were targeted, including a secret police building, as well as immigration offices.Gunfire shook a number of areas, and a local television journalist was among those shot dead as he covered the unrest. "We have been receiving dead bodies since last night from relief agencies involved in the evacuation of bodies," an official at the city's main morgue said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give out figures. "At this moment we have 162 bodies in the morgue, and this figure may change because bodies are still being brought," he added.
A source with the Red Cross said his agency alone had counted 121 dead. An Agence France Presse correspondent counted at least 80 bodies in the main morgue, many of them with gunshot wounds, and said there were piles of other corpses he was unable to count.
Around 100 people waited outside the morgue to collect their relatives' remains. Residents also reported bodies in the streets, as officials from the Red Cross and the National Emergency Management Agency worked to pick up the corpses. "Between my house and the police headquarters along this street, I have counted 16 dead bodies that litter the streets, six of them policemen," Naziru Muhammed, who lives near state police headquarters, said Saturday morning by phone.A police source on condition of anonymity said dozens were killed.
"There are heavy casualties around the police headquarters," the source said. "A lot of civilians have been shot by the attackers. It's difficult to give a death toll, but the number of the dead runs into dozens."
Details began to emerge of the attacks, which were said to involve at least two suicide bombers.
At state police headquarters, a would-be suicide bomber sought to join a police commissioner's convoy, the police source said, but jumped out of the car and tried to escape when officers opened fire.
The source said he was shot dead, but according to a resident, the car rolled over and a huge explosion followed.
The attacks in Kano, which had escaped the worst of the violence blamed on Boko Haram in recent months, sent residents fleeing in fear of what would come next.
President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency on December 31 in parts of four states hard hit by attacks attributed to Boko Haram, but Kano was not included.
Most of the recent major attacks have taken place in the country's northeast.
The state of emergency has not stopped attacks, and the areas targeted have spread beyond the locations covered by the decree.
Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation and largest oil producer, is roughly divided between a mainly Muslim north and predominantly Christian south.
The limitations of the authorities were recently highlighted when the alleged mastermind of a Christmas Day attack outside a church that killed 44 people escaped police custody in suspicious circumstances.
Attacks specifically targeting Christians have also given rise to fears of a wider religious conflict in the country, with Christian leaders warning they would defend themselves. Some have even evoked the possibility of civil war. However, attacks blamed on Boko Haram have included a wide range of targets, including Muslims. The group also claimed responsibility for the August suicide bombing of United Nations headquarters in the capital Abuja that killed 25 people. SourceAgence France Presse.

Damascus: Lebanese Gunmen Fired at Fishermen in Syrian Territorial Waters
by Naharnet/Syrian authorities confirmed on Saturday that forces detained a Lebanese boat smuggling boxes from northern Lebanon into the territorial waters off the Syrian village of Kherabh.
According to SANA, Lebanese gunmen opened fire at the boat while Syrian authorities were allegedly trying to inquire the members about the cargo on the boat.
“Major Ali Younis, an officer at the Directorate General of Ports, warned the infiltrating boat to stop more than once but the crew didn’t go by the orders and threw the boxes into the sea trying to flee back into northern Lebanon,” the official SANA news agency reported. Media reports said earlier on Saturday that the Syrian authorities seized a Lebanese fishing boat and kidnapped three men aboard from the town of al-Arida, including a 16-year-old boy who was shot and fatally wounded after gunmen opened fire on them. Younis said “when we tried asking them for identification papers, 5 other Lebanese boats shot at their fishing boat injuring 2 men onboard the infiltrating fishing boat.” “We towed the fishing boat to the port of the coastal city of Tartus and transferred the injured men to the hospital, while a third man was handed to the competent authorities,” he told SANA. Younis noted that “the length of the infiltrating boat was 12 meters and width of about 5 meters.”Meanwhile, Syrian security forces killed three members of a "terrorist group" overnight as they tried to enter the country from neighboring Lebanon, SANA reported. "The security forces of Syria clashed overnight on Friday with a terrorist group trying to infiltrate the country across the border with Lebanon in the Tal Kalakh area and killed three of them," the agency said.
President Bashar Assad's regime has been rocked by more than 10 months of deadly dissent in fighting that the United Nations estimates has killed more than 5,400 people.
The authorities in Damascus blame "armed terrorist groups" for the trouble.

Iran general’s remarks on south Lebanon draw March 14 ire
January 21, 2012 02:24 AM The Daily Star
Lebanese lawmaker Antoine Zahra speaks during an interview with The Daily Star in Beirut, Lebanon, Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009. (Mahmoud Kheir/The Daily Star)
BEIRUT: Politicians from the opposition March 14 coalition lashed out Friday at the head of Iran’s elite Al-Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards Corp, Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, saying his remarks that south Lebanon fell under Iran’s influence have confirmed Hezbollah’s subservience to Iran. They demanded that Hezbollah clarify his statement. Suleimani, speaking in a conference on youth and the “Islamic Awakening” in Tehran Wednesday, said: “In reality, in south Lebanon and Iraq, the people are under the effect of the Islamic Republic’s way of practice and thinking.” But Suleimani’s remarks, which were carried by Iran’s official news agency IRNA Friday, were mistranslated by Arabic media and interpreted by March 14 politicians to mean that south Lebanon was under Iran’s influence.
Batroun MP Antoine Zahra, a Lebanese Forces official, said he was not surprised by Suleimani’s statement about Iran’s influence in south Lebanon and Iraq. “But we were surprised by this frank declaration which involved embarrassment, especially for Hezbollah, which claims that it is putting Lebanon’s interest above its regional links and its ideological loyalty,” Zahra said in a statement.
He asked whether the government, which is dominated by Hezbollah and its March 8 allies, was aware of this situation in south Lebanon.
“If it [government] is aware, what are the measures it plans to take at least to save its face when it claims that it is a government that is exercising sovereignty over all Lebanese territories,” Zahra said.
Fares Soueid, coordinator of March 14 General Secretariat said the remarks violated Lebanon’s sovereignty and demanded that Hezbollah clarify them.
“The remarks by the commander of Al-Quds force have unmasked Hezbollah when he said that south Lebanon falls under Iran’s influence, while the party is seeking through its political activity to convince the Lebanese and the world that it is a Lebanese party that is working to achieve Lebanese goals,” Soueid said.
“Suleimani’s remarks are rejected because they clearly violate Lebanon’s sovereignty on the one hand, and put the residents of the south in great danger, turning them into a mailbox between Iran and America, on the other,” Soueid added.
Mustafa Alloush, a former MP and Future Movement official, said Suleimani’s remarks have confirmed Hezbollah’s subservience to Iran.
Suleimani’s stance “has confirmed what we have been saying over the past years that Hezbollah is part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard,” Alloush said.
 

Two Reasons Why the West is Not Acting on Syria
Farid Ghadry Blog/Reform Party of Syria
Think back to December of 2010 when the Tunisian Rebellion against its despotic ruler managed to spark a youthful Arab street in five different countries. Those were the good days because all signs were indicative of an organic social Rebellion based on self-empowerment to attain economic parity and freedom.
Forward to today's political landscape across many of the Arab countries and you will discover that from an organic social Rebellion seeking freedom and economic justice we are instead at the receiving end of an unhealthy dose of religious extremism or the status quo of Arab corrupt tyrants.
Tyranny or extremism when the Rebellion was about freedom and economic justice. How did we get from there to here?
The first reason, I believe, contributing to this dismal present-day result is the direction the US is taking in regard to its influence on the world stage. As Arab youths advanced with ideas of freedom, the US is abandoning, for the first time in its modern history, its freedom agenda to concentrate on its domestic affairs. This explains the US relying more heavily on the Turkish government for regional solutions.
But what about Tunisia and Egypt and Libya you might ask?
Those Revolutions took the US by surprise. Obama had to react until the White House collects itself and responds to the situation. I keep coming back to the ex-CIA Director Leon Panetta visiting Turkey for five days between April 12 and April 17, which I believe was crucial in setting-in-motion the first stages of today's policy.
Obama's reaction, however, handed over to the Muslim Brotherhood the fate of over 100 million Muslims so far and counting. He transferred the power to the MB either out of ignorance or by listening to the wrong advisors his administration hand-picked for this job. We all remember how Ayatollah Khomeini came to power.
I am calling it a handover because elections held before democratic values are rooted in the society will lead to an Islamist takeover given how Arab tyrants have been ruling their countries.
Besides shelving the freedom agenda in the Middle East, we are facing a White House daunted by the Assad on-going killing spree but realistic enough to mitigate any risks during an election year. If I was David Plouffe, the last I want is for the President to act in ways any failure, no matter how minute the risks are, could put his re-election campaign in jeopardy.
Even though the liberation of Syria by the Free Syrian Army would yield results totally different from the outcome we witnessed in Egypt and Libya (With at least 30% minorities and another 25% of Muslims against Islamization, the MB cannot win in any election a majority chokehold), and even though a free Syria would weaken the Mullahs in Iran to the point of surrender, thus eradicating radicalism on two fronts, Obama's foreign policy team is not about to risk the President's campaign efforts by involving the White House in a military operation.
What is left then is the Syrian National Council, which represents the second reason. The SNC is an Arab League fabrication with one purpose: To share power with Assad, which make its criticism not only a duty but a necessity.
This strategy though has failed. Assad in his last speech buried it by saying: "..we haven’t closed the doors to any solution or proposal; and we shall never close the door to any Arab endeavor as long as it respects our sovereignty, the independence of our decision and the unity of our people."
The SNC itself is an impediment for change in Syria. Besides the disproportionate Muslim Brotherhood influence within the SNC many Syrians and countries seem to disagree over, inside the dark SNC all cats are grey.
For example, why would nations fighting the terror of Hezbollah agree to a Syrian opposition planted with operatives from its sister organization the Amal Movement? Getting rid of Assad in return for a united front by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah Lite? No thank you Emir of Qatar.
PM Erdogan and Emir al-Thani believed their formula is comestible and following their success in working with the Libyan Transitional Council, they posit the SNC would provide the best process for them by merging a dictatorship with Syrian oppositionists, some as extreme as Assad. But Libya is not Syria in every sense of the word. Our fabric is rich and colorful and our history is steeped in deep and abundant soil; totally misunderstood by the minds behind twisted Skyscrapers.
I believe Emir al-Thani and PM Erdogan are realizing their miscalculations. However, Qatar is keeping the SNC afloat but has no answers to the dilemma the SNC leadership faces with regard to its unpopularity inside Syria and its aimless mission. In fact, the longer Qatar is connected to the SNC the more damage it will sow for itself in some corners in the west and in the Syrian street. No matter what this US administration thinks or does, which is little in this election year, the SNC has reached its dead end to befuddle and to bamboozle.
The Muslim Brotherhood and the Amal Movement? Two western enemies? Did Qatar really imagine it could manage such a dangerous mixture just because an imbecile advisor in the Obama administration recommended it? Europe supported the SNC for one reason only: Hoping to quell the violence by pressuring Assad.
The configuration of the SNC shows how little the al-Thanis of Qatar understand institutionalized democracies or distinguish between forcing a mix (two extremist and competing religious sects) in today's volatile environment of Syria or letting the mix come together in a safe and conducive environment out of its own free will and conviction. The SNC constitution would have ignited a civil war the same way the Arab league observers ignited more violence.
As far as Turkey is concerned, PM Erdogan's health is not in the best of shapes. Furthermore, the Turkish economy is teetering (During the last 12 months, the XU100 representing the largest 100 Turkish companies declined 14443 points or 21.88 %) and its GDP to debt ratio has become a major concern for the international community because of Turkey's NATO status.
PM Erdogan understands he needs to turn his attention to his economy, which explains his disappearance of late from high visibility public events or from making too many foreign policy statements. But Qatar has yet to grasp the folly of its action.
And no, a 60-Minutes appearance to parade al-Jazeera won't get the Emir any Kermit stickers.

Muslims in Egypt Burn Christian Homes and Shops, Attack Church
GMT 1-20-2012 3:9:25
Assyrian International News Agency
(AINA) -- A Muslim mob attacked Copts today in the Upper Egyptian village of Rahmaniya-Kebly, Nag Hammadi, Qena province, destroying and torching their homes, straw huts and shops, while chanting Allahu Akbar. No one was reported killed or injured (video). According to reports, security forces were present but did not intervene and the fire brigade arrived 90 minutes late.
An eye-witness said that a straw hut belonging to a Copt was torched to clear the area for a mosque. There are more than 300 mosques in the village and one church.
According to Coptic residents, the reason behind the violence was the parliamentary elections. The Salafists wanted to prevent Copts, who number more than 50% of the inhabitants (20,000), from voting because they intended to vote for two moderate Muslims and not the Salafi candidates. "No Copt from Rahmaniya-Kebly was able to vote today, so the Salafists will win the elections," said a witness. Copts were forcefully prevented from voting.
US-based WAY TV, which covered live today's Rahmaniya attacks, called commander Osama, head of security at Rahmaniya, who said "everything was OK" -- despite live pictures on TV of the burning homes. Joseph Nasralla of WAY TV spoke to security and made them aware that the videos of the fires were being broadcast in the U.S. and Middle East, which caused the immediate dispatch of security vehicles. By late evening the violence had stopped.
In another incident today, a large number of Salafis and members of the Muslim Brotherhood entered the Abu Makka church, in Bahteem, Shubra-el-Khayma, Qaliubia province, and informed the congregation that the church has no licence and no one should pray in it. One Muslim said the 1300 square meter church would be suitable for a mosque and a hospital.
Bishop Marcus of Shubra el Khayma was scheduled to inaugurate the incomplete church and celebrate the Epiphany mass in the evening. According to Coptic witnesses the Bishop cancelled the festivities, which angered the congregation, who were not informed of the reason. A witness said the Muslim promised to be back tomorrow.
By Mary Abdelmassih
http://www.aina.org/news/2012011921919.htm
Copyright (C) 2012, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use.


How Iran Views a Possible War With the United States
By Patrick Clawson
1-20-2012
If Washington does not demonstrate through both word and deed the risks that Tehran faces, overly optimistic Iranian hardliners may wrongly decide that the benefits of a confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz outweigh the costs.
Victory in war means accomplishing one's political objectives, and some Iranian leaders seem to believe they could advance four of their main goals through armed conflict with the United States: namely, resisting "global arrogance," creating disorder in the oil markets, justifying nuclear breakout, and rallying the nation. If Iran were to make significant progress toward these objectives via hostilities against American forces, some in Tehran might conclude that they had won. More likely, however, the optimistic expectations of these overly confident, risktaking Iranian hardliners would not be realized, and war could turn out badly for the regime. Washington can do much to shape the perceptions of both Iranian leaders and world opinion regarding the risks Iran would face from such a conflict.
Resisting Global Arrogance
The Iranian doctrine of resistance assigns primary importance to psychological effects. In assuming that victory is achieved by demoralizing the enemy, it emphasizes the moral and spiritual dimensions of war over the physical and technological. From this viewpoint, how an action appears is the key test of its success. This fits well with a twenty-four-hour-news world in which image often matters more than reality.
The United States presents itself as, and is seen to be, a great military power. Standing up to U.S. forces could therefore be a great propaganda coup for Tehran. Consider that the Iranian navy still regards its 1988 confrontation with the United States -- sparked by the mining of a U.S. warship -- as a great victory that it studies closely, despite the sinking of several Iranian vessels. A new confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz and nearby Persian Gulf waters might play to Iran's greatest naval strength and the U.S. Navy's greatest weakness -- though of course even at its strongest, Iran's navy is still much weaker than the U.S. Navy at its weakest.
Iran has invested heavily to create a multilayered system for sinking ships: mines, missiles from fast craft, missiles from bunkers hidden in the hills along the strait, and submarines. In the most realistic U.S. Navy simulation of what war with Iran might be like -- the $250 million Millennium Challenge exercise conducted in 2002 -- a similar array of forces sank sixteen American ships and might have done even more damage had the Navy not stopped the game to change the rules. If Iran got lucky and sank a U.S. warship during an actual conflict, television viewers around the world might conclude that the Navy had lost the war no matter what happened next, since the destruction of a U.S. ship could define the conflict's public image. The Navy has not lost a ship since 1968, and its leaders rarely if ever mention the possibility that it might lose one in any war, much less one with Iran. Washington would therefore be prudent to shape expectations, frequently pointing out that while Iran might get in a few blows during a conflict, the more relevant measure of success would be whose forces are left standing at the end of the day, which would most assuredly be the U.S. military.
Iranian leaders might also decide that the U.S. and European strategy of escalating pressure leaves them with few options, in which case resistance may offer the best prospects. After all, when the United States got its nose bloodied by the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing and the 1993 Somali "Black Hawk down" incident, Washington withdrew its forces from both countries. Iran may hope for the same result via confrontation in the Gulf. Demonstrated U.S. commitment to continuing America's seventy-year military presence in the Gulf is the best way to disabuse Tehran of this notion.
The threat of fierce U.S. retaliation to any Iranian attack may not matter to some Iranian hardliners as much as one might think. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran's most powerful political force, does not necessarily care so much about the regular navy's large ships. The IRGC navy's swarming approach relies instead on hundreds of small boats that could mix in with the thousands of civilian dhows and other small craft in the Gulf. The U.S. Navy could face something akin to guerrilla warfare at sea, not the conflict-at-a-distance it prefers. Defeating such an opponent would take time, during which U.S. forces might appear tied down and not necessarily winning. The best way to forestall this line of Iranian propaganda is shaping expectations with statements -- such as those recently made by U.S. military leaders -- pointing out that fully halting Iranian attacks on shipping could take many weeks.
The United States should also carefully consider its escalation options, because each approach to broadening the fight could pose problems that must be prepared for in advance. For instance, attacks on Iran's oil infrastructure might drive prices up and invite Iranian retaliation against critical infrastructure in frightened Gulf monarchies -- a scenario that lends heightened importance to those countries' recent efforts to step up infrastructure protection. And ground operations, even by Special Forces, could prove controversial among Americans, most of whom would presumably not welcome perceptions of another land war. Any such actions should therefore be preceded by careful explanation of the underlying U.S. strategy.
Creating Disorder in Oil Markets
Iranian leaders may hope that attacks in the Gulf, especially if sustained for weeks, might create disorder in world oil markets. That would have two important benefits for Tehran. First, shortages could allow Iran to sell its oil at high prices despite U.S. and European pressure. The 1979 revolution, for example, cut Iran's oil exports in half but doubled world prices. Yet that outcome seems less likely today if plans are put in place to release strategic reserves and expand use of pipelines that bypass the Strait of Hormuz during the weeks-long process of halting Iran's attacks.
Second, Iranian hardliners may hope that chaotic oil markets -- with their attendant high gas prices hurting the American and European economies and U.S. Gulf allies becoming nervous -- might pressure Washington into ending the conflict even without securing Iranian concessions. Were that to happen, Tehran could conclude that U.S. military power is unable to stop it from doing as it pleases. Hardliners might see this as confirming Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's saying, "The United States cannot do a damn thing." Continuing consultation with potentially nervous allies will be needed to counter this problem.
Justifying the Nuclear Program
A military conflict might also provide an opportunity for Iran to declare that the United States and Europe are hostile powers with which it cannot negotiate regarding the nuclear impasse, especially if European forces joined in the protection of shipping against Iranian attacks. Tehran could also claim that it needs a powerful deterrent against future U.S. or European action, namely, the capability to acquire nuclear arms in extreme circumstances if it exercised its claimed right to leave the Nonproliferation Treaty. If the United States were seen as the aggressor, that argument might win much sympathy around the world, possibly undermining the vigor with which UN sanctions were enforced. Hence the importance of emphasizing that Washington and its allies seek a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear impasse and have turned to sanctions only because Iran refuses to follow Security Council orders and engage directly with the United States.
Rallying the Nation
Some Iranian leaders might welcome war with America in the hope of rekindling the revolutionary spirit and rallying nationalist sentiment. As described above, the most important factor in predicting Iranian actions is the leadership's perceptions of what will happen, not what is actually most likely to occur. In fact, an Iranian public already unhappy at privations due to hardline policies could well blame their leaders for starting a conflict. Iranians have already gone through one protracted, bloody war under the Islamic Republic, and there are few indications they would welcome another, this time against any enemy much more powerful than Iraq.
Would the United States Lose, or Would Both Sides Win?
Just because one side wins a war does not mean the other side loses. If both sides advance their political objectives, then both sides win. For the United States, a key test of any conflict with Iran is how it affects the nuclear impasse. In that sense, a war might work out well for the United States -- damage inflicted during the conflict could overcome Iran's factional infighting on the nuclear issue and force a dramatic reversal, as happened in 1989 to end the Iran-Iraq War. Yet war is a risky business, and naval conflicts could instead stiffen Tehran's resolve to acquire dangerous nuclear capabilities as quickly as possible in order to deter further U.S. attacks. In that case, further pressure might be needed to induce Iran to seek a diplomatic solution.
Nor is it clear what war would do to Iran's nuclear capabilities, as distinct from its intentions. In the event of a naval conflict in the Gulf, the United States might debate whether to attack Iran's nuclear facilities as well. If so, the challenge for the United States would be to ensure that such strikes significantly affect Iran's ability to reconstitute the nuclear program, and that the existing UN sanctions against dual-use items would hold after a strike.
Will War Come?
Because it is by no means clear that war with Iran would advance U.S. interests, Washington is unlikely to start a conflict except in the most dire circumstances. The more likely scenario is Iran inadvertently stepping over a U.S. red line, and Washington reacting more vigorously than Tehran expects. Much as the Korean War began in no small part because of mistaken North Korean and Soviet assumptions about U.S. red lines, so too might Iran blunder into a conflict with the United States.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was cautious for years, but he has made several risky decisions of late, such as rigging the 2009 presidential election. In his view, refusing to compromise and hitting back hard were the keys to victory over the mass protests that followed the disputed vote. Over the past few months, Tehran has at times applied that same principle abroad: when slapped, slap back harder. For example, when Tehran plotted to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington, it may have been responding to Riyadh's prior intervention in Bahrain, which had prevented Iran from aiding the island's Shiites. Afterward, the UN General Assembly voted 106 to 9 to remind Iran of its obligations to protect diplomats (not one Muslim-majority country stood with Tehran), while Britain and other countries imposed financial sanctions. Tehran responded by orchestrating the ransacking of the British embassy the next week. Both the assassination plot and the embassy attack hurt Iran's interests, but the regime ordered them anyway. That is not reassuring when considering whether Iran might attack in the Strait of Hormuz.
Indeed, the recent record suggests that Iranian leaders have become less cautious about taking aggressive gambles and more confident that the United States will not react. Washington should vigorously remind them how such over-optimism has repeatedly misled them. For example, they apparently -- and wrongly -- believed that the United States and Europe would not apply pressure against Iran's Central Bank, and that Europe would not boycott Iranian oil.
Tehran's chances of achieving its objectives through war presumably look much better if it can convincingly portray itself as the victim rather than the aggressor. Iranian officials may therefore do their best to paint U.S. and European actions as an attack that justifies a response. Tehran is less likely to carry out that threat if Western allies and Iran's neighbors vigorously counter the "victim" claim and loudly repeat their calls for engagement with Iran and negotiation of all outstanding differences.
For Washington's part, the proverb "if you want peace, prepare for war" holds true: the best prospect for persuading Khamenei to revert to his past cautiousness is to clearly lay out that the United States has red lines which, if crossed, will cost Iran dearly. Declaratory policy, such as President Obama's recent letter to Iran about red lines, helps. But Iran may be more impressed by deeds that back up those words. Peace is more likely to be preserved if the United States marshals its allies and demonstrates its power -- hopefully through military exercises alone, but also by vigorous response to any Iranian aggression if necessary.
www.energypublisher.com
Patrick Clawson is director of research and head of the Iran Security Initiative at The Washington Institute.
http://www.aina.org/news/20120119204507.htm
© 2012, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use.

Friday File: Is It Time to Intervene in Syria?
by James M. Lindsay /Council on Foreign Relations
January 20, 2012
Lebanese and Syrian protesters in northern Lebanon carry banners and burn a picture of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as they march in solidarity with Syria's anti-government protesters on January 20, 2012. (Omar Ibrahim/courtesy Reuters)
Share
0 2 Above the Fold. Anyone who watched last night’s GOP presidential debate from Charleston, South Carolina could be forgiven for concluding that the United States has no pressing problems overseas. Not a single foreign policy question came up. That’s too bad, because I was hoping to hear how the candidates thought the United States should respond to the growing violence in Syria. My colleague Elliott Abrams has been arguing for some time now that the conflict is devolving into a civil war and that Washington’s policy should be “winning, as fast as possible.” Steven Cook, another one of my colleagues, wrote earlier this week that it’s time to think seriously about intervening in Syria. So does Steven have it right? The rising death toll—which at more than 5,000 far exceeds the carnage in Libya that triggered Operation Odyssey Dawn—certainly suggests he is. And as Robert Danin, yet another of my colleagues and someone who has met Bashar Assad twice, reminds me, publicly downplaying the possibility of U.S. or allied action on Syria serves only to reassure the regime that it will win in the end. Still, I can’t say that I find the arguments for military intervention convincing. It’s not just that the track record for U.S. military interventions is mixed at best. Or that as my colleagues—I have a lot of colleagues—Stewart Patrick and Isabella Bennett note, that the UN isn’t likely to follow the Libyan precedent and bless a military operation against Syria. Or that the American public’s appetite for another military operation in the absence of a direct threat to the United States is at a low ebb. Or that initiating military operations in a fourth Muslim country may be pushing our luck. It’s that I haven’t seen a convincing analysis of how a military intervention could be conducted at an acceptable cost and in a way that maximizes the odds that what follows Assad is better and not worse. So for now I’ll hope that stepped up diplomatic and economic pressure on Damascus can do the trick. But I remain open to being convinced otherwise.
CFR Event of the Week. Richard Holbrooke was, by any estimation, a titan of diplomacy. This week, more than a year after his death, CFR convened a meeting to discuss his legacy. The panel featured an array of Holbrooke’s friends and colleagues; Christopher Hill, Vali Nasr, Frank Wisner, and Leslie Gelb, along with Richard Haass and Kati Marton, Ambassador Holbrooke’s wife. The panel is well worth watching; it offers insights not only into Holbrooke’s life and work, but also into the diplomatic lessons he learned in places such as Vietnam, Bosnia, and Afghanistan. You can read the transcript, download the audio, or watch the video.
Read of the Week. Inauguration Day is exactly one year out. Barack Obama will be using the time between now and November 6 to make the case to his fellow Americans that he deserves a second term. If you are trying to decide where you come down on that question, or if you just want a better understanding of how he views foreign policy, check out his interview with TIME’s Fareed Zakaria. They discussed Iran, Afghanistan, China and the challenges the U.S. faces in navigating a rapidly changing world.
Blog Post of the Week. CFR’s Renewing America initiative, which was launched a year ago to examine efforts to revitalize the U.S. economy, has joined the blogosphere. Under the leadership of Edward Alden, the Renewing America blog will no doubt become the go-to place to track the growing debate about American competitiveness. Ted is already off to a strong start with pieces on “A Time for Restructuring,” “Competitiveness and the State of the Union,” and “Why Manufacturing Will Not Lead a Jobs Recovery.”
Poll Question of the Week. The South Carolina primary is tomorrow, which means that we are officially in the thick of the presidential race. So what do Americans think of what they have seen so far. Apparently, not much. A Pew poll finds that compared to four years ago more Americans think that this campaign is “dull” (55 percent in 2012 versus 25 percent in 2008), “too negative” (50 percent v. 28 percent), and “not informative” (45 percent v. 31 percent). Perhaps the debate will get more lively, positive, and informative in the weeks to come.
Chart of the Week. I spend a lot of time on trains each week going back and forth between New York and Washington. Indeed, I spend so much time riding the WashNY (or is it the NYWash?) corridor that I can name all the stops on both the Acela and regional routes as well as how long it is supposed to take between stops. So I wasn’t surprised when I saw the chart below on how badly the United States lags behind other countries, whether developed or developing, when it comes to high-speed rail. If anything, the chart overstates how well the United States is doing. If you have ever had the pleasure of riding the Shinkansen in Japan or the TGV in France, you wonder how the Acela even qualifies as high-speed rail. And it doesn’t look as if the United States is going to close the gap anytime soon. The Obama administration’s plan to jump-start high-speed rail is going nowhere fast. Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio have already said no to billions of federal dollars to underwrite high-speed rail, saying that it’s unlikely to pay for itself. Just this week California Governor Jerry Brown gave a full-throated endorsement to a high-speed rail system between Los Angeles and San Francisco. He faces a lot of opposition, however, so who knows if his dream will become a reality. In the meantime, if you are looking for the trendsetter in passenger train service, don’t look to the United States.

Who is Protecting Assad Inside the Arab League?
Farid Ghadry Blog
The Libyan Revolution officially started on February 15, 2011 and the Arab League on March 12, 2011 unanimously endorsed a UN-backed No-Fly Zone to be enforced by NATO. It took exactly 25 days between the first day of Revolution in Libya and the Arab League action to save the Libyan people. The Syrian Revolution started officially on March 15, 2011 and 311 days later, the Arab League is still whistling in the wind. 25 days for Libya to save it, 311 for Syria and no hope in sight. King Abdullah of Jordan gave an interview to PBS Newshour in which he said: "The problem with Syria -- and we've been here in Washington for a few days talking to our colleagues here. And I've been in interaction with my colleagues around the world and the Middle East -- nobody has an answer for Syria. And that is the most disturbing thing." The truth, though, lies in another statement he made when he said: "And so, if I can predict what will be happening over the near future, again, the relationship between the Arab League and the U.N. on how to take it to the next step, understanding from our experience last year that, when the Arab League comes together as a bloc and makes a decision, it's much more easier for the international community to then move to the next phase." It's not that no one knows what to do about Syria, it is that some member states in the Arab League are blocking a UN-mandated No-Fly Zone for Syria. Article 6 of The Arab League Charter of March 1945 clearly states that any aggression against a member State (In this instance, the Arab League is facilitating that aggression with a decision of No-Fly Zone rather than participating in the aggression, which would be far more difficult given how the Charter is written), must be approved unanimously by the remainder states.
The question is: Who is protecting the Assad regime inside the Arab League and why?
I believe there are seven main players blocking a No-Fly Zone against Assad: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. Saudi Arabia has two reasons: The Shia in the Eastern Province and neighboring Bahrain in addition to not setting another precedent of a military operation the Saudis may regret if they had to face a similar fate. Qatar's reason has to do with the fear it has of Iran and Syria should NATO fail in its mission. The Emir bold statement on 60-Minutes is intended to soften their image amongst Arabs since the Qataris know well the consensus in the Arab League does snot exist to mount an Arab military operation. Bahrain, with a similar structure to Syria where a minority oppresses a majority, does not wish to enrage Iran or face a similar fate as Assad.
In Oman, the Omani King has a friendly disposition towards the Iranian regime and has been successful in maintaining neutrality and an equidistant position from all parties. Yemen coattails the Saudis.
Lebanon because of Hezbollah's threats. Iraq because the Maliki Government has an interest in Assad remaining in power. When the Arab League voted to suspend Syria's membership on November 12, 2011, Yemen and Lebanon objected while Iraq abstained. Without the first baby step of approving a No-Fly Zone by the Arab League, the killing will continue. Remaining still is a UN vote, the Russian belligerence, the US sunset stride, and NATO's preparedness. Unless Turkey is attacked by Assad, which will involve NATO without any UN approvals, Syrians are in for a very deadly and long ride thanks to the Arab League. Copyrights © Reform Party of Syria (Project Syria, Inc.) 2003-2011

Reform Party of Syria ظUK training Saudi forces used to crush Arab spring
Jamie Doward - The Guardian
Britain is training Saudi Arabia's national guard – the elite security force deployed during the recent protests in Bahrain – in public order enforcement measures and the use of sniper rifles. The revelation has enraged human rights groups, which point out that the Foreign Office recognises that the kingdom's human rights record is "a major concern".
In response to questions made under the Freedom of Information Act, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that British personnel regularly run courses for the national guard in "weapons, fieldcraft and general militaryskills training, as well as incident handling, bomb disposal, search, public order and sniper training". The courses are organised through the British Military Mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard, an obscure unit that consists of 11 British army personnel under the command of a brigadier.
The MoD response, obtained yesterday by the Observer, reveals that Britain sends up to 20 training teams to the kingdom a year. Saudi Arabia pays for "all BMM personnel, as well as support costs such as accommodation and transport".
Bahrain's royal family used 1,200 Saudi troops to help put down demonstrations in March. At the time the British government said it was "deeply concerned" about reports of human rights abuses being perpetrated by the troops.
"Britain's important role in training the Saudi Arabian national guard in internal security over many years has enabled them to develop tactics to help suppress the popular uprising in Bahrain," said Nicholas Gilby of the Campaign Against Arms Trade.
Analysts believe the Saudi royal family is desperate to shore up its position in the region by preserving existing regimes in the Gulf that will help check the increasing power of Iran.
"Last year we raised concerns that the Saudis had been using UK-supplied and UK-maintained arms in secret attacks in Yemen that left scores of Yemeni civilians dead," said Oliver Sprague, director of Amnesty International's UK Arms Programme.
Defence minister Nick Harvey confirmed to parliament last week that the UK's armed forces provided training to the Saudi national guard. "It is possible that some members of the Saudi Arabian national guard which were deployed in Bahrain may have undertaken some training provided by the British military mission," he said.
The confirmation that this training is focused on maintaining public order in the kingdom is potentially embarrassing for the government. Coming at the end of a week in which the G8 summit in France approved funding for countries embracing democracy in the wake of the Arab spring, it has led to accusations that the government's foreign policy is at conflict with itself.
Jonathan Edwards, a Plaid Cymru MP who has tabled parliamentary questions to the MoD about its links to Saudi Arabia, said he found it difficult to understand why Britain was training troops for "repressive undemocratic regimes". "This is the shocking face of our democracy to many people in the world, as we prop up regimes of this sort," Edwards said. "It is intensely hypocritical of our leadership in the UK – Labour or Conservative – to talk of supporting freedoms in the Middle East and elsewhere while at the same time training crack troops of dictatorships."
The MoD's response was made in 2006, but when questioned this week it confirmed Britain has been providing training for the Saudi national guard to improve their "internal security and counter-terrorism" capabilities since 1964 and continues to do so. Members of the guard, which was established by the kingdom's royal family because it feared its regular army would not support it in the event of a popular uprising, are also provided places on flagship UK military courses at Sandhurst and Dartmouth. In Saudi Arabia, Britain continues to train the guard in "urban sharpshooter" programmes, the MoD confirmed.
Last year, Britain approved 163 export licences for military equipment to Saudi Arabia, worth £110m. Exports included armoured personnel carriers, sniper rifles, small arms ammunition and weapon sights. In 2009, the UK supplied Saudi Arabia with CS hand grenades, teargas and riot control agents.
Sprague said a shake-up of the system licensing the supply of military expertise and weapons to foreign governments was overdue. "We need a far more rigorous case-by-case examination of the human rights records of those who want to buy our equipment or receive training."
An MoD spokesman described the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, as "key partners" in the fight against terrorism. "By providing training for countries to the same high standards used by UK armed forces we help to save lives and raise awareness of human rights," said the spokesman.
Labour MP Mike Gapes, the former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said British military support for Saudi Arabia was about achieving a "difficult balance".
"On the one hand Saudi Arabia faces the threat of al-Qaida but on the other its human rights record is dreadful. This is the constant dilemma you have when dealing with autocratic regimes: do you ignore them or try to improve them?"