LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 28/2012

Bible Quotation for today/A Warning against Hypocrisy/Confessing and Rejecting Christ/Whom to Fear
Luke 12/01-12:" As thousands of people crowded together, so that they were stepping on each other, Jesus said first to his disciples, Be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees—I mean their hypocrisy. Whatever is covered up will be uncovered, and every secret will be made known. So then, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in broad daylight, and whatever you have whispered in private in a closed room will be shouted from the housetops.  I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot afterward do anything worse. I will show you whom to fear: fear God, who, after killing, has the authority to throw into hell. Believe me, he is the one you must fear! Aren't five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one sparrow is forgotten by God. Even the hairs of your head have all been counted. So do not be afraid; you are worth much more than many sparrows!  I assure you that those who declare publicly that they belong to me, the Son of Man will do the same for them before the angels of God. But those who reject me publicly, the Son of Man will also reject them before the angels of God. Whoever says a word against the Son of Man can be forgiven; but whoever says evil things against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. When they bring you to be tried in the synagogues or before governors or rulers, do not be worried about how you will defend yourself or what you will say. For the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
A gesture Lebanon must not ignore/By: Michael Young/January 27/12 
Iran: Why sanctions won't work/By Amir Taheri/January 27/12 
Is the Arab League Nabil el-Araby a conspirator/By Tariq Alhomayed/January 27/12 
Kurds and sway/By:Tony Badran/January 27/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for January 27/12 
Obama: No options off table on Iran nuclear program
US army chief, Dempsey: US, Israel view Iran threat very differently
Gabi Ashkenazi, aFormer IDF chief: Israel must prepare for possible attack on Iran
Senior IDF officer told cabinet Israel cannot stop Iran's nuclear program
Barak reveals Israel's considerations for possible attack on Iran
ISIS report: Iran won't pursue a nuclear weapon program in 2012
War of attrition brewing with Iran over Gulf oil routes
US arrests Iranian scientist
Dennis Ross still advising Obama on regular basis, despite stepping down
UN council could vote on new Syria draft next week
50 killed in Syria as Arabs go to U.N.
Israeli Counter Terrorism Bureau: Safe to visit Thailand
Azerbaijan arrests plot suspects, cites Iran link
Hezbollah, Iran’s terror proxy terrorism in Azerbaijan
Ashkenazi Says Syria Sunni Govt. Won't Have Warm Ties with Hizbullah, Iran
Two Copts Killed in Egypt For Refusing to Pay Extortion Money
Boko Haram 'leader' issues new threats in Internet message
Canada Disappointed with Bahrain’s Decision in Naser Al-Raas Case
U.N. Condemns Killing of Syria Red Crescent Chief
Iran Says 11 Pilgrims Kidnapped in Syria
Dabi: Syria Violence Increased Significantly in Past 3 Days
U.N. Says 384 Children Killed in Syrian Unrest
Scores of Assad Opponents Storm Syria Mission in Cairo
Bellemare Mum on New Indictments in 3 Cases Linked to Hariri’s Murder
President Gemayel: Resistance that Doesn’t Contribute to Rise of State is Not Legitimate
Syrian National Council promises better relations with Lebanon
Watkins Discusses with Moussawi ‘Requirements of 1701 that Still Have to be Met’  
Mustaqbal: Syrian National Council’s Letter to Lebanese Paves Way for New Phase of Ties
Geagea, Future MP praise SNC ‘new page’ vow
Lebanon/North Maten/Residents vow to keep fighting high-voltage lines 
Syrian National Council promises better relations with Lebanon
Rai says Bkirki - Hezbollah dialogue tackles Lebanese state
Al-Rahi: Dialogue with Hizbullah Doesn’t Replace All-Party Talks at Baabda
After talks with Lavrov, Jumblatt calls for political solution in Syria
Delegations from Beirut and Tripoli Bar Associations End STL Visit
Asarta: Tripartite Meetings Contributed to Implementation of Resolution 1701
Belgian Defense Minister Stresses His Country’s Keenness on Lebanon’s Stability
Mansour Follows up on Sadr Case with Libyan Judges
Assailants Burn Office of Nabatiyeh Town Mayor

War of attrition brewing with Iran over Gulf oil routes
DEBKAfile Special Report January 26, 2012/Military tensions in the Persian Gulf shot up again Thursday, Jan. 26, after Dubai police commander Gen. Dhahi Khalfan said on Al Arabiya television that an imminent Gulf war cannot be ruled out and first signs are already apparent. "The world will not let Iran block Hormuz but Tehran can narrow the strait to the maximum," he said. He echoed debkafile's predictions that Iran will not shut down the Strait of Hormuz completely, but gradually cut down tanker traffic which carries 17 million barrels, or one-fifth of the world's daily consumption, through the waterway. Our Iranian sources report that the rule of thumb Tehran has devised for confront sanctions is to respond to the tightening of an oil embargo by having the Revolutionary Guards gradually narrow the tankers' shipping lanes through the strategic strait. This will progressively cut down the amount of oil reaching the markets.
Tehran will go all the way and shut the channel down completely for fear of provoking a military showdown with the United States. But each time Washington manages to stop Iran supplying a given country, the IRGC will shut down another section of the strait. General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff admitted on Jan. 8 that Iran has the capacity to block the Strait of Hormuz temporarily but the US would get it reopened within a short time.
Saudi Arabia and Dubai are skeptical about the ability of the American navy and Gulf forces to keep the Strait of Hormuz open at all times in the face of continuous Iranian attacks. The prevailing view in Gulf capitals is that for the six months from February through July 1, when the European embargo on Iranian oil and the Iranian national bank freeze kick in, a war of attrition will unfold as Iran carries out sporadic strait closures, either by mining the waterway or firing missiles at tankers from unmarked speedboats.
These operations will push up the price of oil and so drum home to oil-dependent Asian and European governments the high cost to them of the alternate opening and closing of the Strait of Hormuz. A Saudi official said Wednesday, Jan. 1, that Tehran's threats to punish Riyadh for offering to make up the shortfall incurred from the oil embargo against Iran "could be seen by Saudi Arabia as an act of war."
The Iranian threats followed the pledge made this week by Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi to raise daily production by up to 2.7 million barrels per day to supply the countries caught short of supplies from Iran. However, the Saudi minister could not say how the oil would make its way out of the Persian Gulf to destination if the Strait of Hormuz were to be shuttered partially or fully. debkafile's military and Gulf sources report that Persian Gulf capitals are talking less these days about an outbreak of armed hostilities over Iran's nuclear program and more about the coming war over the oil shipping routes out to market. The Dubai general's remarks Thursday about an imminent conflict referred not only to the flow of American reinforcements to the Gulf region but also to the new deployments of the armies of Gulf Cooperation Council states. They are moving into position in expectation of a military confrontation with Iran.

Iran: Why sanctions won't work
By Amir Taheri
Asharq Alawsat
Ever since the mullahs seized power 32 years ago, Washington and its allies have looked for a “silver bullet” to compel Tehran to modify aspects of its behaviour. The list of sanctions against Iran would be as long as Tolstoy’s War and Peace. It includes freezing of assets, ban on the supply of arms, ban on investment in energy industry, blacklisting regime figures, international arrest warrants for officials, including “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei, and cutting Iran’s access to capital markets. None of that produced the desired effect. For years, experts claimed that stopping Iran’s gasoline imports was the “silver bullet”. This, they argued, would bring the Khomeinist train to a stop. Two years later, that has not happened. Other “silver bullets” included the closure of Iranian banks abroad and, recently, the quarantining of the Central Bank of Iran. Tehran reacted by opening a new uranium enrichment plant and a show of force in the Strait of Hormuz. On Monday, the European Union approved another “silver bullet”: a ban on imports of Iranian oil. Surely, you might say, this must be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back!
Well, don’t hold your breath. Even if this straw did break the camel’s back, it won’t change the animal’s behaviour. Don’t’ get me wrong. I am not repeating the cliché that “sanctions never work!’
Sanctions do work by creating economic hardship, social disruption, and missed opportunities for nations subjected to them. However, they seldom achieve the results desired by those who impose them.
Sanctions have helped make Iran an underachiever. As far as its economy is concerned, despite significant human and natural resources, Iran has wasted three decades. In 1977, resource-rich Iran’s economy was twice that of resource-poor South Korea. In 2011, the South Korean economy was three times bigger than Iran’s. In 1977, a US dollar was worth 70 Iranian rials. In 2012, 18,000 rials buys one US dollar.
In 1977, 27 per cent of Iranians lived below the poverty line. In 2012 that figure is around 40 per cent. Not all of Iran’s economic failure is due to sanctions. Mismanagement and rampant corruption have also contributed to the tragedy. The Iranian people have paid a heavy price while the behaviour of the regime has got worse. Why is this so? Inebriated by a lunatic ideology, Iran’s current leaders are captives of a pattern of behavior that they cannot, even if they wanted to, easily change. Khomeinists are not alone in spinning their prison with a cobweb of self-delusion, hubris and braggadocio. Iran’s modern history includes several similar situations. In the 19th century, the mullahs whipped up frenzy for Jihad against the Russian “Infidel” and cast Fath Ali Shah as the Ghazi who would ride his white horse to Moscow. Fatah Ali believed, or pretended to believe, the myth and declared war on the Tsar. The result was the biggest loss of territory Iran had suffered in centuries. Even when the British proposed mediation to limit the Shah’s losses, he could not afford to appear to be surrendering.
Fast forward to 1940 when Britain and the Soviet Union, at war against Germany, asked Reza Shah to allow supplies to Russia through Iran. Having imprisoned himself in a “no compromise” policy, the Shah wouldn't budge. So, he had to be budged by an Anglo-Russian invasion of Iran. More than a decade later, Iran had another “no compromise” leader: Muhammad Mosaddegh appointed Prime Minister by the Shah shortly after Iran had nationalized its oil. Mosaddegh, too, was struck by folie de grandeur; all he could do was say “no”, including to deals mediated by Washington. Although Britain had managed to impose an embargo on Iran’s oil exports, Mosaddegh wouldn't budge. Between 1950 and 1954, a year after the Shah dismissed Mosaddegh, Iran lived without oil exports. Only Mosaddegh's removal changed Iranian behaviour. So, why should a ban on Iran’s oil exports work this time? If the aim is to change Tehran’s behavior, my guess is that it won’t.
The EU’s ban concerns a quarter of Iran’s oil exports. The remaining 75 per cent goes to countries unlikely to join the embargo. Even in the case of EU members the ban will not come into effect for another six months. Also, oil trade today is different from the 1950s when the “Seven Sisters” acted as a cartel, setting, and, when it suited them, breaking the rules. Today, oil market has thousands of players with more opportunities for under-the-counter deals than a Persian bazaar.
More importantly, the Iranian economy is not entirely dependent on oil. In 2010, oil exports accounted for around 12 per cent of Iran’s gross domestic product (gdp). A cut in oil income would create hardship in some sectors but could boost others, notably agriculture. Talk about oil embargo has already led to a massive devaluation of the rial. That may not be a bad thing in the long-term by making imports more expensive and (non-oil) exports cheaper. For example, Iran’s textile industry has all but vanished because of cheap imports from China. (China maintains its currency, yuan, at an artificially low rate whilst the Iranian rial is still ridiculously expensive.) Because, oil dollars go to the state, a devaluation of the rial would also reduce the government’s budget deficit. (Fewer dollars would be needed to cover public expenditure which is in rials.) There may be another twist to this tale. Khamenei might conclude that he could live with a partial loss of oil exports. That, in turn, might make him more defiant in the belief that, if the 11th hour came, he could always back down. The trouble is that the 11th hour comes and goes before champions of defiance have time to play games. nThe daily Kayhan, published by Khamenei’s office, suggested Monday that the US and allies might “soon realize that they have no arrows left in their bag of sanctions.”
Kayhan did not contemplate the implications of its suggestion. If the US and allies conclude that Tehran won’t change behavior through diplomacy, carrot-and-stick sanctions and even threats of military action, what would they do?They would face a terrible choice: surrender to the Islamic Republic or go for regime change in Iran.

Obama: No options off table on Iran nuclear program
US president delivers possibly his last State of the Union address before Congress; vows to keep relentless pressure on Iran; says commitment to Israel's security iron-clad
Yitzhak Benhorin/Ynetnews
WASHINGTON – Ten months before the presidential vote and as the race for the White House heats up, US President Barack Obama stood before congress and delivered what could be the last State of the Union address of his term in office. With million of Americans watching, Obama detailed his achievements over the past three years, presented his vision for the United States and stressed the ideological differences between him and the Republicans, who are vying for the presidency. During the part of the speech that addressed the Middle East, Obama warned Iran that the United States would keep up pressure on its disputed nuclear program with "no options off the table" but said the door remained open to talks for a peaceful resolution. Obama said Tehran was isolated and facing "crippling" sanctions that he said would continue so long as the Islamic Republic keeps its back turned to the international community.
"Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.
"Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations."
Upon taking office in 2009, Obama broke with his Republican predecessor George W. Bush and offered an olive branch to Iran, saying he wanted a new beginning with the country that Bush had labeled part of the "axis of evil

US army chief, Dempsey: US, Israel view Iran threat very differently
US army chief says Washington determined to prevent nuclear Iran, 'but that doesn't mean dropping bombs necessarily'
Yitzhak Benhorin/Ynetnews
WASHINGTON – The United State and Israel view the Iranian nuclear threat very differently, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said. In an interview with the National Journal, published Thursday, the US army chief said, "We have to acknowledge that they ... see that threat differently than we do. It's existential to them." Dempsey, who visited Israel last week for talks with senior military and political officials, was quoted by the weekly as saying he and the Israelis each argued their positions "aggressively," but conceded that the close allies simply see the threat - and potentially how soon to act against it - very differently. "My intervention with them was not to try to persuade them to my thinking or allow them to persuade me to theirs, but rather to acknowledge the complexity and commit to seeking creative solutions, not simple solutions," he told the National Journal. In the interview, Dempsey said the army supported the Obama administration's determination to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon by any means necessary, but cautioned that using force should be a last resort. "We are determined to prevent them from acquiring that weapon, but that doesn't mean dropping bombs necessarily," he said. "I personally believe that we should be in the business of deterring as the first priority," he said. However, Dempsey added that Washington was increasing its economic and diplomatic pressure on Tehran while making preparations - if there was no other option - for possible military intervention in the Islamic Republic. He claimed economic and diplomatic pressure is beginning to show results and it would be "premature" to resort to military force."I do think the path we're on—the economic sanctions and the diplomatic pressure—does seem to me to be having an effect," Dempsey said. "I just think that it's premature to be deciding that the economic and diplomatic approach is inadequate."He added: "A conflict with Iran would be really destabilizing, and I'm not just talking from the security perspective. It would be economically destabilizing."

Gabi Ashkenazi, aFormer IDF chief: Israel must prepare for possible attack on Iran
Gabi Ashkenazi says Israel needs to do all it can to operate under the radar against Tehran, but stresses that military option must be on the table.
By Barak Ravid and DPA/Haaretz
Former IDF chief Gabi Ashkenazi said Thursday that Israel must operate under the radar against Iran, but it should also prepare for a possible strike against the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities. During a lecture at the Institute for National Security Studies, Ashkenazi stressed that Israel's strategy on Iran must be a combination of several approaches. "Israel must do all it can under the radar and combine that with paralyzing sanctions, but at the same time keep a reliable military option on the table with the willingness to use it if necessary," Ashkenazi said. "When the moment comes I don't know if we won't be alone, and for this reason Israel must also rely on itself," he said. During his term as IDF chief, Ashkenazi was considered a supporter of a more moderate approach on Iran, in which all diplomatic options must be exhausted before any attack is launched. Earlier Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the new round of economic sanctions by the European Union will be "futile," and added that his country was ready to resume nuclear talks with the six world powers - the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany.  Ahmadinejad appeared to downplay the impact of a new round of EU sanctions on Iran, including a ban on oil imports, saying that trade with EU states made up only $23 billion of Iran's $200 billion annual trade volume. "Aren't you ashamed to get together and make such statements. Where do you think you can get with these steps?" Ahmadinejad said. "They are saying they (EU) do not want to harm the Iranian people, but the steps they take and the language they use are all against the people," he added. The EU sanctions, as well as similar measures taken by the United States to force Iran to curb its nuclear activities, are believed to have already had an impact on the Iranian economy, with the national currency, the rial, falling drastically in recent days.

'Senior IDF officer told cabinet Israel cannot stop Iran's nuclear program'
Time Magazine quotes Israeli defense official as saying that Israel can only delay Tehran's nuclear program by several months, at most a year.
By Haaretz /A senior Israel Defense Forces commander has said that Israel is unable to attack Iran's nuclear program in a meaningful way, Time Magazine reported on Thursday. According to the report, which is quoting an Israeli defense official, a senior IDF commander presented the cabinet of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a gloomy assessment last fall. “I informed the cabinet we have no ability to hit the Iranian nuclear program in a meaningful way,” the official quoted the senior commander as saying. “If I get the order I will do it, but we don’t have the ability to hit in a meaningful way.” The defense official told Time, that according to an estimate by the Atomic Energy Commission, Israel will only be able to push back Iran's nuclear program by several months to a year, after taking into account the wide geographic dispersion of Tehran's nuclear facilities and the the limits of Israel's air force. Earlier Thursday, former IDF chief Gabi Ashkenazi said that Israel must do all it can to operate under the radar against Iran, but should simultaneously prepare for a possible strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities. "Israel must do all it can under the radar and combine that with paralyzing sanctions, but at the same time keep a reliable military option on the table with the willingness to use it if necessary," Ashkenazi said. "When the moment comes I don't know if we won't be alone, and for this reason Israel must also rely on itself," he said.

Barak reveals Israel's considerations for possible attack on Iran
Interview outlines three categories that will determine whether Israel attacks - Israel's ability to act, international legitimacy for attack, and the need for military action.
By Amos Harel /Haaretz/Israel could have welcomed the European Union sanctions on Iran this week as a diplomatic coup, but instead it has reacted with characteristic sourness.  The reason is that Israel's persistent urging of the world to accept that Iran's nuclear program is more advanced and dangerous than the West admitted has now been undermined. Its use of the military threat to keep international pressure on Iran is deflated. There also appears to be another reason. If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are really planning an attack on Iran's nuclear sites, as former Mossad chief Meir Dagan hinted recently, then toughening the sanctions reduces Israel's maneuvering space. The world's tolerance toward Israel's position, certainly to a military offensive, is considerably reduced once real sanctions are imposed against Iran's central bank and oil industry. At the beginning of November, a slight national alarm was raised - and echoed in the foreign media - over the possibility of an attack on Iran. The panic passed and the winter clouds over the nuclear sites froze any talk of such a possibility.  As Israel draws closer to making a decision, Barak is discussing its leaders' considerations more openly. In an article published in Sunday's edition of the New York Times ("Will Israel Attack Iran?" ), Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman outlines the Israeli positions regarding Iran. Bergman interviewed Barak in his Tel Aviv home on the night of Friday, January 13. Barak told him on the record most of the things he had told other Israeli journalists, off the record, in the autumn.
Barak talks in the interview about three categories of questions that will determine whether Israel attacks - the extent of Israel's ability to act, the international legitimacy for attack (especially the United States' implied or explicit agreement ), and the need for military action. Bergman received the impression that, for the first time, the Israeli leadership's answer to the three questions is positive. If the world waits too long, warns Barak, the moment will come when it will be too late to act. In a short while, it will be impossible to hold up the nuclear program any longer. From then on, the issue of dealing with Iran will pass from the hands of the statesmen to those of the journalists and historians. Barak warns that a nuclear bomb will ensure the survivability of the Iranian regime. A nuclear Iranian umbrella would make it difficult for Israel to act, even in the face of Hezbollah provocation. Barak's logic is as sharp as always, but his arguments hold an internal contradiction. If international legitimacy for an attack is such a central consideration, the new sanctions reduce it to almost nothing, also, apparently, as far as the American administration is concerned. The article ends with the prediction that Israel will bomb Iran in 2012. Is that what Barak really believes will happen, or is it only the impression he wishes to give the international community? At present this is not at all clear.

ISIS report: Iran won't pursue a nuclear weapon program in 2012
Report by Institute for Science and International Security says 'Iran is unlikely to decide to dash toward making nuclear weapons as long as its uranium enrichment capability remains as limited as it is today.'
By Reuters
Iran is unlikely to move toward building a nuclear weapon this year because it does not yet have the capability to produce enough weapon-grade uranium, a draft report by the Institute for Science and International Security said on Wednesday. The report by the institute founded by nuclear expert David Albright offered a more temperate view of Iran's nuclear program than some of the heated rhetoric that has surfaced since the United States and its allies stepped up sanctions on Tehran. "Iran is unlikely to decide to dash toward making nuclear weapons as long as its uranium enrichment capability remains as limited as it is today," the report said. The United States and Iran are engaged in a war of words over sanctions, with Iran threatening to retaliate by blocking oil shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The United States said it would not allow that to happen. The escalating rhetoric and tensions have led to concerns about the potential for missteps between the adversaries that might spiral into a military confrontation that neither wants. But the report, financed by a grant from the United States Institute of Peace, said Iran had not made a decision to build a nuclear bomb. The USIP is an independent, non-partisan center created by the U.S. Congress in 1984 that receives federal government funding. "Iran is unlikely to break out in 2012, in great part because it is deterred from doing so," said the ISIS report, which has not yet been publicly released. The report turns down the temperature, saying that sanctions and the fear of a military strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities have worked as a deterrent.
The institute has advised U.S. and foreign governments about Iran's nuclear capabilities and Albright is considered a respected expert on the issue. The report tracks closely with what is known of official U.S. government assessments. U.S. officials say Iran has not made the decision to build a nuclear weapon and that Iranian leaders haven't made the decision because they have to weigh the cost and benefits of building a nuclear weapon. Much of what the Iranians are doing with their nuclear program has civilian uses, but they are keeping their options open, which significantly adds to the air of ambiguity, U.S. officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Some conservative and Israeli analysts in the past have challenged these types of assessments, asserting that Iranian nuclear efforts are sufficiently advanced that they could build a bomb in a year or less.
But according to the institute's report: "Although Iran is engaged in nuclear hedging, no evidence has emerged that the regime has decided to build nuclear weapons."
"Such a decision may be unlikely to occur until Iran is first able to augment its enrichment capability to a point where it would have the ability to make weapon-grade uranium quickly and secretly," the report obtained by Reuters said. It added that despite a report last November by the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency alleging that Iran had made significant progress on nuclear weaponization, "Iran's essential challenge remains developing a secure capability to make enough weapon-grade uranium, likely for at least several nuclear weapons."
Some European intelligence officials have disputed a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate published in 2003 which said that Iran had stopped working on a program it had launched earlier to design and build a bomb. The Europeans maintain that Iran never stopped research and scientific development efforts which could be bomb-related.
Tensions spiked after Iran announced earlier this month that it had begun to enrich uranium deep inside an underground facility near the holy city of Qom. The secretly built facility was publicly revealed by the United States in 2009.
Airstrikes 'oversold'
Among possible policy options for halting Iran's nuclear program, one of the least likely to be successful is a military attack on its nuclear program, according to the institute's report.
Limited military options, such as airstrikes against nuclear facilities, are "oversold as to their ability to end or even significantly delay Iran's nuclear program," the report said.
Limited bombing campaigns would be "unlikely to destroy Iran's main capability" to produce weapon-grade uranium, it said.
Iran has taken precautions by dispersing the centrifuges it uses for enrichment to multiple locations, has mastered the construction of centrifuges, and has probably stockpiled extra centrifuges, the institute said. A bombing campaign that did not totally eliminate these capabilities would leave Iran "able to quickly rebuild" its nuclear program and even motivate it to set up a Manhattan Project-style crash program to build a bomb, which would only make the region more dangerous and unstable, according to the institute.
The report said that clandestine intelligence operations aimed at detecting secret Iranian nuclear activities, including the construction of new underground sites, are "vitally important." Known methods used by spy agencies include the recruitment of secret agents, cyber spying operations, overhead surveillance by satellites and drones, and bugging of equipment which Iran buys from foreign suppliers.
The report says another "well known tactic" used by Western spy agencies against Iran has been to infiltrate Iranian networks that smuggle nuclear-related equipment and supply them with plans or items which are faulty or sabotaged. The report says this tactic has helped the West to uncover at least one of Iran's secret nuclear sites and, according to official statements by the Iranians, has caused enrichment centrifuges to break. Other more violent covert operations strategies, particularly the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and engineers, have "serious downsides and implications," such as high risks of Iranian retaliation through militant attacks which could be directed against civilian targets. The United States has emphatically denied any involvement in the assassinations.
The report said that since thousands of specialists are involved in the Iranian nuclear program, assassinations were unlikely to be effective in slowing it down. It also warned that Iran could construe assassinations as acts of war and use them to justify retaliation.

US arrests Iranian scientist
Microchip expert Seyed Mojtaba Atarodi, an assistant professor at Tehran's prestigious Sharif University of Technology, charged with violating export laws
Associated Press/Ynetnews /The United States has arrested and charged an Iranian semiconductor scientist with violating US export laws by buying high-tech US lab equipment, a development likely to further worsen Iranian-US tensions. Prison records show the US is holding Seyed Mojtaba Atarodi, 54, a microchip expert and assistant professor at Tehran's prestigious Sharif University of Technology, in a federal facility in Dublin, Calif., outside San Francisco. The Iranian interest section in the Pakistani embassy in Washington said it was aware of the arrest.

A gesture Lebanon must not ignore
Michael Young,
January 27, 2012 /Now Lebanon
Members of the opposition Syrian National Council meeting in Cairo last fall. The group has reached out to Lebanon, promising to reassess and fortify relations between the two countries. (AFP photo)
On Wednesday the Syrian National Council, which is leading the opposition to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad from abroad, made a significant gesture toward Lebanon.
In a statement the council promised, if it took power in Syria, to turn a “new page” with Lebanon. The rapport between the two countries would be built on a foundation of respect for sovereignty and parity, as well as support for ethnic and religious diversity and pluralism. The council promised to review bilateral agreements between Beirut and Damascus—above all the Syrian-Lebanese Treaty of Brotherhood, Cooperation, and Coordination, signed in 1991—and abolish the Higher Council that was set up through the treaty.
The Syrian National Council also undertook to terminate the role that Syria’s security services have played in Lebanon, and more broadly to end Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs. It said that it would demarcate the Lebanese-Syrian border, especially in the Shebaa Farms area, and affirmed that it would create a committee to investigate the matter of Lebanese held in Syrian prisons.
It would be easy to interpret the move as born of necessity, while the Syrian National Council garners Arab support to topple the Assad regime. The council did indeed speak to potentially damaging ambiguities in its public image, not least the fact that many Lebanese Christians fear an Islamist takeover in Syria. The guarantee of ethnic and religious pluralism was designed to reassure on that front.
However, the statement also represented, potentially, a highly significant moment in the uneasy Syrian-Lebanese relationship. There continues to be a perception in Lebanon, perhaps justified, perhaps not, that whoever controls Syria will pursue some form of hegemony over its smaller western neighbor. Long before the Baathists came to power in Damascus, defenders of this thesis argue, Syria had designs on Lebanon, and that won’t soon change.
Whatever the real answer, don’t take anyone’s word for it. At some stage, perhaps even before the Assad regime falls, Lebanese and Syrian democrats must sit together and clarify what the future holds for their two countries. This may not have an immediate impact on official policy, but stated principles, preferably written down in a consensual document, have a way of filling vacuums; and given the direction in which Syria is going today, a vacuum is likely in the country before a post-Assad order can take hold.
The relationship between Syria and Lebanon has been an orphan of the public debate over the Syrian uprising, indeed over Arab uprisings in general. The narrative of emancipation throughout the region has been focused internally, as one of populations rejecting authoritarian leaderships. There has been little room for a consideration of another type of subjugation, namely of one Arab state by another.
That is a reason, perhaps, why the Lebanese Independence Intifada of 2005 seemed to provoke so little interest last year among those taking to the streets against their regimes. And yet so much in that revolt against Syria was replicated elsewhere in the Arab world—from the way public space was used to stage protests, to the discussion of how to place instruments of state repression under democratic control, to the optimal way of approaching international intervention.
Anyone observing the barbarity of the Syrian leadership today cannot help but spare a thought for the Lebanese, who spent 29 years in one way or another under the Assads’ thumb. There were many in Lebanon who sided with Syria during that time; the violence inflicted by Lebanese on fellow Lebanese during the civil war was appalling. But a large number of those suffering during that period—the tens of thousands killed, injured, maimed, kidnapped or humiliated by Syria or its epigones—did not merit their fate, nor were they ever consulted about what Lebanon’s affiliation with Syria should be like.
That is why the initiative of the Syrian National Council is so necessary. There is baggage to clear away, as well as myriad misperceptions on both sides. Lebanese and Syrians must overcome the insufferable sense of contempt they still frequently display when talking about each other. Syria risks today what Lebanon faced three and a half decades ago, so destructive sectarianism is not solely a Lebanese curse. Yet as more Syrians suffer and become refugees, the Lebanese should recall how greatly they welcomed the empathy, and indulgence, of outsiders in their times of need.
One aspect of Arab uprisings today that require more attention is the way the emergence of more representative governments in certain countries will affect relations with countries next door. One can expect that Egypt will no longer deal with Israel or Gaza in quite the same way as it did under President Hosni Mubarak. Tunisia may not have particularly effective sway over developments in Libya or Algeria, but with time a more open society there may deploy democratic “soft power,” to the irritation of autocrats in the Maghreb.
The nature of Syria’s relations with the Lebanese, Palestinians, Iraqis, Jordanians and Turks will be essential for assessing the success of the Syrian uprising. Syria’s opposition still must triumph and then establish a democratic government. Yet given the Assads’ proclivity for destabilizing those around them, a new order in Damascus must make it a priority to place regional relationships back on an even keel.
To its credit, the Syrian National Council has taken the first step. Now it’s up to Lebanese democrats to push in the same direction from their end, to ensure the rapid start of a dialogue between governments once that becomes possible. Beirut and Damascus are intertwined. It’s a about time that both sides benefit in equal measure.*Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut and author of The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Iran says 11 pilgrims kidnapped in Syria
January 26, 2012 /Eleven Iranian pilgrims have been kidnapped in unrest-swept Syria, the foreign ministry said on Thursday, calling on Damascus to help secure their release."According to our information, 11 Iranian pilgrims travelling by road to Damascus were kidnapped by an unknown group," said ministry spokesperon Ramin Mehmanparast, quoted by the state news agency IRNA.
"We call on the Syrian government to use all means... to release the Iranian nationals," he said. In a similar incident in late December, seven Iranian engineers were kidnapped in the Homs region of central Syria, a hub of deadly unrest which has swept the Arab state since last March. Syria is Iran's main ally in the Arab world. Anti-regime circles have accused Tehran of aiding the regime's crackdown on dissent.-AFP/NOW Lebanon


March 14 MP Marwan Hamadeh fires back at Bassil
January 27, 2012
March 14 MP Marwan Hamadeh fired back at Energy Minister Gebran Bassil for describing him as “the living thief.”Marwan Hamadeh is usually referred to as “the living martyr” by March 14 politicians because of the assassination attempt against him in October 2004 which left him injured.“My honorable [performance] in all the ministries and positions which I was assigned to will not be [stained] by the fabrications and lies of a failing liar who belongs to the school of hatred and delirium,” Hamadeh said in a statement released by his office.He also said that “the international judiciary will pursue the allies of [Bassil].”-NOW Lebanon

Bellemare Mum on New Indictments in 3 Cases Linked to Hariri’s Murder
by Naharnet /Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare didn’t disclose during his meetings with Lebanese senior officials if Pre-Trial Judge Daniel Fransen will issue new indictments in the attacks on the three officials that have been linked to ex-Premier Rafik Hariri’s murder, As Safir newspaper reported on Friday. Last week, the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat published a report saying that Fransen has made a progress in preparing the indictments in the assassination attempts of MP Marwan Hamadeh, ex-Defense Minister Elias Murr, and the murder of former Communist party leader George Hawi. According to the report, Bellemare has referred to Fransen his probe into the three cases and that the pre-trial judge is preparing the indictments pending their release.The court has already indicted four Hizbullah members in Hariri’s Feb. 2005 assassination. But Lebanese authorities have so far failed to arrest them.
Ministerial sources told As Safir daily that the prosecutor was keen not to discuss key issues with Lebanese officials during a three-day farewell visit before the end of his mandate at the end of February.
Bellemare expressed his gratitude to Lebanon, the sources said. He also discussed the stages of his work with the STL as the head of U.N. International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC) to his appointment as the STL’s prosecutor and the release of the indictment in Hariri’s assassination. However, Bellemare avoided revealing the identity of his successor, noting that there’s a mechanism followed at the United Nations for such an appointment. He said that the final decision goes back to U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon. On Thursday, Bellemare held a meeting with Justice Minister Shakib Qortbawi, Prosecutor General Saeed Mirza, and former Minister Murr. The STL prosecutor held talks on Friday with Interior Minister Marwan Charbel and is expected to meet later with MP Hamadeh, and the family of Hawi. The court announced in December that Bellemare has informed U.N. chief that, for health reasons, he does not intend to seek reappointment for a second term as prosecutor at the end February.

President Gemayel: Resistance that Doesn’t Contribute to Rise of State is Not Legitimate
by Naharnet /Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel stressed on Friday the need to confront terrorism and instead bolster openness, dialogue, and understanding.
He said during the launch of the International Union of the Centrist Democratic Parties: “A resistance that does not contribute to the construction of the state cannot be considered legitimate.”He voiced his satisfaction with the Arab people’s revolt against dictatorship, hoping that they would succeed in achieving freedom and democracy.
Gemayel therefore unveiled a charter on the Arab revolts and subsequent regimes.
He stressed the importance of stability being reached after the success of the Arab revolts, hoping that the new regimes would respect the sovereignty of Arab nations and the demonstrators’ calls for democracy and freedom.
“Any side seeking to support any revolution in the world should ensure that they are capable of assisting protesters in overcoming oppression and discrimination,” he added.
“All peoples have the right to confront oppression without necessarily resorting to terrorism to reach their goal,” he continued.
On this note, Gemayel remarked: “No party operating under the excuse of resistance has the right to assume the role of the state in deciding the fate of the people.”
He slammed “all forms and sources of extremism”, saying that it has led to “individual and mass tragedies on the national and religious levels.”
“Fundamentalism must be confronted,” he stressed.
“Real democracy can be achieved through the separation of powers and regular rotation of power,” he stated.


UN council could vote on new Syria draft next week
UNITED NATIONS, (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council could vote as early as next week on a Western-Arab draft resolution endorsing the Arab League's call for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to transfer powers to his deputy, council diplomats said on Wednesday. It remains unclear whether Russia - which together with China vetoed a European-drafted resolution in October that condemned Syria and threatened it with sanctions over its 10-month crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators - is prepared to wield its veto powers once again to block council action on Syria.
European and U.S. delegations have been working with Qatar and the Arab Security Council member, Morocco, on a new draft resolution. The text, obtained by Reuters, urges council support for a "political transition" in Syria, where government forces have killed thousands of demonstrators inspired by Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa.
"We hope to push forward with that in the Security Council quite quickly," a senior Western diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
The new draft will replace a Russian text, which Western diplomats say is too weak and no longer relevant in light of the Arab League call for Assad to hand power to his deputy.
Diplomats said they would like to put the new draft resolution to a vote next week. There is also a question of when Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby and Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, who heads the organization's Syria committee, will brief the council, as the two requested in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
That letter, also obtained by Reuters, calls for a special ministerial level meeting of the 15-nation council on Syria.
One council diplomat said the League proposed holding that meeting on Feb. 8, though Western delegations would like to hold it sooner, using video conferencing technology if necessary.
"What we don't want to do is just do nothing in the Security Council until the eighth (of February)," the senior diplomat said. Another diplomat said the council would be discussing the timing of the Arab League briefing on Wednesday behind closed doors after consultations on Libya.
'POLITICAL TRANSITION'
The Arab League's new plan agreed to at the weekend calls on Assad to transfer power to his deputy and allow the formation of a unity government.
The draft resolution says the council "supports ... the League of Arab States' initiative ... to facilitate a political transition leading to a democratic, plural political system ... including through the transfer of power from the President and transparent and free elections under Arab and international supervision."It makes no mention of sanctions and appears to fall short of making compliance with the Arab League plan legally binding. But it does ask Ban to report to the council every 15 days on Syria's compliance with the terms of the resolution, which would formally put it on the council's agenda.
Russia has repeatedly said it does not want Syria to become another Libya, where Moscow contends that NATO misused its Security Council mandate to protect civilians as a vehicle for "regime change."
But Western diplomats said that Russia might find it difficult to use its veto against a resolution that is simply intended to provide support for the Arab League.
Russia and China have expressed interest in having the head of an Arab League monitoring mission in Syria, Sudanese General Mohammed al-Dabi, brief the council as well. Dabi said the level of violence had fallen since the mission arrived in Syria in late December, an assertion contested by Assad's opponents. Western diplomats, however, said there was no need to have Dabi brief the council and rejected the idea. The fate of the League's 165-strong monitoring team was thrown into doubt on Tuesday when Gulf Arab states began withdrawing 55 of their monitors, saying they had failed to stem the violence.

Is the Arab League Nabil el-Araby a conspirator?
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
On the 17th July 2011, following the visit of the Arab League Secretary General, Nabil el-Araby, to Syria, and his meeting with Bashar al-Assad, and the comments that followed, I wrote an article that stated that, “Syria responded quickly to the comments made by the new Secretary General of the Arab League Nabil el-Araby…however, the Secretary General's statements were not what one would expect from a seasoned politician”!
Today, after a long series of events and stances relating to the Syrian revolution, which up to now has left nearly seven thousand people dead, not to mention the thousands of detainees and missing persons, and has lasted ten months, we return once again to talk about Mr Nabil el-Araby and his positions towards Syria. Up until this day, the al-Assad regime has not held one member of its personnel accountable, but rather we see Walid Moallem saying that he does not know anything about how military activity operates in Syria, and that he has nothing to do with it. These are the same words that al-Assad said previously when he claimed that only a crazy leader would kill his own people!
Mr el-Araby defended al-Assad the day he met him in Damascus, in July 2011. Surely el-Araby realizes today that nothing has changed in the behavior of the al-Assad regime since that date, but despite all this, el-Araby still makes strange and incomprehensible decisions, and appears to be defending the al-Assad regime. Even in his latest press conference in Cairo el-Araby was not convincing, despite the issuance of a new Arab initiative, and rather it was Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim who spoke with logic and clarity.
Nabil el-Araby is still going against public opinion, choosing the leader of Hamas, Khaled Mishal, to convey messages to al-Assad, and choosing Mustafa al-Dabi’s team to head the delegation of Arab observers. Now we find el-Araby offering the Egyptian Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei the chance to be his representative in Syria, only because Bashar al-Assad may feel comfortable with ElBaradei, because of the stand he took against the strike on the Syrian nuclear reactor, his position on the Iranian nuclear file, and likewise his criticism of the West and the Americans. This is what I have heard from several high-level sources, but is this a joke or something real? With all due respect, what would ElBaradei do in Syria? Will he withdraw halfway through his task, like he did in Egypt? Will he disappear when the Syrian protestors are fired upon, like when he avoided going down to Tahrir Square on the first day of the Egyptian revolution? His excuse that day was that he did not want to steal the limelight from the youth, and this is what we described at the time as “knife and fork opposition”, and we were criticized for saying so!
This is a puzzling matter, and it requires us to pose the logical question about Mr. el-Araby, with reference to his choices and stances. The question is: Since el-Araby has chosen Khaled Mishal, Mustafa al-Dabi’s team - which presented its recent observation report as if it were answering to al-Assad rather than the Arab League - and now Dr. ElBaradei, should we expect el-Araby to choose Azmi Bishara and Mohamed Hassanein Heikal in the future?
To answer the question in the title, it does not seem that el-Araby is a conspirator, but he is a long way from understanding the region and its variables. Of course, if he truly wanted to conspire, he would have been more subtle!


Two Copts Killed in Egypt For Refusing to Pay Extortion Money
http://www.aina.org/news/20120126173659.htm
GMT 1-26-2012 23:38:25
Assyrian International News Agency
(AINA) -- Two Copts were killed this afternoon in the village of Bahgourah, a suburb of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt, after a Muslim racketeer opened fire on them for refusing to pay him extortion money. Three days ago Ahmed Saber had asked from the Coptic building contractor Moawad Asaad for a considerable sum of money. This afternoon Saber drove to Moawad's home to collect the money, but Moawad refused to go to his car to speak to him for fear of being kidnapped. Four men came out of the car with machine guns and shot Moawad and his 26-year-old son Asaad Moawad, an engineer. Both were killed instantly.
Bishop Kyrollos of Nag Hammadi said that Ahmed Saber, who is known to the police, has been extorting money from the Coptic community and kidnapping their children for ransom since November last year. "Reports were filed with the police about all incidents. I don't know why the police have not arrested him," said the Bishop.
Presently over 4000 Copts are staging a sit-in in front of Nag Hammadi police headquarters until Ahmed Saber and his accomplices are caught. It was reported that the police have brought in four central security vehicles to manage the crowd of protesters.
Bishop Kyrollos said "I hold security forces and the Muslims of Bahgourah fully responsible for terrorizing the Copts living there." He called on the authorities in Cairo and the interior minister to provide protection for the Copts in the Nag Hammadi area, "who are continuously being subjected to terror and kidnapping."
By Mary Abdelmassih
Copyright (C) 2012, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use.

Israeli Counter Terrorism Bureau: Safe to visit Thailand
By HERB KEINON /J.Post
01/26/2012 17:43
Agency cites work of Thai security forces, including the arrest of alleged Hezbollah operative in lowering travel warning. Thailand is once again safe for Israeli travelers, at least according to the National Security Council's Counter Terrorism Bureau. The Bureau released a statement Thursday saying a previous "severe travel warning" issued two weeks ago over the likelihood of an immediate attack against Israelis in Bangkok has been canceled because of the work of the Thai security forces that included the arrest of an alleged Hezbollah operative there, and the uncovering of a Hezbollah weapons storehouse –and other Hezbollah facilities -- in the country.
At the same time, the statement said, because of the possibility that there remains some terrorist infrastructure in Thailand, and in light of concern that Hezbollah will try to avenge the 2008 killing of Hezbollah's shadowy commander Imad Muganiyah on the anniversary of his death on February 12, Israelis traveling to the country are advised to exercise caution. Earlier this month, Thai authorities arrested a Lebanese suspect after the US embassy warned of a possible attack in Bangkok. Thailand's deputy prime minister said at the time that police had stepped up security and he was confident the situation would be contained.
A Thai Defense Ministry source said Israeli intelligence had contacted Thai officials on Dec. 22 with information that two or three suspects could be planning an attack in Thailand. However, the individuals traveled to the South and left the country. Israeli intelligence sources alerted Thai officials again on Jan. 8 of the danger of an attack around Jan. 13 to 15 in areas where there are often large concentrations of Western tourists, such as the Khao San Road, which is popular with young backpackers.The arrest was made after the second Israeli warning, the source said, adding that Thai security officials were working closely with the United States and Israel.
Reuters contributed to this report.

Hezbollah , Iran’s terror proxy
By JPOST EDITORIAL 01/25/2012 23:16 Terrorists are never short of meaningful dates or excuses to spill blood in the name of what they aver is justice.
By Reuters
Three Azerbaijani Hezbollah mercenaries were recently arrested by Azeri security forces for conspiring to attack a Chabad center in Baku and Israel’s ambassador there, Michael Lotem. This didn’t make headlines overseas. Even exceptionally gruesome atrocities eventually fade – at least somewhat – from collective consciousness, to say nothing of thwarted acts of terror. What was preempted, and didn’t transpire, isn’t necessarily news everywhere.
That said, the fact that Hezbollah, in its role as Iran’s terror proxy, plotted to hit Jews in far-off Azerbaijan speaks volumes about the nature of Israel’s enemies. Similar deadly designs were uncovered in Thailand and Bulgaria. Greece is also regarded as a likely venue for such sinister schemes.
There is, sadly, nothing new in the callous cowardice to which these attempts attest. When Hezbollah fears to face Israeli wrath head-on, it seeks “soft,” relatively risk-free targets in distant settings, where hostilities are naturally less expected.
Nonetheless, such attacks – by assorted terror groups, spearheaded initially by Fatah – proliferated since the late 1960s and through the ’70s and ’80s. Hezbollah/Iran adopted the tactic with relish in the ’90s.
On March 17, 1992, Israel’s embassy in Buenos Aires was car-bombed, killing 29 and wounding 242. This became Argentina’s worst terror attack until July 18, 1994, when a van loaded with 275 kg. of explosives was detonated in front of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) Jewish Community Center, located in a densely-packed section of Buenos Aires. The lives of 85 innocents were claimed and many hundreds more were injured.
Argentine investigations were marred by gross ill-will and/or incompetence (former president Nestor Kirchner branded them a “national disgrace” in 2005). However, even the lethargic investigators agreed that Hezbollah/Iran masterminded the outrages. Indeed, in 1999 an arrest warrant was issued against Hezbollah senior military commander Imad Mughniyeh, who himself died in a 2008 car-bombing in Damascus.
Both Hezbollah and Iran blame Israel – which never admitted to anything – for Mughniyeh’s demise and have vowed furious vengeance.
Some four years ago Hezbollah and Iranian agents reportedly planned to set off a car bomb outside the Israeli embassy in Baku shortly after Mughniyeh’s assassination, but the attack was foiled. Their latest Baku plot was scheduled for implementation three weeks before the anniversary of Mughniyeh’s death.
If so, that in itself exposes a warped sense of justice, which denies Israel the right to punish Mughniyeh for the mass murders he instigated, but instead agitates for retaliating against whoever is presumed to have done away with the mass-murderer.
Still, this may be no more than a pretext, since terrorists are never short of meaningful dates or excuses to spill blood in the name of what they aver is justice. For instance, Iran may well hunger for reprisal for the assassinations of top scientists instrumental in its nuclear projects. These too are blamed on Israel (which has admitted to nothing in this case as well).
But the plain fact of the matter is that it does not really matter what Israel does or does not do. The craving for carnage is essentially unconnected with specific Israeli actions but instead stems from the fact that Israel exists at all. During the years of Israeli presence in the south Lebanon security zone, Hezbollah argued that its sole aim was to drive Israelis off Lebanese land. Once this occurred, Israel was assured, Hezbollah would have no more bones to pick with the Jewish state.
Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Lebanese territory almost a dozen years ago, yet Hezbollah has only escalated its aggression – kidnapping Israelis, attacking Israelis within the country’s legitimate borders and heavily rocketing the entire North.
Despite UN Security Council Resolution 1701 that ended the Second Lebanon War sparked by Hezbollah, the organization has regrouped and is now armed to the teeth as never before.
Much of the responsibility for this sorry state of affairs resides with the international community, which tolerates Hezbollah’s reinforcement, despite declarations to the contrary and the useless deployment of the the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).Similarly scant attention is paid to Iran’s role as a worldwide sponsor of terror. But when Israel is forced to protect its people, a chorus of condemnation resounds.

Canada Disappointed with Bahrain’s Decision in Naser Al-Raas Case
January 26, 2012 - The Honourable Diane Ablonczy, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs), today made the following statement on learning that the five-year sentence imposed on Canadian Naser Al-Raas has been upheld:
“We are extremely disappointed with recent reports regarding the sentence of Naser Al-Raas, and we are following up with Bahraini officials on the matter.
“We remain deeply concerned about Mr. Al-Raas’s situation in Bahrain. We call on the Bahraini government to review the case in light of the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry to ensure, among other things, free political expression and protection from arbitrary detention. Canada hopes to see these recommendations applied in the case of Mr. Al-Raas.
“We continue to raise Mr. Al-Raas’s situation with the Bahraini government and to press for his case to be resolved expeditiously, particularly in view of Mr. Al-Raas’s grave health concerns. Consular officials in Ottawa, Riyadh and Manama are in contact with Mr. Al-Raas’s family in Canada and with local authorities.
“We will continue to provide support to Mr. Al-Raas and press for a positive resolution of his case.”

Azerbaijan arrests plot suspects, cites Iran link
* Security ministry says suspects had indirect links with Iranian intelligence
* Azeri media report Israeli ambassador, rabbi targeted
* Israeli military says Hezbollah, others targeting Israel in attack bids abroad
By Lada Yevgrashina
BAKU, Jan 25 (Reuters) - Authorities in Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic bordering Iran, have arrested two men suspected of plotting to attack prominent foreigners including Israel's ambassador and a local rabbi, officials and media reported on Wednesday.
The National Security Ministry said the men were connected to an Iranian citizen who had links with Iran's intelligence.
Azerbaijan, a secular Muslim country, is home to more than 9,000 Jews and has friendly ties with Israel and the United States. A major energy producer, it exports oil to Israel and imports weapons and military hardware.
"Citizens of Azerbaijan - Rasim Aliyev and Ali Huseynov - were preparing an attack on public figures, who are foreign citizens," the National Security Ministry said in a statement.
The U.S. embassy issued a warning to its citizens saying "the possibility remains for actions against U.S. or other high-profile foreign interests in Azerbaijan".
The announcement came after several state websites in Azerbaijan were rendered inaccessible for hours this month by hackers who left threats and anti-Israel messages. That incident coincided with similar cyber attacks in Israel.
The ministry said the Iranian citizen, identified as Balagardash Dadashev, had helped the two buy weapons including sniper rifles, handguns and explosive devices in Iran and smuggle them to Azerbaijan.
Azeri media reported the suspects had been due to receive $150,000 and their targets included the Israeli ambassador and a local rabbi. The Israeli embassy said it was "operating as usual" and declined further comment.
On Jan. 16, hackers calling themselves the Azerian Cyber Army posted images of the devil over photographs of the Azeri and Israeli presidents, as well as messages saying "Servants of Jews" and "Enemies of Islam."
The same day, hackers disrupted online access to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, El Al Airlines and 3 banks in what the government described as a cyber attack against Israel.
Azeri authorities have said they had thwarted a plan by agents of Iran and Hezbollah to set off a car bomb near the Israeli embassy in Baku four years ago, as well as an alleged plot targeting the U.S. and British embassies in 2007.
In what may have been a reference to the plot, Israel's military chief said "we are witnesses to the ongoing attempts by Hezbollah and other hostile entities to execute vicious terror attacks at locations far away from the state of Israel."
Earlier, police in Thailand detained a Lebanese man earlier this month on suspicion of planning an attack. Officials said he had links with Hezbollah, a Shi'ite Islamist group in Lebanon backed by Syria and Iran that is on the U.S. blacklist of foreign terrorist organizations.
Diplomatic ties between Azerbaijan and Iran are cool, but Iranian companies operate and have stakes in oil contracts in the Caspian Sea state, which exports around 1 million barrels of crude a day (bpd) westward through a pipeline operated by a consortium led by BP. (Writing by Margarita Antidze in Tbilisi; editing by Steve Gutterman and Maria Golovnina)

Reform Party of Syria
"What blew the can open in Syria can be best understood in a descriptive article Claudia Rosett wrote in July of 2009 in her Rosett Report for the PJ Media entitled "Syria’s Imelda Marcos on Facebook; Check Out the Shoes".
Of Montaigne, Facebook, and Revolutions
Farid Ghadry
Abject poverty, the architect of Arab societies, is the result of a diabolical design created to suppress any thoughts of freedom in favor of a physiological pursuit in Maslow's pyramid of human needs.
The argument tyrants clear their throats with (Imported from the Soviet political system) rests on the notion that if an individual spends all his time hunting for food, he will have less time thinking of politics. Poverty, by design, is the ultimate weapon to suppress freedom of thought. What blew the can open in Syria can be best understood in a descriptive article Claudia Rosett wrote in July of 2009 in her Rosett Report for the PJ Media entitled "Syria’s Imelda Marcos on Facebook; Check Out the Shoes". Its immense significance lies in the effect this article is directly connected to today's Syrian Revolution. In March of 2011, just as the Revolution unfolded, Rosett wrote another entitled "What Should Asma al-Assad Wear to the Syrian Revolution? “ One article indirectly predicted the Revolution and the other confirmed it.
During the Soviet era, the publicly hidden gut of the Kremlin was the ultimate symbol of power as well as luxury. While the Soviet people ate rotting potatoes, in the Kremlin Vodka flowed and Caviar froze and the Soviet leadership was as equal, in comfort, to its western counterpart. But it was all hidden from the public view. The most a Soviet citizen could see were the modest rooms of a Dacha in the country.
Similarly, Hafez al-Assad lived a life of measured modesty. He may have been one of the richest men in the Arab countries but unless you entered the incredibly sumptuous palaces he lived in (With the exception of the modest photo op room), an average Syrian believed his leader lived a stern life and labored for his people.
But after the austere life of Hafez came the extravagant life of Baschar.
Michel de Montaigne was the first French Philosopher to invent the Essay (Essai) as a small narrative of a major subject matter. He was honored in Paris by naming Avenue de Montaigne after him. But what very few people know about this avenue are the purpose of those closed doors of the Haute-Couture boutiques that litter this luxury 8ème Arrondissement Avenue.
Those boutiques are open by appointment only to clients of stature willing to pay upward of a $100,000 for a chiffon only a French artist is able to turn it into a piece of art. It's where celebrities as well as wives of tyrants shop. These boutiques of dreams became Asma's watering hole. This is important from a Revolution vantage point because while Syrians labored and lived in abject poverty, Asma al-Assad was spreading her luxury on Facebook for all the young and unemployed Syrians to see. This whack-them-over-the-head vanity and arrogance spilled the beans of anger in the Syrian streets.
Rosett's attributed the befitting name of Imelda Marcos to Asma. However, if you followed the Vogue spread of Asma published in February 2011 designed to row backwards, you will notice Asma in very modest and down to earth lifestyle (They realized too late the importance of Rosett's article). But it was a bit too little and a bit too late because it appeared in March of 2011 just as the Syrian Revolution was blowing its volcanic top and smothering Asma with its eternal ashes of shame and burning Baschar with its deadly slow rolling and hot Lava.
What few know is that the Arab Revolutions added another dimension if you compare Mubarak with Assad. Revolutions are born not only as a result of sumptuous palaces of tyrants controlled by let-them-eat-cake Arab queens but also by the greed of corrupt Arab leaders. This makes Bastilles look like a cakewalk when the real eruption happens after this small one of 2011.
Just listen to the tremors caused by the Arab League today. Copyrights © Reform Party of Syria (Project Syria, Inc.) 2003-2011

UN council could vote on new Syria draft next week
UNITED NATIONS, (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council could vote as early as next week on a Western-Arab draft resolution endorsing the Arab League's call for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to transfer powers to his deputy, council diplomats said on Wednesday. It remains unclear whether Russia - which together with China vetoed a European-drafted resolution in October that condemned Syria and threatened it with sanctions over its 10-month crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators - is prepared to wield its veto powers once again to block council action on Syria.
European and U.S. delegations have been working with Qatar and the Arab Security Council member, Morocco, on a new draft resolution. The text, obtained by Reuters, urges council support for a "political transition" in Syria, where government forces have killed thousands of demonstrators inspired by Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa. "We hope to push forward with that in the Security Council quite quickly," a senior Western diplomat said on condition of anonymity. The new draft will replace a Russian text, which Western diplomats say is too weak and no longer relevant in light of the Arab League call for Assad to hand power to his deputy. Diplomats said they would like to put the new draft resolution to a vote next week. There is also a question of when Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby and Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, who heads the organization's Syria committee, will brief the council, as the two requested in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. That letter, also obtained by Reuters, calls for a special ministerial level meeting of the 15-nation council on Syria. One council diplomat said the League proposed holding that meeting on Feb. 8, though Western delegations would like to hold it sooner, using video conferencing technology if necessary.
"What we don't want to do is just do nothing in the Security Council until the eighth (of February)," the senior diplomat said. Another diplomat said the council would be discussing the timing of the Arab League briefing on Wednesday behind closed doors after consultations on Libya.
'POLITICAL TRANSITION'
The Arab League's new plan agreed to at the weekend calls on Assad to transfer power to his deputy and allow the formation of a unity government.
The draft resolution says the council "supports ... the League of Arab States' initiative ... to facilitate a political transition leading to a democratic, plural political system ... including through the transfer of power from the President and transparent and free elections under Arab and international supervision."It makes no mention of sanctions and appears to fall short of making compliance with the Arab League plan legally binding. But it does ask Ban to report to the council every 15 days on Syria's compliance with the terms of the resolution, which would formally put it on the council's agenda.
Russia has repeatedly said it does not want Syria to become another Libya, where Moscow contends that NATO misused its Security Council mandate to protect civilians as a vehicle for "regime change."
But Western diplomats said that Russia might find it difficult to use its veto against a resolution that is simply intended to provide support for the Arab League.
Russia and China have expressed interest in having the head of an Arab League monitoring mission in Syria, Sudanese General Mohammed al-Dabi, brief the council as well. Dabi said the level of violence had fallen since the mission arrived in Syria in late December, an assertion contested by Assad's opponents. Western diplomats, however, said there was no need to have Dabi brief the council and rejected the idea. The fate of the League's 165-strong monitoring team was thrown into doubt on Tuesday when Gulf Arab states began withdrawing 55 of their monitors, saying they had failed to stem the violence.

Is the Arab League Nabil el-Araby a conspirator?
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
On the 17th July 2011, following the visit of the Arab League Secretary General, Nabil el-Araby, to Syria, and his meeting with Bashar al-Assad, and the comments that followed, I wrote an article that stated that, “Syria responded quickly to the comments made by the new Secretary General of the Arab League Nabil el-Araby…however, the Secretary General's statements were not what one would expect from a seasoned politician”!
Today, after a long series of events and stances relating to the Syrian revolution, which up to now has left nearly seven thousand people dead, not to mention the thousands of detainees and missing persons, and has lasted ten months, we return once again to talk about Mr Nabil el-Araby and his positions towards Syria. Up until this day, the al-Assad regime has not held one member of its personnel accountable, but rather we see Walid Moallem saying that he does not know anything about how military activity operates in Syria, and that he has nothing to do with it. These are the same words that al-Assad said previously when he claimed that only a crazy leader would kill his own people! Mr el-Araby defended al-Assad the day he met him in Damascus, in July 2011. Surely el-Araby realizes today that nothing has changed in the behavior of the al-Assad regime since that date, but despite all this, el-Araby still makes strange and incomprehensible decisions, and appears to be defending the al-Assad regime. Even in his latest press conference in Cairo el-Araby was not convincing, despite the issuance of a new Arab initiative, and rather it was Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim who spoke with logic and clarity. Nabil el-Araby is still going against public opinion, choosing the leader of Hamas, Khaled Mishal, to convey messages to al-Assad, and choosing Mustafa al-Dabi’s team to head the delegation of Arab observers. Now we find el-Araby offering the Egyptian Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei the chance to be his representative in Syria, only because Bashar al-Assad may feel comfortable with ElBaradei, because of the stand he took against the strike on the Syrian nuclear reactor, his position on the Iranian nuclear file, and likewise his criticism of the West and the Americans. This is what I have heard from several high-level sources, but is this a joke or something real? With all due respect, what would ElBaradei do in Syria? Will he withdraw halfway through his task, like he did in Egypt? Will he disappear when the Syrian protestors are fired upon, like when he avoided going down to Tahrir Square on the first day of the Egyptian revolution? His excuse that day was that he did not want to steal the limelight from the youth, and this is what we described at the time as “knife and fork opposition”, and we were criticized for saying so!
This is a puzzling matter, and it requires us to pose the logical question about Mr. el-Araby, with reference to his choices and stances. The question is: Since el-Araby has chosen Khaled Mishal, Mustafa al-Dabi’s team - which presented its recent observation report as if it were answering to al-Assad rather than the Arab League - and now Dr. ElBaradei, should we expect el-Araby to choose Azmi Bishara and Mohamed Hassanein Heikal in the future?
To answer the question in the title, it does not seem that el-Araby is a conspirator, but he is a long way from understanding the region and its variables. Of course, if he truly wanted to conspire, he would have been more subtle!

Lebanese Forces Leader Samir Geagea , Future MP praise SNC ‘new page’ vow
January 27, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea praised Thursday a pledge by the opposition Syrian National Council to open “a new page” of bilateral relations should it take power.
“The Syrian National Council wants to correct relations [with Lebanon]. What matters is implementation. But it is a very good beginning to correct relations with Lebanon,” Geagea told a news conference at his residence in Maarab.
“The issues of border demarcation, the abolition of the Higher [Lebanese-Syrian] Council, energizing diplomatic relations and forming a committee to follow up the case of [Lebanese] missing [in Syria] confirmed that the Syrian National Council has hit the nail on the head with regard to relations between Lebanon and Syria,” he said. The SNC announced Thursday that, should it come to power in Syria, it will seek to re-evaluate agreements between Syria and Lebanon and clearly demarcate the border between the two countries as a first step toward achieving better bilateral relations.
“The Syrian National Council seeks a bright future with Lebanon ... We will review agreements signed between the two countries and reach new agreements based on the independent and common interests of both nations,” the council said in an open letter to the Lebanese posted on its official website. The council also said that the relationship between the two nations should be governed by the framework of diplomatic representation via the two countries’ embassies. The statement said the council would abolish the Higher Lebanese-Syrian Council, demarcate the Syrian border, particularly in the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms, and adjust the common border between Syria and Lebanon. The SNC also vowed to end Syria’s “security-intelligence role” in interfering in Lebanon’s affairs and proposed that a commission of inquiry be established to look into the cases of detained Lebanese and missing people in Syrian prisons. Lebanese NGOs say they have the names of 545 people who went missing and are now believed to be in Syrian prisons, all of them victims of forced disappearance during the 1975-1990 Civil War. The SNC’s letter was also welcomed by Western Bekaa MP Ziad Qaderi, a member of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s Future Movement parliamentary bloc which staunchly supports Syrian protesters against the regime.
Qaderi praised the SNC’s pledge that “a free, independent and democratic Syria” would recognize Lebanon as a sovereign and independent country. “Syria’s salvation from the tyranny of the Bashar Assad regime is a salvation for Lebanon and its democratic system,” Qaderi said in a statement.

Rai: Talks with Hezbollah focus on state
January 27, 2012/The Daily Star
BKIRKI, Lebanon: Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai said Thursday the ongoing dialogue between the Maronite Church and Hezbollah focused on the structure of the state and maintaining Lebanon’s neutrality in a turbulent Middle East facing a wave of popular upheavals demanding democratic change. Rai also warned that it would be “shameful” to return to the 1960 parliamentary election law, as top politicians are discussing a new law for the 2013 round. The patriarch also renewed his call on Lebanese not to sell their lands to foreigners. Rai spoke during a meeting with a delegation from the Journalists’ Union at the Maronite Patriarchate in Bkirki. “Our dialogue [with Hezbollah] does not replace the [National] Dialogue table. It is not a political dialogue. Bkirki, which represents the church, says the truth objectively,” Rai said. He was referring to the moribund national dialogue stalled since November 2010 because of differences between March 8 and March 14 parties over what topics to discuss.
Rai said the dialogue with Hezbollah, which was launched earlier this month, centers on three major topics: Lebanon’s existence as a state, the National Pact on sectarian coexistence and the state’s neutrality, and the country’s message of coexistence to the Arab world. “We are looking forward to the concept of a strong state. We must face anything that obstructs the establishment of this state. We should all raise ourselves to the level of the state,” Rai said. He called on all Lebanese to return to the National Pact because Lebanon is for all its people.
Rai sparked a controversy last year during a visit to France, where he linked the topic of Hezbollah’s weapons to an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The patriarch has repeatedly urged the international community to pressure Israel to fulfill its obligations under U.N. resolutions. He said the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shouba hills and the northern part of Ghajar village would deny Hezbollah the pretext to maintain its weapons.
Since becoming patriarch last year, Rai has reached out to Hezbollah, charting a course different from that of his predecessor, Cardinal Nasrallah Butros Sfeir, who repeatedly criticized Hezbollah’s arms and voiced support for the opposition March 14 coalition. Hezbollah has rejected local and international calls to disarm, arguing that its weapons are needed to defend Lebanon in the event of an Israeli attack.
Seeking to clarify an earlier statement in which he warned that the presence of Christians in the region was threatened by the popular upheavals in the Arab world, Rai said: “I did not say that I fear for the future of Christians in the Levant but for the future of Christians and Muslims and the Levant as a whole. Emigration [from the Levant] affects all religious communities and is common among Christians and Muslims.”While the government is still debating a draft election law based on proportional representation, the patriarch warned against a return to the 1960 election law, which adopts the qada as an electoral district and was used in the 2009 elections. Referring to last month’s meeting of Maronite political leaders and Christian lawmakers in Bkirki, which endorsed an election proposal made by the Orthodox Gathering, Rai said: “The focus was on the quality of representation and the best way to maintain an equal [division of parliamentary seats]. The results of these meetings have opened the door to dialogue and debate on the best election law. “It is shameful to go backward, that is, to return to the 1960 law because fundamental changes and developments at all levels have occurred in Lebanon,” Rai added.
While the Bkirki meeting endorsed the Orthodox Gathering’s election proposal, it stressed the need to hold dialogue with the rest of the Lebanese factions on the matter. The Orthodox Gathering’s proposal called for each sect to elect its own candidate based on proportional representation in 2013, but has drawn fire because it would further deepen sectarianism.

Syrian National Council promises better relations with Lebanon
January 26, 2012/The Daily Star
Leader of the exiled Syrian opposition grouping, the Syrian National Council, Burhan Ghaliou (R), attends a press conference in Moscow, on November 15, 2011. Members of the largest and most representative Syrian opposition grouping, the Syrian National Council, travelled to Moscow for talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.  BEIRUT: The opposition Syrian Council announced Thursday that, should it come to power in Syria, it will seek to re-evaluate agreements between Syria and Lebanon and clearly demarcate the border between the two countries as a first step toward achieving better bilateral relations. “The Syrian National Council seeks a bright future with Lebanon … we will review agreements signed between the two countries and reach new agreements based on the independent and common interests of both nations,” the council said in an open letter to the Lebanese posted on its official website.
The council also said that the relationship between the two nations should be governed by the framework of diplomatic representation via the two countries' embassies.
The statement said the council will abolish the Syrian-Lebanese Supreme Court, demarcate the Syrian border, particularly in the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms, and adjust the common border between Syria and Lebanon. Lebanon, backed by Syria, maintains that the Shebaa Farms, a small plot of land where Israel, Syria and Lebanon intersect , is Lebanese territory and therefore a point of dispute with Israel. Syria, however, has not officially proclaimed the Shebaa Farms to be Lebanese.
Lebanese politicians have called on successive governments to demarcate the border between Lebanon and Syria, as a number of villages in north Lebanon fall in unmarked areas.
Since the uprising in neighboring Syria began in mid-March, the lack of proper demarcation has made it difficult to determine whether Syrian military actions along the porous border constitute incursions into Lebanon.  The SNC also vowed to end what it described as the role of Syrian intelligence and security in Lebanon, which interfere in the country’s internal affairs. The Lebanese Civil War of 1975-1990 ended with Syrian tutelage over Lebanon until Syria withdrew its army in 2005 following mass protests demanding an end to Syria’s presence in the country.  The Council also said that a commission of inquiry should be established to look into the cases of detained Lebanese and missing persons in Syrian prisons. Lebanese NGOs say they have the names of 545 people who went missing and are now believed to be in Syrian prisons, all of them victims of enforced disappearance during the 1975-1990 Civil War. “These principles stem from the acknowledgement that Syria's interests are in seeing a relationship with Lebanon that is based on brotherhood, mutual respect, joint work, and mutual interests,” the SNC said. The SNC also thanked the Lebanese people for their solidarity with the protestors, as well as their political, humanitarian, and moral support for the Syrian revolution. Members of Lebanon’s March 14 coalition, led by former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, have voiced their support for the anti-government uprising, criticizing President Bashar Assad’s brutal crackdown against protesters. Assad attributes the escalating violence and number of deaths to armed groups he alleges have infiltrated Syria.

Kurds and sway
Tony Badran, January 26, 2012
Now Lebanon
Syrian Kurds living in Iraq demonstrate against the crackdown of the Assad regime on protesters. The Kurds are likely to wield increasing influence in Syria. (AFP photo)
If there is one group in Syria that embodies the trans-national currents running through Syrian society, and which is likely to have increasing influence in the post-Assad era, it’s the Kurds. Sitting at the intersection between Turkey, Syria and Iraq, the Kurdish minority, it is commonly recognized, will play a critical role in the success of the Syrian revolution and in the shaping of the post-Assad order.
It is also known that the Syrian Kurdish political scene is notoriously fragmented, with the traditional Kurdish parties harboring misgivings toward the Arab opposition groups as well as toward Turkey. These various cleavages have afforded the Assad regime an opening it sought to exploit.
Early on in the uprising, Bashar al-Assad moved to neutralize the Kurdish areas. He issued a decree naturalizing the registered stateless Kurds (the so-called ajanib, or “foreigners”) and repealed Decree 49 of 2008, which regulated land use and ownership in the border regions, and which was unanimously seen as anti-Kurdish.
Jordi Tejel, an expert on Kurdish affairs at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, with whom I spoke by email, agrees that these concessions were made “preventatively, in order to hinder or at least minimize Kurdish participation in the Syrian revolution.”
However, Assad did not fully achieve his objective. One factor that has consistently frustrated his efforts has been the Kurdish youth. “From the beginning,” Tejel commented, “the Kurdish youth has been active in demonstrations and sit-ins both in Northern Syria (especially in the Jazira) and in big cities such as Damascus and Aleppo. Thus, for example, students arrested at Aleppo University are mainly Kurds.”However, with the exception of the Yekiti Party, the Azadi Party and the Kurdish Future Movement—which, as Tejel noted to me, supported the revolution from the outset—the position of the other dozen or so traditional Kurdish parties remained ambiguous. “As a result of this,” Tejel added, some Kurdish youth “established their own revolutionary movements in Northern Syria. Interestingly, these groups worked closely together with the rest of the youth movement across Syria.”
Assad sought to capitalize on this divide as well. In June, he invited representatives from 12 Kurdish parties to meet with him in an attempt to coopt them. They declined—or rather, were forced to. Tejel explained that the Kurdish “youth protesters openly stated that they wanted the downfall of the regime and that the Kurdish parties could not establish a dialogue with Assad.”
Wladimir van Wilgenburg, an analyst with the Jamestown Foundation, concurred in an email, adding, “There is a lot of distrust among Syrian Kurds towards the Kurdish parties.”
Much like with the Arab opposition, a defining chasm in the Kurdish scene is the one between the youth and the traditional elites.
Another part of Assad’s tactic was to reach out to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and its affiliate in Syria, the Democratic Union Party (PYD). Suspicions quickly arose that there was a tacit deal between the regime and the PKK/PYD. Van Wilgenburg says, “These suspicions are empowered by the existence of Kurdish schools opened by the PKK, and the fact that the most important PKK leader [Murat] Karayilan indicated they would not be part of the conspiracy against Iran and Syria.”
The rekindling of the PKK’s relationship with the Assad regime is borne out of necessity, Tejel asserted—a result of the intense pressure the group is facing in Iraqi Kurdistan. For Assad, the alliance offered a way to counter those Kurds, like the Kurdish Future Movement’s former leader Mashaal Temo, who were willing to work with the Syrian Arab opposition.
However, Tejel was quick to add that “this ‘alliance,’ so to speak, is fragile.” For one, as a result of its questionable posture toward the regime, the PYD “is now isolated within the Kurdish arena and its position has become terribly uncomfortable. The PYD is especially sensitive to the criticism pouring from the youth.”
Moreover, the PYD’s relations with the Kurdish National Council—a recently formed coalition of 10 parties dominated by the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Syria, a sister organization of Masoud Barzani’s KDP in Iraq—are frayed. And there were even allegations that the PKK/PYD may have been complicit in Mashaal Temo’s murder.
These divisions currently define the traditional Kurdish political scene. Effectively, the Kurdish parties are now split into three main blocs: the Kurdish National Council (KNC), the PYD and The Union of Kurdish Democratic Forces in Syria—a coalition formed in December, including primarily the Kurdish Future Movement. (Outside this framework of parties are also the various youth gatherings and local Kurdish coordination committees, some of which have united in a coalition called Avahi.)
The Kurdish National Council recently moved to pressure the Arab opposition to recognize Kurdish rights and demands. Following a major meeting last week in Erbil, where they sought to formulate a common platform, the parties of the KNC suspended their participation in both major opposition groupings—the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the NCB.
Instead of seeking concessions from the regime, the Kurdish parties are now negotiating with the Arab opposition. In that regard, Iraq’s Masoud Barzani has assumed a notable role.
Barzani, who had declined an invitation from Assad to visit Syria, hosted the president of the SNC Burhan Ghalyoun earlier this month. According to some reports, Ghalyoun sought Barzani’s mediation to get the KNC to join the SNC. Negotiations are apparently ongoing, and the KNC’s secretary general, Abdul Hakim Bashar, said on Monday that the Kurdish council was awaiting the SNC’s response to some amendments to their respective political programs, which could allow for the two groupings to join forces.
Iraqi Kurdistan is thus emerging as a critical player in the Syrian arena, and a convergence point for many of Assad’s opponents, from Turkey to Lebanon. Even more so than with the Druze, the politics of the Kurds highlight the impact of cross-border ethnic ties and the critical role they will play in forging Syria’s future.
**Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He tweets @AcrossTheBay.