LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 01/2012
Bible Quotation for today/The Need to Watch
Luke 21/34-38: "Be careful not to let yourselves become occupied with too much feasting and drinking and with the worries of this life, or that Day may suddenly catch you like a trap. For it will come upon all people everywhere on earth. Be on watch and pray always that you will have the strength to go safely through all those things that will happen and to stand before the Son of Man.  Jesus spent those days teaching in the Temple, and when evening came, he would go out and spend the night on the Mount of Olives. Early each morning all the people went to the Temple to listen to him.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
 The imminent rise of Hamas/By Emad El Din Adeeb/February 29/12
 Syria: from Foreign Intervention to Military Intervention/By Abdullah Al-Otaibi/February 29/12
What did the Saudis say to al-Assad?/By Tariq Alhomayed/February 29/12
 Tyrants are never rational/By: Sever Plocker/February 29/12
 Muslims and Christians must also serve in IDF/By Moshe Arens/February 29/12
 The crucial benchmark/By: Hazem Saghiyeh/February 29/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 29/12
 US and Israel update Iran intelligence for Obama-Netanyahu summit
Chairman of US joint chiefs of staff, Dempsey: I didn't counsel Israel against Iran strike
 Netanyahu will urge Obama to publicly back attack on Iran, sources say
 U.S. policy aimed at 'buying time' with Iran, says senior official

 Iran: We have hidden capabilities 'for rainy days'
 Turkish FM: Iran nuclear talks may resume in April
 Top Iran official: Enemies will face 'rainy day' weapons in case of attack
 Iran could allow UN inspection of suspected nuclear test sites, IAEA envoy says
 In Turkey, freedom of expression is still treated like a disease
 US drafts outline of new UN Syria resolution
 Fears of extremism in Syria mount
 High price in journalist rescue
Sami Gemayel admonishes government to revise history curriculum
Lebanese united on stability: Plumbly
Future demands same criteria on all extra-budgetary spending
During Romania visit, Sleiman calls for Syria’s return to Arab League
Nahhas bitter about being forced to resign
 Qabbani yields to Mikati, postpones council elections
 Murder rocks Sidon as security fears rumble
Obama rules out military intervention in Syria, weighs humanitarian corridors
UN nuclear watchdog sees signs of 'activities' at Iran site, say diplomats
Cameron Says Wounded British Journalist Safe in Beirut
Syrian army assaults rebel district in Homs
 Syria troops 'mop up' in Homs
Syria official vows Homs quarter to be 'cleaned' within hours
 U.S. military draws up further Syria options: report
Egypt: Top Al-Qaida member arrested in Cairo airport
US: N. Korea agrees to suspend nuclear activities
Hezbollah: Israeli attack on Iran would set Middle East ablaze
 3 Syrians released in east Lebanon after 18 days of captivity
March 14 Urges Parliamentary Defense Committee to Debrief Ghosn over ‘Insulting’ Remarks from Iran
Hezbollah says Israel wants to drag U.S. into war on Iran
During Romania visit, Sleiman calls for Syria’s return to Arab League
 Future demands same criteria on all extra-budgetary spending
 Murder rocks Sidon as security fears rumble
 Gemayel from Rome: Israeli Rejection of Peace Contributes to Emergence of Extremism in Region
Lebanon through to World Cup qualifiers despite defeat
Beirut Likely to Become Permanent Base for Inter-Religious Dialogue

Obama rules out military intervention in Syria, weighs humanitarian corridors
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 29, 2012/ Despite his strong words against Bashar Assad’s horrendous treatment of the opposition to his rule, US President Barack Obama Tuesday, Feb. 28, has vetoed plans submitted to him last week for Western-Arab military intervention to stop it, debkafile’s Washington sources report. He is weighing an alternative plan for setting up “humanitarian corridors” in the most embattled areas. That too would be contingent on Russian endorsement, because Obama believes Moscow holds the key to Assad’s consent - or at least abstention from sending his army to attack the aid routes.The Russians have not so far responded to feelers on this from Washington. Neither have they rescinded their threat to block any such plan if tabled at the Security Council.
Ankara provided the clincher for the US president’s decision against military intervention in Syria by its evasiveness over participation in the operation. The plan has nowhere to go without Turkey’s cooperation and the use of its bases from which Western and Arab forces would mount the operation.
debkafile’s sources note that Turkish leaders are vocal about the pressing need to save the Syrian people, but when it comes to the brass tacks of operational planning, they develop cold feet.
The eight-point military plan rejected by Obama was first revealed exclusively in DEBKA-Net-Weekly 530 of Feb. 24. We are rerunning those points here since at some point - if the “humanitarian corridors” project fails to take off- the plan may be put back on the table.
1. A group of nations led by the United States will reserve a quarter of Syrian territory (185,180 sq. km) as a safe haven for protecting more than a quarter of the nation’s population (5.5 million people) a under a collective air shield.
2. The operation will be exclusively airborne. No foreign boots will touch the ground in Syria. American, Turkish, French, Italian and British Air Force planes will fly out from three Middle East air bases – Incirlik and Diyarbakir in Turkey, where the US maintains substantial air force strength, and the British facility in Akrotiri, Cyprus.
3. France has offered to make its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle available but accepts that without US air power, spy satellites and operational and logistical resources, the operation will not be feasible.
4. The safe haven will range from Tarkush on Syria’s northern border with Turkey and include the besieged towns of Jabal Al Zaweya, Idlib, Hama, Homs and their outlying villages.
5. The safe haven will be placed off limits to Syrian military and security personnel and its air space declared a no fly zone. Syrian intruders will be challenged by the Western fighter-bombers shielding the protected area.
6. The makeup of the coalition force for saving Syria is still a work in progress. Sarkozy has obtained the consent of Britain, Italy, Turkey and Qatar and is in discussion with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Participation of the last two would make it possible to expand the safe haven to southern and eastern Syria, to include the restive towns of Daraa, Deir a-Zour and Abu Kemal.
7. A regional Syrian administration assisted by Western liaison officers would run the safe haven’s day-to-day affairs. The coalition would take care of the population’s food, medicines and medical care needs.
8. The Western-Arab expedition would not seek Bashar Assad’s ouster as a mission goal or engage in combat with Syrian forces outside the safe haven.

US and Israel update Iran intelligence for Obama-Netanyahu summit
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 28, 2012/The media duel over Iran between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government went up a notch Tuesday, Feb. 28 with an Associated Press report by Kimberly Dozier asserting that Israel had decided finally that if an attack on Iran was judged necessary, the US would be kept in the dark “so as not to be held responsible for failing to stop a potential Israeli attack.”Referring to this claim, debkafile’s military and intelligence sources note that Washington would hardly need a heads-up from Israel because it commands every possible resource for finding out for itself what Israel is up to and for determining if its actions are for real or red herrings.
Indeed, last Sunday, Feb. 19, Washington’s suspicions were aroused by an Israeli military spokesman’s bulletin on the stationing of an Iron Dome anti-missile battery in the Tel Aviv district. Israel was asked for clarifications. To avoid appearing to have buckled down under US pressure, Israel waited four days before announcing a change of plan and the deployment instead of three batteries in Beersheba, Ashkelon and Ashdod, towns which are in line for missile attacks from Gaza rather than Iran.
US and Israeli sources stress that if the country were indeed headed for war, it would not be possible to conceal every sign of preparation, especially such civil defense measures as building up stocks of medicines, fuel and food, or orders to local authorities to make bomb shelters ready. Whenever Israel is suspected of switching over to eve-of-war mode, the Obama administration sends high officials over to talk to Israelis and find out what is going on. Indeed Western intelligence sources have taken to using the frequency of those visits as a barometer for judging the seriousness of an approaching Israeli attack on Iran. Last week, the US President’s National Security Adviser Tom Donilon spent time in Israel after Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey. He left Tuesday, Feb. 21, followed two days later by National Intelligence Director James Clapper. Sunday, Feb. 26, Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak flew to Washington. March 5, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu arrives at the White House for his date with President Barack Obama.
Most of these US-Israeli discussions have been devoted to laying the ground for this summit by a joint reevaluation of US and Israeli intelligence on Iran’s nuclear progress, whose conclusions will be put before the two leaders.
Both governments are meanwhile setting the scene for the event with tendentious media leaks, often drawing on outdated, long-refuted materials.
One of the least plausible items was run by AP Tuesday, claiming, “US intelligence and special operations officials have tried to keep a dialogue going with Israel, despite the high-level impasse, sharing with them options such as allowing Israel to use US bases in the region from which to launch such a strike as a way to make sure the Israelis give the Americans a heads-up.”
The basic facts emerging from the hot air surrounding the issue are that the Obama administration is dead set against any Israeli military action against Iran and that it remains an active option. The president and his advisers are working overtime to prevent it happening. The last thing on Washington’s mind therefore would be to support an attack by making US bases available merely for the sake of a heads-up. And another point: if Israel feels the need to absolve the US of responsibility, why would it use US bases?
The presence of US intelligence and special operations and intelligence officials at Israel military facilities is not news; this level of military cooperation goes back years. Tehran draws its own conclusions from the pace of US official visits to Israel and the ding dong between the two governments over an attack on its nuclear sites. This week, Iranian Defense minister classified the dispute as “a war game” and a deliberate game of deception. Of late, whenever top White House officials touch down in Israel in unusual numbers, Tehran announces yet another “large-scale military maneuver.”

Netanyahu will urge Obama to publicly back attack on Iran, sources say
By Barak Ravid/Haaretz
Intensive preparations underway to ensure a successful meeting between the two leaders next week in Washington, despite lack of trust between two sides. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to publicly harden his line against Iran during a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on March 5, according to a senior Israeli official.
Israel wants Obama to make further-reaching declarations than the vague assertion that "all options are on the table," the official said. In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain "red lines," said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threat. Officials in both Jerusalem and Washington acknowledge a serious lack of trust between Israel and the United States with regard to the issue of a possible strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. A senior U.S. official who is involved in preparing Netanyahu's visit to the United States - and who asked to remain anonymous - said intensive preparations are underway to guarantee the success of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama and to bridge this lack of trust.
The White House proposed to the Prime Minister's Office on Tuesday that the two release a joint statement following the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu. The goal of the announcement would be to bridge apparent disagreements between the United States and Israel, and to present a single U.S.-Israeli front in order to leverage pressure on Iran. To date, the United States still has not proposed a text for such an announcement.
According to sources, the lack of trust between Israeli and U.S. officials appears to stem from, among other things, a mutual feeling that the other country is interfering in its own internal political affairs. Netanyahu suspects that the U.S. administration is attempting to turn Israeli public opinion against an attack on Iran, say sources.
Meanwhile, they say, the Obama administration suspects Netanyahu is using Congress and the Republican candidates in the presidential race to put pressure on Obama to support such a strike.
Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a close ally of Netanyahu's, has contributed tens of millions of dollars to Republican candidate Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign - and this certainly has not helped to increase the trust between Obama and Netanyahu. Gingrich is expected to speak at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference two days after Obama, and one day after Netanyahu. Like the rest of the Republican presidential candidates, Gingrich is expected to attack Obama and claim he is "weak on Iran."
The issue of strengthening U.S. rhetoric against Iran was raised last week by Israeli officials who met with Tom Donilon, the U.S. national security adviser who visited Israel last week. It was also raised by Defense Minister Ehud Barak during his Washington visit, which included a meeting with Vice President Joe Biden yesterday. Other senior Israeli officials - such as Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon (Likud ) and Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor (Likud) - have made similar comments to senior U.S. officials recently.
The problem is not with the number of meetings between Israelis and Americans on the issue, but with the results of those meetings, according to a senior Israeli official who is heavily involved in the dialogue with Americans, but who asked to remain unnamed. "The talks with the Americans are like porcupines having sex: slowly and carefully," he said. "A lot of general statements that they think we want to hear, but we are constantly asking them what's the bottom line? How can the Iranians understand that if they do not stop they will attack in the end?"
The Obama administration's suspicions concerning Netanyahu were further fueled after Netanyahu and his advisers briefed a group of senators and senior congressmen during the past two weeks on the Iranian issue, and asked them to pressure Obama on the matter. Last week, Netanyahu met a group of five senior senators over lunch, headed by Sen. John McCain, who ran four years ago against Obama for president. Netanyahu reportedly told the senators he was not interfering in U.S. politics and expected U.S. officials not to interfere in Israeli politics either.
The topic quickly turned to Iran, according to reports. Netanyahu apparently complained bitterly about certain officials in the Obama administration who spoke out against an Israeli strike on Iran. But between the lines, some suggest that Netanyahu was speaking about Obama himself, as well as the other very senior officials in the administration. He reportedly told the senators that this kind of public discourse serves the Iranians.
Donilon, who was in Israel at the same time as the senators, received the same criticism from Netanyahu and Barak. Donilon reportedly told Netanyahu and Barak that the comments made by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not represent Obama's opinions, and that Obama was unhappy with Dempsey's statements, according to a senior U.S. official involved in the talks. Dempsey reportedly said, "I don't think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran," and added that a strike "would be destabilizing" and "not prudent." But Dempsey changed his tone in statements yesterday during a Senate hearing. He said he had not told Israel not to attack Iran, and that the United States has not taken any options off the table.
Netanyahu does not appear to be convinced by Dempsey's backtracking, and considers such reports to be part of a coordinated campaign against an Israeli strike, according to sources. In Netanyahu's view, this is all part of a goal to enlist both Israeli and U.S. public support against such a strike, sources say, and is part of what he considers to be U.S. interference in internal Israeli affairs.
The White House was furious after McCain spoke out after the meeting with Netanyahu, said one source. McCain said, "There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat. Unfortunately there clearly is some." The Obama administration viewed this as Israeli intervention in U.S. internal political affairs, with Netanyahu briefing McCain and McCain repeating his statements like a parrot, according to a senior U.S. official.
Netanyahu also believes that Obama's scheduled meeting with President Shimon Peres during the upcoming AIPAC conference constitutes an attempt by the United States to interfere in Israel's internal affairs, say sources. Netanyahu's suspicions were apparently heightened by last week's report in Haaretz that Peres will tell Obama that he objects to an Israeli attack on Iran. Since then, the relations between Netanyahu and Peres have been tense. Peres denied the reports, but Netanyahu and his staff do not seem to completely believe his denials. Peres and Netanyahu met on Friday and again yesterday, just as Peres was set to leave for the United States. The two worked hard to show an atmosphere of "business as usual," according to a source.
Peres reportedly updated Netanyahu about what he should say at the AIPAC conference, and it seems that the speech will be much more general and moderate than the original version Peres had planned. Netanyahu is also believed to have asked Peres to emphasize a number of matters in his meeting with Obama in an attempt to maintain a unified front. Whether Peres will do so remains to be seen.

Chairman of US joint chiefs of staff, Dempsey: I didn't counsel Israel against Iran strike
Yitzhak Benhorin/Ynetnews/Chairman of US joint chiefs of staff who recently said an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites would be imprudent now tells Senate committee he only discussed time issue with Israeli officials
WASHINGTON – Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Martin Dempsey told a Senate panel on Tuesday he did not counsel Israel against attacking Iran over its nuclear program. “We’ve had a conversation with them about time, the issue of time," he said. Dempsey was referring to his most recent visit to Israel a month ago.
Speaking at a Senate Budget Committee meeting, the US general also defended his comment that Iran was a rational actor. “We can’t afford to underestimate our potential adversaries by writing them off as irrational,” Dempsey said. Earlier this month, Dempsey said in a CNN interview that an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would be imprudent, destabilizing and would not achieve Israel's long term objectives. Asked whether a military strike by the US was off the table, Dempsey responded, “Absolutely not." He stressed the danger of nuclear weapons reaching terrorist groups and the beginning of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East involving countries threatened by Iran.
Clinton satisfied with sanctions
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that sanctions on Iran were tightening faster that the administration had expected. She said that Asian and European nations were implementing sanctions faster than the US had thought adding the administration is working intensively to implement tough sanctions. "We've seen a lot of action, a broad range of countries are making decisions to reduce their dependence on Iranian crude, unwind their dealings with the Central Bank of Iran," she said. "We are implementing the new Iran sanctions aggressively," Clinton told a Senate panel, outlining steps aimed at hobbling Iran's ability to make an atomic bomb by squeezing revenues from its oil exports. Clinton repeated that US intelligence assessments held that Iran had not yet decided to pursue a nuclear weapon. But she said it was important to work with other countries to keep up the pressure."I think that there's a very clear-eyed view of Iran and Iranian objectives and that's why the president's policy is so clear and adamant that the United States intends to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," she said. Reuters contributed to this report

Top Iran official: Enemies will face 'rainy day' weapons in case of attack
By Haaretz /Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi hails Iran's independent weapons industry, military, adding that the U.S. would have to take a 'new environment' under consideration. Iran is prepared with hidden "rainy day" military capabilities it is saving for when it is attacked, Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said on Tuesday, warning potential enemies of a "new environment" created by Iran's developing arms industry.Earlier Tuesday, a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions between top Israeli officials and Pentagon counterparts said that Israel indicated it would not warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The pronouncement, delivered in a series of private, top-level conversations, sets a tense tone ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and Capitol Hill. Israeli officials said that if they eventually decide a strike is necessary, they would keep the Americans in the dark to decrease the likelihood that the U.S. would be held responsible for failing to stop Israel's potential attack. Referring to the possibility of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, the country's defense minister warned possible perpetrators of Iran's secret weapons capabilities, saying that the "Islamic Republic of Iran has many hidden capabilities which are kept for rainy days." "We have not yet revealed all our capabilities," Vahidi told the semi-official Fars news agency, stressing the added value of Iran's independently run and operated military industry. "Undoubtedly, since our defense is an independent and defensive one based on our own defensive policies, special defense doctrines and our own indigenous defense and internal capabilities, the U.S. will face a completely new environment when gets involved with the new issues that Iran is pursuing and it will be obliged to think of this new environment," Vahidi said The top Iranian official also spoke of what he said was the United States' inability to influence Iran's military progress, saying that, "naturally, they cannot reach this point since we have not displayed all our capabilities and capacities." "These days Americans badly fear that an incident happens in the region and they can't stand against the Islamic Republic's firm positions vis-à-vis that given event," Vahidi told Fars.

3 Syrians Released in Central Bekaa after Payment of Ransom
by Naharnet /Three Syrians, who were kidnapped 18 days ago in the central Bekaa valley in eastern Lebanon, were released at dawn Wednesday after the payment of ransom to the abductors, the National News Agency reported.NNA said the three men kidnapped along with a fourth - released immediately after the abduction that took place on the Taanayel-Chtaura road on Feb. 11 - were transferred to the army intelligence headquarters to hear their testimonies.The agency did not specify the amount of the ransom paid to the abductors.The men have been identified as brothers Osama, Imad and Hisham Abdul Raouf and their employee Khaled al-Hamadeh. But the kidnappers later released 50-year-old Osama on the Ablah main road tasking him with bringing a 2-million-dollar ransom in return for setting free his brothers and al-Hamadeh.NNA said that the kidnappers released the three men in an area in the central Bekaa without specifying the location.The four Syrians were in their black Mazda four-wheeler carrying the 801162 Syrian license plate when gunmen in a green Envoy SUV intercepted them.The Mazda is registered in Osama’s name.

Gemayel from Rome: Israeli Rejection of Peace Contributes to Emergence of Extremism in Region
by Naharnet/Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel blamed on Wednesday Israel for the ongoing state of instability in the Middle East.He said: “Israel’s rejection of peace is contributing to the emergence of extremists in the region.”He made his statements during his ongoing trip to Italy where he held talks with a number of officials, including Foreign Minister Franco Frattini.Gemayel continued: “Israel won’t be ready for peace before it completes its own ambitions.”“This will negatively affect Lebanon, which is suffering from Israel’s pressure to naturalize Palestinians in Lebanon,” he added.
His talks in Rome also focused on the Syrian crisis and the need to fortify Lebanon against the repercussions of the unrest.For his part, Frattini stressed the need for a dialogue of religions and civilizations in the region, adding that the international community is keen on ending the unrest in Syria.

The imminent rise of Hamas
By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat
I recently met with Khaled Mishal, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, at a special dinner in Cairo. The conversation was heated and extremely candid on both sides, and there was no agreement between us regarding the publication of its contents. However, I maintain the right to make some remarks that do not violate the rules of our meeting. I must emphasize here that throughout this conversation, I became aware of many of the details that govern the rules of decision-making within Hamas, in light of the exceptional circumstances of the Israeli occupation that has no measure of humanity or respect for the norms of human dealings. I also realized the formidable challenges that Palestinian decision-makers face, both inside and outside of Gaza, with regards to the difficult daily economic conditions of the Palestinian citizens in these areas. Yet the point that I wish to dwell upon is the sense of Arab negativity towards the sufferings of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank, who are besieged by occupation on the one hand, and poverty and starvation on the other. The repercussions of the "Arab Spring", which currently preoccupy global capital cities and the major states in the region, must not distract us from the gravity of the volatile situation in the areas under the control of Palestinian Authority, or in those under occupation. This goes for what happened recently at the site of the holy al-Aqsa Mosque, to the systematic Israeli operations to re-arrest the released prisoners. It is my conviction that Hamas' role in the future will increase in direct proportion to the rise of the ruling Islamic currents in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and soon in Syria. Such changes will give Hamas growing political, dynamic and financial support, in light of the new regimes that share the same frame of reference in the Muslim Brotherhood. As for Khaled Mishal himself, he is an independent case with an Islamic frame of reference. In 1971, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood – its Palestinian wing – and performed a key role in organizing dozens of leaderships for the movement. In 1987, he became a member of the Hamas Political Bureau, and in 1996 he was elected as Chairman.The coming months will witness unprecedented and fundamental changes in the balance of the Palestinian political powers. Major Arab capital cities will soon be required to deal with these powers with a greater degree of awareness, flexibility and speed. In short, the coming phase will belong to Hamas, and its main focal point will be Khaled Mishal.

Syria: from Foreign Intervention to Military Intervention
By Abdullah Al-Otaibi
Asharq Alawsat
The Syrian regime's escalation of its military operations and its bloody confrontation with its own people cannot be understood outside of the context of the Russian-Chinese veto in the Security Council. It seems Bashar al-Assad has now consciously chosen not to leave the country unless a civil war there is ensured.
The size of the crimes committed in Syria – which can now be classified as massacres, the continual escalations in Baba Amr, Daraa and elsewhere, the military vehicle operations and the persistent attempts to eradicate the protestors mean that many world leaders can no longer remain silent about what is going on there. Hence I refer to King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz's recent position regarding Russia, and specifically its attitude towards Syria. With his customary frankness, King Abdullah told the Russian President [Dmitry Medvedev]: “It would have been better if our Russian friends had carried out Arab – Russian coordination before utilizing their veto at the UN Security Council…as any dialogue now about what is happening in Syria is futile.”
Russia has failed to interpret the Saudi stance towards what is happening in Syria, and has failed even more in gauging how serious it is. In fact, anyone who has monitored recent Saudi stances, especially King Abdullah's statements and policies, would easily deduce that Saudi Arabia, together with the Gulf states, have always maintained a unified position towards Syria in the Arab League and, later on, in the Security Council. King Abdullah's stance indicates explicitly that Russia should have taken into account its interests in the Gulf and other Arab states before it used its veto.
Instead, Russia has entered the region's hornet's nest in search for honey; the honey of the Syrian regime, and with it Iran and Nouri al-Maliki's Iraq - not the Iraqi people's Iraq. By persistently upholding its stubborn stance and using its veto, Russia also thought it could extract gains from the Gulf. It procrastinated by issuing shaky policies, statements and visions, all in an endeavor to buy more time and influence at the bloody Syrian negotiating table. The Russian stance is calculated on the possible profits and losses if it continues to support the teetering regime, or the maximum price it can secure if it were to change its stance, via political exploitation.
King Abdullah's stance cannot be considered out of the ordinary or away from customarily calm Saudi diplomacy, for no one should remain silent about the grave situation in Syria; enough is enough. This is clear when we see the al-Assad regime conspiring with Iran and its adherers to kill unarmed people using all manner of weapons; traditional or advanced, regular or chemical. Media outlets show the regime's use of different kinds of highly lethal weapons and gasses and other harmful means to punish its own people.
I do not think such a strong political stance by Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah is meant to close the door entirely on negotiations with Russia, but rather it is meant as an attempt to transfer negotiations to the political table, away from the massacres that must be ceased as soon as possible. The Saudi stance also means that the Russians must acknowledge the serious Saudi, Gulf and international attitude in response to their actions in the Security Council, and what happened thereafter. What the Russian leadership seems to have failed to understand is that the Arab stance towards Syria has the sole aim of ending the regime's violence and forcing it to go. This is a position that has been adopted by the stable Gulf states more so than the protesting [Arab Spring] states. With the exception of the Egypt, which has taken a markedly different approach to that of other uprising states such as Tunisia and Libya, the stable states, i.e. the Gulf states, have adopted a clear and serious stance which the Russian leadership has failed to pay attention to, in the midst of an ever changing scene in the Middle East.
What the Russian leadership has also failed to understand is that Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, the Arab League, and the supporters of the Syrian people - now consisting of the majority of global countries - all have bargaining chips which they can use on or under the table, and at all levels.
As for the Iranian regime, being al-Assad's strongest ally in the region, the statements issued by its officials exude hostility towards the Syrian people and are brazenly pro-Assad. The latest of these statements was issued by Ali Akbar Wilayati, an advisor to the Supreme Guide, who defended the al-Assad regime and stressed that it "will not fall." In spite of these rehashed words evoking the discourse of resistance and confrontation against the Zionist enemy, the real agenda was exposed when Wilayati openly stated that "Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah all are backing Syria strongly."
The Iranian regime has a tendency to “show off”, as happened earlier when it announced it would send battleships to sail near US fleets in the Gulf, believing that it could do as Japan did in Pearl Harbor in the past. This move may have been meant as a form of local propaganda; however the battleships which Iran sent to Syria last week do not seem particularly imposing or influential. These ships can only carry small arms and military equipment, along with soldiers, and it is likely that they have been sent to transport goods out of Syria in coordination with the regime, such as money or even some of the regime's wounded elements. Thus, the two situations [Iran’s latest acts of aggression and the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor] are markedly different, although both were intended as acts of muscle-flexing.
There have been signals from more than one Western capital indicating possible armament and support for the Syrian opposition and the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Arab states seem to be ready for this situation, yet I believe that supporting the FSA alone is insufficient to confront the tyranny of the al-Assad army, and that external military operations must be considered. This demand was put forth by the Syrian National Council (SNC) prior to the “Friends of the Syrian People" conference in Tunisia. This demand has also been persistently made by the wounded people of Syria, who now live among decaying corpses. Deputy Commander of the FSA Malik al-Kurdi has been remarkably frank in this regard when saying: "What is actually required goes far beyond the Libyan scenario. We call upon NATO to ensure an air and maritime coverage to coincide with the entry of Turkish-Arab troops. The FSA, when armed, can topple the regime, but this will take a long time", (Asharq al-Awsat, Thursday 23rd February).
When the Syrian people were demanding foreign intervention a few months ago, some Syrian opposition politicians and intellectuals were hesitant to support such a demand. Now, however, in view of the Syrians’ constant cries for help, everyone is now supporting this demand and working towards its fulfillment. It is a considerable requirement and it must be met promptly and effectively.

What did the Saudis say to al-Assad?
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Alawsat
Saudi Arabia has said, over and over again, that its religious and moral duty behooves it to take the stand it has adopted today against the al-Assad regime, and this is in order to protect the unarmed Syrians, and to protect Syria itself from who knows what awaits it, in light of al-Assad’s brutal repression.
Last week, the Saudi King told the Russian President that he has religious and moral standards, as does his country, towards what is happening in Syria. The day before yesterday, the Saudi ministerial cabinet, chaired by King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, reiterated that “that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be at the forefront of any international effort aiming to achieve urgent, comprehensive and effective solutions to protect the Syrian people”. As a result [of this proactive Saudi stance], there are now those who ask why Saudi Arabia did not try to convince al-Assad himself in the past, and others, from among the al-Assad regime’s affiliates, who now seek to slander and defame the Kingdom at every opportunity, such as the tyrant of Damascus’ ambassador to the United Nations, while others now say that Saudi Arabia is simply trying to lecture them on democracy.
Is Saudi Arabia really dictating its conditions to the tyrant of Damascus, and stipulating specific steps? Is the Kingdom really adopting this crucial position now, without ever trying to exert peaceful efforts upon al-Assad in the past? To answer these questions we must consider the following story, and consider the difference in terms of wisdom, credibility and nobility between those who offer genuine advice, and those who kill in order to stay in power!
At the beginning of the revolution, Bashar al-Assad contacted Saudi Arabia saying that matters were getting worse in Syria, no one was standing by him, and he was facing financial difficulties and so on. At the time, al-Assad said that he felt abandoned by everyone, and asked for advice, saying that he was ready to respond to whatever he needed to hear, and what would be asked of him.
However, Bashar al-Assad’s phone call, the subject of our conversation, took place at the same time as the Syrian regime’s media was accusing Saudi princes of standing behind the Syrian revolution, and claiming that the revolution was a Wahhabi conspiracy. The Saudi response to al-Assad was as follows: We don’t want to do anything at all, the Syrian problem lies within Syria, and within your hands specifically. All we ask is that you stop the killings. Do not kill. Hence the advice we give you is simply: Go out and address the Syrians, make your speech brief, no more than ten minutes, and give them more than they are asking for. Grant them more than the demands they have come out to protest for, and then you will have saved Syria and answered your people.
This was the guidance offered by Saudi Arabia, nothing more, nothing less, and the reader will certainly note that this is concise and fatherly advice, but what happened of course was the opposite. Al-Assad’s speeches were long and drawn out, and his troops have been killing the Syrians over the past eleven months, whilst he has offered only weak promises of reform. Bashar al-Assad has now come out with a ridiculous constitution to ensure that he rules until the year 2028, and worse still the al-Assad regime claims that 89 percent voted in favor of this farce!
Is it Saudi Arabia that is hostile towards al-Assad? Of course not, al-Assad is his own enemy, just as he is the enemy of the Syrians.

Syrian troops launched a ground attack in Homs
AMMAN, (Reuters) - Syrian troops launched a ground attack in Homs on Wednesday in an apparent attempt to overrun the rebel-held Baba Amro neighbourhood that has endured 25 days of siege and fierce bombardment, opposition sources said. "The army is trying to go in with infantry from the direction of al-Bassel football field and fierce confrontations with automatic rifles and heavy machineguns are taking place there," activist Mohammad al-Homsi told Reuters from Homs. He said the military had shelled Baba Amro heavily on Tuesday and overnight before the ground attack started.
Several Western journalists are trapped in the battered district, although Syrian activists escorted British photographer Paul Conroy to safety in nearby Lebanon on Tuesday in a messy escape in which some of his rescuers were killed. Reports from Baba Amro could not immediately be verified due to tight government restrictions on media work in Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad is struggling to repress an almost year-long uprising against his 11-year rule. Activists say hundreds of civilians have been killed in besieged opposition districts of Homs, including at least 20 on Tuesday. Shells and rockets have been crashing into Baba Amro since Feb. 4. Army snipers pick off civilians who venture out. The International Committee of the Red Cross and its local partner, the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, have been pushing for a ceasefire to enable them to extricate wounded civilians and bring in desperately needed supplies of food and medicine.
The United Nations says Assad's security forces have killed more than 7,500 civilians since the revolt began last March.
"There are credible reports that the death toll now often exceeds 100 civilians a day, including many women and children," U.N. Under-Secretary-General for political affairs Lynn Pascoe told the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday. "The total killed so far is certainly well over 7,500 people."
Syria's government said in December that "armed terrorists" had killed over 2,000 soldiers and police during the unrest.
DRAFT U.N. RESOLUTION
As world dismay grew over the bloodshed, France said the Security Council was working on a new Syria resolution and urged Russia and China not to veto it, as they have previous drafts.
An outline drafted by Washington focused on humanitarian problems to try to win Chinese and Russian support and isolate Assad, Western envoys said. But they said the draft would also suggest Assad was to blame for the crisis, a stance his longtime ally Russia in particular has opposed.
Asked by a U.S. senator whether Assad could be called a war criminal, Clinton told a Senate hearing: "There would be an argument to be made that he would fit into that category". She added, however, that using such labels "limits options to persuade leaders to step down from power".
Russia and China vetoed a draft resolution on Feb. 4 that would have backed an Arab League call for Assad to step down. China indicated a possible shift late on Tuesday when it told the head of the Arab League it supported international efforts to send humanitarian aid to Syria.
But Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi also urged political dialogue in Syria, something ruled out by Assad's opponents while the bloodshed goes on, and Russia has warned against interference in Syria under a humanitarian guise.
Syria's U.N. envoy in Geneva stormed out of the U.N. Human Rights Council after saying other nations must stop "inciting sectarianism and providing arms" to Syrian rebels.
Conroy, who works for London's Sunday Times, was spirited safely out of Homs into Lebanon on Tuesday. "He is in good shape and in good spirits," the newspaper said.
He had been among several journalists trapped in Baba Amro, where Marie Colvin, a veteran war correspondent also with the Sunday Times, and French photographer Remi Ochlik were killed in a bombardment on Feb. 22. Their bodies are still there.
Confusion surrounded the fate of French freelance reporter Edith Bouvier, who was wounded in the same attack. President Nicolas Sarkozy initially said he had been informed that Bouvier had been evacuated, but later said that had not been confirmed.
Activists said Bouvier was back in Baba Amro, along with Spanish journalist Javier Espinosa and French photographer William Daniels, after a failed attempt to smuggle them out.

Muslims and Christians must also serve in IDF
By Moshe Arens/Haaretz
It was not right that the attention of the Tal Law's cancellation has all been focused on the ultra-Orthodox community's absence from the IDF, while the Muslim and Christian community has been effectively disregarded; equality is indivisible.
If you're an Israeli citizen who is ultra-Orthodox, Muslim or Christian, you're exempt from sharing the burden of the country's defense with your fellow citizens who are Jewish or Druze. There is no discrimination here - these religious communities are equal when it comes to not defending the country. To be precise, not quite all. The young men of the small Circassian community residing in Kafr Kama and Reikhaniya in the Galilee, although Muslims, are obligated to do compulsory military service. They are the exception.
The wording of the Supreme Court ruling invalidating the Tal Law - which allowed full-time yeshiva students to defer army service - may have had great significance to members of the legal profession. They surely understood when the judges called the law unconstitutional and not proportional. For the rest of us, there was no need for this legalese. We knew all along that it was just not right - that the burden of defense was not being shared equally among all its citizens regardless of their religious affiliation
As a matter of fact, it was not right that the attention has all been focused on the ultra-Orthodox community's absence from the IDF, while the Muslim and Christian community has been effectively disregarded. Equality is indivisible, not even along religious lines. This is true, everyone must admit, when it comes to the rights that all citizens of Israel must enjoy. It is equally true in a democratic society when it comes to the obligations of citizenship. And yet, for over 60 years this blatant discriminatory situation, affecting the ultra-Orthodox, Muslims and Christians, has existed in Israel. Indeed, the number of young men not serving in the IDF has increased year on year.
The excuses offered for this anomalous situation are numerous. For the ultra-Orthodox, it is said that their "learning" is more important to the State of Israel than their presence in the military. For Muslims and Christians, it is argued that, being Arabs, they cannot be obligated to fight against the Arab enemies of Israel.
The truth is that the ultra-Orthodox community does not want its young men mingling with others in the IDF, and ultra-Orthodox political parties have, over the years, used their political leverage to bar any changes in the exemption from military service that their community has enjoyed. As for Israel's Arab community, it has quietly accepted the not insignificant economic benefits that accrue to those not doing obligatory military service, while a small minority volunteers for military service year by year.
The invalidation of the Tal Law provides an opportunity to tackle this abnormal situation. The obligations of citizenship must be shared equally by all of Israel's citizens. By no stretch of the imagination can this be done by another law. The present situation has existed for too long and involves too large a number of Israel's citizens for it to be changed in one fell swoop. It is obvious that the process of normalization can only be carried out gradually, year by year.
The special IDF frameworks that have been established in the last few years to facilitate the military service of Haredim have to be enlarged, doubling the number of ultra-Orthodox serving in the IDF year on year. For young Muslims and Christians, a number of steps need to be taken. The Bedouin infantry regiment, in which Bedouin serve on a voluntary basis, should be enlarged. Another such regiment should be formed, and volunteering for service in the IDF by Israel's Arab citizens should be promoted and encouraged.
Obligatory military service should be applied to the Bedouin in the Galilee, where the volunteer rate is substantial. It has been suggested that "national service," or "civilian service," can be a substitute for military service for those not serving in the IDF. This is an illusion which only emphasizes that certain sectors of the population are being allowed to avoid the military service to which the rest of the population is subject. It serves as an indication that it is acceptable that certain communities don't take part in the defense of the country.
This concept - that a part of the population is exempt from defending the country because of their religious affiliation - is not acceptable and never will be acceptable. Defense of the country is the ultimate obligation of citizenship by all its countrymen, without exception.

Iran: We have hidden capabilities 'for rainy days'
Dudi Cohen/Ynetnews/Defense Minister vahidi says Islamic Republic yet to reveal all its military capabilities. Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said Tuesday that the Islamic Republic has yet to reveal all of its military capabilities, the semi-official Fars news agency reported. "The Islamic Republic of Iran has many hidden capabilities which are kept for rainy days," Vahidi said, adding, "We have not yet revealed all our capabilities."Referring to a Wall Street Journal report saying that the US has reinforced its military presence in the Presian Gulf Vahidi said, "These days Americans badly fear that an incident happens in the region and they can't stand against the Islamic Republic's firm positions vis-à-vis that given event."Addressing Israeli strike threats he said that Washington is against statements regarding the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites as it is aware of Iran's power and that anyone who becomes involved in a conflict with it will come out defeated.

Tyrants are never rational
Ynetnews/By: Sever Plocker
Op-ed: We should all thank Olmert for recognizing Assad’s madness, bombing Syrian reactor
Detached from reality,” “only understands force,” “delusional,” “mentally deranged” – these are just some of the derogatory terms being hurled at Syrian ruler Bashar Assad. The condemners and cursers are not Zionists, imperialists or other enemies of the Arab nation, but rather, an integral part of it: Rebelling Syrian residents and their supporters in the Arab world. In the recent “Friends of Syria” conference that included the United States and Britain – but not Russia or China – all Arab states took the rebels’ side. Most Arab countries demanded Western military intervention that would end the carnage. Only the non-Arab Iran still supports the bloody regime of Assad Junior. As to myself, on occasion I look up to the heavens and express silent gratitude. Thank you, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, for apparently having the courage and leadership to decide one dark night on an aerial assault that - according to foreign reports - destroyed a Syrian nuclear facility shortly before its activation and killed several North Korean engineers. In an intelligence failure that could have dwarfed the one before the Yom Kippur War, Israel apparently discovered the existence of this nuclear site dramatically late. Prime Minister Olmert could have adopted several steps: Convene a secret commission of inquiry, leak the story to the foreign media, accuse the IDF of failure, enlist global diplomacy to the cause, and so on.
Yet Olmert apparently chose a different option. After looking into practical alternatives, he did what one would expect of a prime minister: He assumed full responsibility and decided to bomb.
Many Israelis today thank late Prime Minister Menachem Begin for his order to bomb Iraq’s nuclear reactor. Few remember to thank former PM Olmert, may he live long, for his order on September 6th, 2007.
What would experts say?
It’s horrifying to think what would have happened in our region today had Olmert avoided a decision and bequeathed it to the next prime minister. Where would Assad be, when he possesses nuclear arms, what kind of intervention would the West be able to consider, and where would we be?
Israel’s civil society was not privy to the drama that likely preceded the operation. We can assume that most media commentators would have spoken out against it. Syria experts would tell us that Bashar Assad, a graduate of Britain’s education system, is a rational statesman. Should he be bombed late at night by Israeli jets, in the midst of Turkish-mediated peace talks no less, he would respond furiously and order a heavy bombardment of the Golan and Galilee regions.
On the other hand, the experts would have said, should we refrain from bombing the nuclear site, the rational Bashar Assad will face pressure and sanctions. He would be forced to embark on negotiations with the international community, which would demand that he shut down his nuclear facility. If not immediately than in a year, two years, or three years…
When making his decision, Olmert ignored the basic premise that prevailed at the time in respect to Syria, whereby Bashar Assad is a rational politician. Olmert reached the opposite conclusion, which leaders of the civilized world only reached this year, at a regrettable delay: Assad is an irrational leader. He is “detached, “delusional,” and “only understands force.” Hence, one would be right and justified to use force to curb Assad’s nuclear aspirations.
Olmert is believed to have issued the order, the Israeli jets took off, and their operation succeeded beyond expectations. Without this Olmert decision, the world today would not even be able to consider military action against Assad. The lesson is not that we should always bomb without waiting or that military alternatives should only be discussed behind closed doors. In my view, the lesson mostly pertains to the issue of rationality and is unequivocal: There is no such thing as a rational tyrant. If you lead a tyrannical regime that brutally suppresses fundamental freedoms in your country, this is the ultimate proof that you are irrational. And this is how you and your caprices should be treated.

The crucial benchmark
Hazem Saghiyeh/Now Lebanon
February 27, 2012
Despite the disappointment created by the Friends of Syria conference in Tunisia, one may venture to say that the regional and international situation cannot afford letting Syria burn as is currently the case. As per its position, Syria occupies a central position [on the Middle Eastern map] and is one of the most volatile world countries. It is Iraq’s neighbor and lies at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict, or what is left of it. It affects Lebanon, Jordan, the situation in Palestine and, to a certain extent, Turkey. While it is not far away from the oil cradle in the Arab Peninsula and the Gulf, its close alliance with Iran has become a universal major concern. The Russian and Chinese veto in the Security Council saved the Syrian regime and complicated any subsequent attempt to weaken it from the outside. Still, this does not mean that Moscow has not put its smaller ally in a predicament. It has actually attached the Syrian crisis to a conflict between Russia and the West that reminds commentators and observers of the Cold War. As has become known, the Soviet Union – rather than Russia – and [then-Egyptian President] Jamal Abdel Nasser – rather than [current Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad – were unable to emerge victorious from the Cold War. After the Cold War, the West intervened in former Yugoslavia and ousted [former Serbian President] Slobodan Milosevic without paying heed to Russia’s tough stance supporting the Serbian dictator or the ethnic, religious and sectarian ties between the Russians and the Serbs.
It goes without saying that what was started in Tunisia will be continued in two subsequent conferences in Istanbul and Paris, the results of which are difficult to predict. This holds true knowing that the limitless and mounting violence displayed by the Syrian regime against its own people is likely to lead to a major reshuffling of cards, standpoints and Western public opinion responses.
The above does not aim to spread naïve and rash optimism regarding a [potential] international intervention, especially since the United States is still clearly confused; however, Syria has yet to become a controversial issue in the US presidential elections. Even though the popular movement in Syria has voiced its intention to stop the killings at all costs, its political forces and organizational structures are still shy when it comes to expressing this opinion and acting accordingly. Consequently, one can say that the coming period will be a benchmark for the Syrian regime’s ability to survive and the world’s ability to ensure its survival. So let us keep a close eye…This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Monday February 27, 2012

Let Us Do Our Job
Farid Ghadry Blog/Reform Party of Syria
Dr. Daniel Pipes wrote a piece arguing for "Inaction" on Syria because, in lieu of Assad, Islamic extremism will ascend to power. Dr. Zuhdi al-Jasser responded to Daniel using six precise arguments pivoting around the notion of US hope, morality, and defeating extremists. Daniel then responded (Same link above) to Zuhdi in another brief write-up but nonetheless standing by the main argument of "Let Syrians solve their own problems", which essentially means more killings. For anyone interested in the dynamics of Syria, this debate helps clear some issues and provides answers to some puzzling questions but it also raises other important questions besides morality and America's message. Islamic terror began to take root shortly after tyranny was established in several countries like Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Either driven by the regimes and the ruling families or by disfranchised Muslims who found freedom in the bosom of a Mosque and then turned violently against the west for turning a blind eye towards tyranny (i.e. The devil you now).To argue for inaction is to perpetuate a game of Russian roulette, which at the end will have one of two impacts: 1) Either Assad, holding the gun to your temple, wins, thus fostering more Islamic extremism, which will explode in the region or, 2) Assad loses but not before sparking a religious war that will touch everyone in the region, including Israel -- 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs not to speak of the almost 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who will, given their disposition for conspiratorial theories, accuse Americans like Daniel for starting this religious war.
While Arabs and Muslims fight each other in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan, Palestinians will hurl accusations and rockets against Israel first and burn US flags second. If the US remains on the sidelines, this is exactly how Putin will turn Arabs against the US and Israel. It takes an Arab raised in a Soviet system to see the trailer of this movie.
We have no choice but to separate the two sides by defeating Assad to prevent an all-consuming supremacist war that may yield either more extremism or more hate in the region. It does not mean that waiting for a neighborly war to end while the bullets ricochet off your window sills that you will be fine. As far as Islamic extremists ascending to power, this may be true and I am one who argued, on many occasions, that the SNC, which is majority-ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, will lodge more extremists in the new Syrian government than we wish for. For people like Zuhdi, and many others, being the alternative to both alternatives has no value for any western policy maker because all eyes are either on tyranny or Islamism. We are given no chance of success because we do not have a Saudi-like lobby or a Muslim Brotherhood-like organization. Further, the west argues for a political solution in terms of the strong horse and not in terms of the strong ideas. Supporting the strong ideas within the framework of a weak link is way less important than supporting the strong horse within the framework of a bad link; even though strong ideas are the basis of the democratic values the west embraces successfully. Syria cannot afford tyranny the same way she cannot afford Islamism. If the Syrian "strong ideas" elements are unable to muster western support, then we have no choice but to dislodge Assad and to let Syrians control Islamism on their own. We are the guardians against the two evils and the west must trust we will do our job even without its support until Arabs reach for their own firmament. The more the Middle East looks like a carousel of tyrants, the more dangerous the region will become and inaction on Syria will result in either much more harmful tyranny or even worse Islamism.
The west can no longer afford to stand guard outside the tyrants' parties while more and more Muslim extremists keep crashing them until they take control. As Zuhdi said, defeating Islamism will occur through the war on ideas. But how can you defeat Islamism by supplying it with oxygen in the form of tyranny? Time to stop kicking the can down the road by supporting a military-based regime change for Syria. The worst that could happen is we let, with our diligence, another form of government fails on its own.
Copyrights © Reform Party of Syria (Project Syria, Inc.) 2003-2011