LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 03/2012
Bible Quotation for today/The Argument about Greatness
Luke 22/24-30: "An argument broke out among the disciples as to which one of them should be thought of as the greatest. Jesus said to them, The kings of the pagans have power over their people, and the rulers claim the title Friends of the People. But this is not the way it is with you; rather, the greatest one among you must be like the youngest, and the leader must be like the servant. Who is greater, the one who sits down to eat or the one who serves? The one who sits down, of course. But I am among you as one who serves.  You have stayed with me all through my trials; and just as my Father has given me the right to rule, so I will give you the same right. You will eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and you will sit on thrones to rule over the twelve tribes of Israel.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Why Netanyahu’s Visit to Discuss Iran Puts Obama in a Political Minefield/By Tony Karon/March 02/12
How to prevent an Israeli strike on Iran/ By UDI SEGAL/J.Post/March 01/12
Time for Assad to go/By Dennis B. Ross/March 02/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March 02/12
 Israeli
Top Israeli official: Conflicting U.S. remarks hurt efforts to press Iran
 Dennis Ross: 'Iran won't surprise world with nukes'
 With France out of the way, Turkey can deal with Iran's nuclear program
 Turkey's Erdogan to visit Iran following nuclear summit
 Russia, China join Security Council statement on Syria crisis
 Turkey: Iran, Russia will realize they must side with world on Syria
 Rebels defiant after Homs defeat
 Sarkozy Says Wounded French Journalists Safe in Lebanon
Russia Says Qaida Helping Syrian Opposition
Russia Says No Date Yet for Talks with GCC on Syria
Ghalioun: SNC Wants to Organize Delivery of Arms to Syria Rebels
Hizbullah Hits Back at Ban: U.N. 'Miserably Failed' to Liberate Lebanese Land
Lebanon braces for snow at altitude of 300 meters
Sleiman plays down impact of refugee influx
Kidnappings of Syrians work of one gang
Mikati unveils steps to stimulate economy
Lebanese Bank Audi plans to open 50-60 branches in Turkey
 MP, Qabbani files lawsuit for libel against MP, Nabil Nicolas
 Gemayel Requests from Napolitano that Europe Adopt Dialogue on Arab Revolutions


How to prevent an Israeli strike on Iran
By UDI SEGAL/J.Post
03/01/2012 21:52 US President Barack Obama should just say: “Trust me!” – but in a persuasive way.
The biggest mystery right now is whether Israel will attack or not. The American media are constantly addressing the issue – analyzing the hints, the subtext and the alleged differences between Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu; spending a lot of time – too much time – allowing every expert to contemplate if the IDF can or cannot do it; asking if Israel will or won’t tell the US ahead of time, speculating if anyone can stop the Israelis. Well, the truth is that US President Barack Obama has a quick and safe way to prevent Israel from attacking Iran.
He should just say: “Trust me!” – but in a persuasive way. Obama promised the American people that the United States will not allow Iran to go nuclear. This was not said to please Israelis but to convey a strategic interest of the US. It is a promise that in every way is a test of the president’s leadership. If he does not keep his word, he will lose everything: his integrity, his support, the Middle East, his Arab allies. That’s why he must create a reliable threat that he is willing to act at some point, to give the order to the US military to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
To “speak softy and carry a big stick,” as Theodore Roosevelt once said. To stop an Israeli military attack, all Obama should do is to say that now. To offer Netanyahu a presidential guarantee, or even a secret letter, specifying that if certain red lines are crossed, this will lead to an American attack.
It won’t be easy. Israel’s leaders abide by the “Holocaust-DNA,” meaning that when they swear “Never again!” they also mean that even their closest ally – the United States – cannot be fully trusted.
As David Makovsky wrote in Foreign Policy: “Many Israeli military leaders are children of Holocaust survivors who joined the Israeli army to ensure Israeli self-reliance in fighting against enemies who regularly pledge to eradicate it. A poignant reminder is the iconic photo of Israeli jets flying over Auschwitz in 2003, which hangs on the walls of many of their offices.
“Nonetheless, it is a fundamental misreading of Israel to view this as an ideological issue. Israeli considerations of a strike are rooted not in their ethos of self-reliance, but in the fear that the United States will ultimately fail to strike, even if sanctions fail.”This means that IDF officers and Israeli political leaders remember that the US knew about Auschwitz but did not act in time. The toll was millions of Jewish lives.
Having said that, an honest proposal by the US would lead, at least, to a debate in the cabinet. Not all Israelis cabinet ministers are enthusiastic about military action. This can be the means to force an internal Israeli debate.It can be the alternative to the “no-other-option” campaign. Politically, it would be the ultimate proof of Obama’s support for Israel, an answer to all the Republicans who accuse him of not being pro-Israel enough. Strategically, it would be the almost the only way for the US to leave Iraq and Afghanistan not as losers but strong and proud, not as a nation running away from the Middle East but as one dealing with the dangerous forces in it differently and effectively. The only problem with such an “insurance policy” against an Israeli attack is that the red lines could be crossed and the words could turn into a new American war in the Middle East. That is not an easy decision – but it is, perhaps, the only one that leaves control in American hands.
*The writer is diplomatic correspondent for Channel 2 News

PM to seek broad agreement with Obama on Iranian threat
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER AND HERB KEINON/J.Post
WASHINGTON – Israel does not want to limit its options in dealing with Iran and will seek broad understandings with the United States about possible courses of action rather than specific assurances in upcoming White House talks, Israeli and American sources said on Thursday.
“The more explicit commitments you seek from one side, the more you’re going to be asked to make commitments of your own,” said Dennis Ross, until recently the top White House adviser on Iran, warning of demands the US would make of Israel should it go down that path. The notion of great specificity on either end is something that is overstated,” he said.
Ross also said all the Israeli prime ministers he had known during his 30-year career “want Israel in the end to take the steps it needs to take to deal with its national security as it defines it.”
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who left on Thursday for a North American trip that will include an Oval Office visit on Monday, is no exception. He has made it clear to interlocutors that Israel maintaining maximum freedom of action will be a key message in his talks with US President Barack Obama.
He is also understood to be looking for concrete signs that when the Obama administration says all options are on the table to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, there are actions from the US to give that statement credibility. The Americans’ swift response to Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, including the repositioning of US Navy vessels, was one such sign, and actions that are disruptive of the Iranian nuclear program, including sabotage efforts, would also be welcome.
Ross cautioned, however, that the US would want to be told ahead of time of any military action Israel took and that taking that decision too soon would be a mistake. “We do have lots of assets in the area, and I think every administration that I’ve been a part of would want to know what they can know as soon as they can know it,” said Ross, who has worked under Republicans and Democrats, though he now serves in a private capacity as counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Also on Thursday, former IDF intelligence chief Amos Yadlin wrote in a New York Times op-ed that the US must assure Israel that if Jerusalem delayed military moves against Iran’s nuclear program, Washington would use its own might to stop Tehran from weaponizing its nuclear program. Obama must “shift the Israeli defense establishment’s thinking from a focus on the ‘zone of immunity’ to a ‘zone of trust,’” Yadlin wrote.
Last month, Defense Minister Ehud Barak alluded to Israel’s “red line,” describing it as the point when Iran acquires a “zone of immunity” from an effective Israeli attack. Ross said that if a strike on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities took place after crippling sanctions and diplomacy had failed, there could be enough international support for such action that the global effort to keep sanctions and isolation in place could hold, which would constrain Iran’s efforts to rebuild its program.
He predicted that timelines for how long to give sanctions to work and what would constitute substantial achievement in diplomacy would be a major focus of Netanyahu’s discussions with Obama.
He said that negotiations with Tehran were almost certain to go ahead, and that recent declarations by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that nuclear weapons were a “great sin” could be a sign that he was trying to prepare the Iranian public and save face if a deal were reached.
But Ross also hardened the rhetoric over why acceptance of Iranian nuclear weapons was not an option.“You’re going to have a nuclear-armed Middle East,” he said of a presumed regional arms race. “And if you’re going to have a nuclear-armed Middle East, the prospect of there being a nuclear war would be quite high.”
Netanyahu is also expected to warn about the consequences of a nuclear Iran in his address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy meeting in Washington next week, which was the genesis of his visit this time.
The prime minister, who left just after midnight on Thursday, will first stop in Ottawa to consult with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
In a sign of the close friendship between the two countries, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, who was in Israel last month, is scheduled to greet Netanyahu at the airport when his plane arrives at 6 a.m.Netanyahu, who will stay at the official guest residence, is scheduled to meet with Harper privately a few hours later, and then hold a joint press conference. On Sunday morning, he is scheduled to meet with Canadian Jewish leaders and opposition leader Bob Rae of the Liberal Party.
Netanyahu is due to arrive in Washington on Sunday afternoon, after both Obama and President Shimon Peres have addressed AIPAC, and he will stay at Blair House.
Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama will be the ninth between the two leaders, and for now a joint statement is scheduled after the meeting, but not a press conference.
The prime minister’s AIPAC address and those of the other speakers – who will include via video stream Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum on Tuesday, the last day of the conference – are expected to focus on Iran. The Islamic Republic will be a key part of the lobbying activity undertaken by the 13,000-plus expected conference- goers, as they visit with their members of Congress to push for more sanctions and support for an aggressive posture on stopping a nuclear weapon.
An Israel Project poll released ahead of the conference found that 82 percent of the American public supports increased sanctions, with only 16% opposing them. However, only 67%, versus 32%, thought diplomacy and sanctions would halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions.


Dennis Ross: 'Iran won't surprise world with nukes'
Yitzhak Benhorin/Ynetnews
Former White House Adviser Dennis Ross says upcoming negotiations will expose Tehran's true intentions vis-à-vis nuclear program. WASHINGTON – Dennis Ross, US President Barack Obama's former Middle East adviser, said that Iran will not be able to unexpectedly attain nuclear capabilities. Speaking Thursday with reporters ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington next week, Ross said that every time the Islamic Republic tried to conceal their nuclear program, it was eventually exposed.
Ross noted that negotiations between Iran and the West over the former's attempts to develop nuclear capabilities are slated to begin in the next two months, and that the talks will reveal Tehran's true intensions. Obama, Ross added, prefers to find a diplomatic solution, but at the same time is determined to prevent a nuclear Iran. It is in Tehran's interest to take advantage of the diplomatic opportunity that's currently on the table, he said. Ross, who currently serves as a counselor at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that Obama does not believe Iran would use nuclear weapons, if it acquires them, but is concerned that the move would spark an armament race in the Middle East.
Iran not like Japan
The former adviser estimated that Washington will not let Iran reach a point in which it possesses all the ingredients for a bomb, without actually having assembled one. Ross explained that Iran is not like Japan, and cannot be allowed to reach the same status, after it has lost the world's trust. He added that forceful measures will have to be employed if the sanctions fail and Iran is found to be buying time while sitting at the negotiations table. The upcoming meeting between Netanyahu and Obama will focus on the Iranian issue, and Ross claimed that Israel and the US are in full agreement vis-à-vis the goal of preventing Iran's nuclear armament and issuing paralyzing sanctions. The meeting, Ross estimated, will focus on the timetable for negotiations and measures for success. Israel is concerned that prolonged negotiations will close the window of opportunity for a military strike in Iran, he added. Ross also discussed the relations between the Israeli prime minister and the American president, which many claim is one of the worst in the history of the two states, saying that when Netanyahu feels that Israel is being threatened and needs assistance, the first thing he does is call Obama. That's what he did during the flotilla and the attack on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. When it comes to important issues, there is a high level of trust between the sides, Ross noted.

Top Israeli official: Conflicting U.S. remarks hurt efforts to press Iran
By Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel/Haaretz
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in Washington, where he will discuss the issue with U.S. President Barack Obama.
Though Israeli officials are deeply divided over whether Israel should attack Iran in the coming months, they are united on one point - a flood of contradictory statements about Iran's nuclear program by U.S. officials in recent weeks is undermining efforts to increase pressure on Tehran.
Many of these American statements, a senior Israeli government official told Haaretz, have led Iran to believe there is no real danger of an attack on its nuclear program, and therefore, there is no need to halt it. Defense Minister Ehud Barak held a series of meetings on the Iranian issue in Washington this week, including with Vice President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Next week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in Washington, where he will discuss the issue with U.S. President Barack Obama.
U.S. officials have repeatedly criticized Israeli officials for their excessive "chatter" about Iran, but Israeli officials have the same criticism of their American peers. Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, and many others have all spoken about Iran recently - and their statements often contradict each other.
Sometimes, the same official has even made contradictory statements about attacking Iran within the space of a few days. At times, officials reiterate that "all options are on the table." At others, they go into detail about how damaging a military strike would be. Panetta spoke at length at the Saban Forum three months ago about why an attack would be ineffective, and Dempsey has made similar statements recently. But during Senate testimony earlier this week, Dempsey tried to walk back on some of those statements, apparently partly in response to Israel's objections.
"If the United States doesn't broadcast determination all along the road, both in sanctions and in the threat of military action, Tehran is liable to mistakenly understand from this that 2012 is a lost year for the international community, so its nuclear program can advance as usual," the senior Israeli official said. "At the moment, largely because of the administration's contradictory messages, the Iranians assume that nothing military will happen before the U.S. presidential elections in November. They believe the administration fears an attack because of the danger that gas prices will rise, and that Israel won't move without a green light from Washington. Iran is under more pressure than before because of the sanctions, but absent a unified and determined front against it, it won't change its mind about the nuclear issue."
During Netanyahu's visit next week, Israel is hoping to get a clear answer about where Washington's red lines on the Iranian nuclear program lie. Clinton told the Senate this week that U.S. policy is to prevent Iran from "obtaining nuclear weapons." Israel wants more clarity about where exactly Washington draws the line, and what it is willing to do to prevent that line from being crossed.
On Thursday, perhaps in an effort to calm Israel down, the American media were filled with reports about America's ability to attack Iran. Bloomberg quoted Air Force commander Gen. Norton Schwartz as saying that the United States was preparing for various military scenarios involving Iran, and "you wouldn't want to be in the area" if any of them came to pass. The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon is sure its bunker busters can even penetrate Iran's underground enrichment facility at Fordow.
Israel, for its part, made its desire for answers from Washington clear in an opinion piece published in The New York Times on Thursday by Maj. Gen. (res. ) Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israel's Military Intelligence who today heads the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. Noting that America's vastly greater military capabilities give it a much longer window of opportunity for attacking Iran than Israel has, Yadlin warned that these "differing timetables are becoming a source of tension." Should Israel accede to Washington's request not to attack, he added, that would "make Washington a de facto proxy for Israel's security." Yadlin criticized U.S. officials for warning Israel against military action without specifying how America would deal with Iran if Israel refrains. Without an "ironclad American assurance" that Washington will take military action if all else fails, he warned, "Israeli leaders may well choose to act while they still can."

Why Netanyahu’s Visit to Discuss Iran Puts Obama in a Political Minefield
By Tony Karon/TIMES
President Barack Obama’s reelection bid could face a stern test when he addresses the annual conference of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Sunday, and then meets with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the following day. Top of the agenda on both occasions is Iran, which has also been chosen by Republicans as the Number 1 foreign policy issue of the presidential race. And publicly aired differences in the assessment of, and strategies for dealing with, Iran’s nuclear program have become a source of friction between the Administration and the Israelis. Netanyahu’s leverage in the debate is boosted not only by Israel’s threat to take unilateral military action if it deems Washington’s efforts to restrain Iran insufficient, but also by Obama’s need to remain onside with the flagship Israel lobbying organization — which tends to take its cue from the Israel Prime Minister, who also generated far more bipartisan enthusiasm on Capitol Hill when he spoke there last year than Obama ever has. While the President maintains the support of a solid majority of Jewish voters despite repeated domestic criticism of his handling of Israel, he may need AIPAC’s seal of approval to maintain the backing of some deep-pocketed donors for whom Israel’s concerns are a top priority. That, and the relentless charge by Republican presidential hopefuls that Obama is soft on Iran and jeopardizing Israel’s security, has made Israel’s Prime Minister an improbable player in this year’s U.S. presidential election.
But the President can’t focus only on electoral concerns as he urgently seeks to cool the climate of hysteria that could plunge Israel, Iran and possibly the U.S. into a potentially disastrous shooting war. That’s a tough balancing act, not least because the remaining Republican presidential hopefuls (minus the skeptic Ron Paul) will also address AIPAC where, if the primary debates are any indication, Gingrich, Santorum and Romney will seek to outdo one another’s hyperbole in portraying Obama as Neville Chamberlain and themselves as a better Winston Churchill than the other two in the face of a reincarnated Nazi menace.
So jittery are some of the President’s supporters that the Democratic National Committee took the unusual step this week of issuing a “prebuttal” of the expected GOP attacks on Obama at AIPAC, in the form of a video that accuses Republicans of reducing Israel’s security to a partisan food fight, and reprises clips of Netanyahu praising Obama’s support–through word and deed–for Israel’s security. Of course, using Netanyahu as the arbiter of Obama’s fealty to Israel also effectively gives the Israeli prime minister the last word, which could pose problems next week.
A report in the Israeli daily Haaretz on Tuesday warned that Netanyahu planned to press Obama to take a harder U.S. line — and even to declare the “red lines” that would trigger a U.S. military response if crossed by Iran. But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made clear that the Administration has no plan to harden its position on Iran right now. “Our policy remains exactly what it was,” Carney told reporters on Tuesday. “We are committed, as Israel is, to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” adding that there was still time for the combination of sanctions and diplomacy to prevent that outcome.
One problem with that formulation, of course, is that Israel is not just committed to “preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon”; it wants to prevent Tehran from having the capability to build one. “The United States and Israel clearly differ in where their red lines lie,” writes David Makovksy of the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy. ”The United States has put the focus on Iran actually gaining a nuclear weapon, while Israel — more vulnerable to Iranian missiles due to its geographic proximity — views the threshold as the Iranian regime’s acquisition of enough low-enriched uranium to build a bomb, pending a political decision to convert it to weapons-grade fuel.”
While U.S. and Israeli intelligence concur that Iran had not taken a decision to build a nuclear weapon, Tehran has already mustered the capability to do so, with Israeli intelligence concluding that the Islamic Republic has already stockpiled sufficient low-enriched uranium that, if reprocessed into bomb-grade materiel, could provide four atomic bombs. But that material remains under scrutiny by IAEA inspectors, who have certified that none is being diverted for any weapons program. Still, if ”capability” rather than “weaponization” is the red line, it has arguably already been crossed and in this schema Iran would have to be walked back to avoid a military response.
Walking Iran back from its present capability may be exactly what Israel and U.S. hawks are demanding, but right now that remains an unlikely outcome of the strategies presently being pursued by Washington. A non-binding “Sense of the Senate” resolution unveiled Wednesday by Senators Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman on behalf of a bipartisan group of 32 senators is explicitly designed to limit the Administration’s scope for compromise in any negotiating process, and to press for a more bellicose policy. The senators insist Obama draw the red line at Iran acquiring “nuclear weapons capability” rather than initiating the construction of weapons, and it “rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran.”
AIPAC delegates are expected on Tuesday to fan out across Capitol Hill to press their senators and representatives to back the resolution.
Twelve of those Senators had earlier written to Obama warning him against allowing any relaxation of sanctions in response to any Iranian concession “less than full, verifiable, and sustained suspension of all enrichment activities, including both 3 percent and 20 percent enrichment. The time for confidence-building measures is over.”
(MORE: Hamas Signals Break with Iran, But Is That Good for Israel?)
But some form of confidence building agreement is generally acknowledged as the only game in town as regards a plausible diplomatic starting point. The 12 senators’ end-point, also, essentially precludes any diplomatic outcome short of Iranian capitulation. Their letter demands that Obama “make clear that, given the current Iranian regime’s pattern of deceptive and illicit conduct, it cannot be permitted to maintain any enrichment or reprocessing activities on its territory for the foreseeable future.” That may accord with Israel’s position, but because enrichment for peaceful purpose is a basic right of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatories, most of the international community accepts that once Iran has satisfied IAEA concerns and confidence in the safeguards against weaponization is restored, Tehran would have the same rights as any other NPT signatory. Sure, that would give it the capability to produce nuclear weapons, but any state that maintains the full fuel-cycle nuclear energy program permitted by Treaty — think Japan, or Brazil — has that capability. The NPT’s safeguards are designed to provide guarantees and early-warning mechanisms against any move towards weaponization.
The Obama Administration, backed by the assessments of the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community, takes a less apocalyptic view of Iran’s current nuclear efforts, and — like much of Israel’s military and intelligence establishment – believes that bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities at this stage would do more harm than good.
While the more alarmist perspective is a far easier sell at AIPAC, in the GOP primaries, and even among many Democratic Party legislators, there are, also, restraints on how far Netanyahu will go to pressure Obama. Given the vastly superior U.S. military capability, Israel’s priority is to prompt the U.S. to take the lead in snuffing out any Iranian threat. Talk of unilateral strikes has long been recognized as a tactic of pressuring reluctant Western powers to do more, rather than a preferred option for the Israelis — who are also aware of widespread reluctance among the American public get dragged into another open-ended military conflict in the Middle East. And Netanyahu can’t afford to burn bridges with a President he may well have to work with after November. (The economy is far more likely than Iran to be the issue that settles the election.) Still, Israeli media reports suggest that the Israeli leader will warn that even the toughest sanctions ever imposed on Iran are not going to change Tehran’s mind any time soon, and he will continue to demand even tougher measures.
(MORE: The Ayatullah vs. The President)
On that front, of course, the Administration typically responds to calls for greater belligerence against Iran by saying the sanctions it has put in place are putting a painful squeeze on the regime, and will get the job done — often citing Iran’s call for new talks as evidence that Tehran is beginning to crack. That may be a misreading: While Iran is feeling pressure and may be seeking a diplomatic compromise, it’s showing no inclination to simply yield to the demands of the Western powers. Realistic diplomacy to resolve the standoff would likely require that Tehran isn’t the only party making concessions.
A noteworthy warning to the Administration came Wednesday in a New York Times op ed by former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk — himself a former AIPAC staffer with unimpeachable pro-Israel credentials — who wrote that the Obama policy of coercive diplomacy and “crippling sanctions” creates a vicious cycle more likely to prompt Iran’s leaders to build nuclear weapons to ensure their regime’s survival than it is to prompt capitulation. Indyk argues that Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei believes the goal of the U.S. and its allies is regime change — as the Republican presidential hopefuls insist it should be — which prompts nuclear defiance that, in turn, prompts Israeli anxiety and threats to bomb Iran. The Obama Administration then feels compelled to tighten the economic stranglehold in order to restrain the Israelis — but that only reinforces Iran’s sense of a mortal threat to its regime, which makes it more likely to seek a nuclear deterrent. Indyk concludes:
“The only way out of the vicious circle is for Khamenei to understand that Obama is not seeking his overthrow — that behind the negotiating door lies a path to Iran’s peaceful use of nuclear power and not a corridor to the gallows. But how, while pursuing sanctions designed to cut Iran’s economic jugular, can Obama credibly signal this to Khamenei without opening himself up to the charge of weakness? Any hint of reassurance to the Iranian regime will surely be seized upon by his Republican rivals as a sign of appeasement.
Sadly, the dynamics of the current situation appear to make conflict inevitable. We are now engaged in a three-way game of chicken in which for Khamenei, Netanyahu and even Obama, physical or political survival makes blinking more dangerous than confrontation.”Thus the stakes in the coming days as Obama and Netanyahu plan the choreography of their complicated and competitive dance through the minefield of their respective AIPAC appearances and their all-important White House meeting.

Security Council Unanimously Agrees Statement Demanding Syria Humanitarian Access
by Naharnet /The U.N. Security Council on Thursday called on Syria to allow "immediate" humanitarian access to protest cities in a unanimously agreed statement. Russia and China significantly signed up to the statement which was approved after Syria refused to let U.N. humanitarian chief Valerie Amos into the country. Syria has said the date proposed by Amos was not suitable. "The members of the Security Council express their deep disappointment" that Amos "was not granted authorization to visit Syria by the Syrian government in a timely manner, despite repeated requests and intense diplomatic contacts aimed at securing Syrian approval," said the statement, which was obtained by Agence France Presse ahead of its release.The 15-nation body called for "immediate and unhindered access" for Amos. "The members of the Security Council deplore the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation, in particular the growing number of affected civilians, the lack of safe access to adequate medical services, and food shortages, particularly in areas affected by fighting and violence such as Homs, Hama, Deraa, Idlib," said the statement. The Security Council called on Syria "to allow immediate, full and unimpeded access of humanitarian personnel to all populations in need of assistance, in accordance with international law and guiding principles of humanitarian assistance." Russia and China vetoed two U.N. Security Council resolutions on Syria and have been very cautious of any statement that could be seen as taking sides against President Bashar al-Assad. In a concession to the two powers, the council statement referred to "all parties" to cooperate with efforts to evacuate the wounded from Syrian cities.
SourceAgence France Presse.

Russia, China join Security Council statement on Syria crisis
By Reuters and Haaretz /In rare move, longtime backers of Assad regime join other 13 members in urging Syrian authorities to allow UN aid chief to visit the country, halt humanitarian crisis. The United Nations Security Council urged Syria to halt a humanitarian crisis taking place in the country, a statement said on Thursday, which was also signed by long-time Syria backers Russia and China.
In the missive, UNSC members said they "deplore" a rapidly humanitarian crisis, urging Syrian authorities to allow UN humanitarian aid chief Valerie Amos to visit the country.The joint statement came after the Red Cross indicated that the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad finally allowed its officials to enter the war-torn Homs area, after rebel forces withdrew from the site of the weeks-long battle.
Russia, China and Cuba voted against a resolution adopted overwhelmingly by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council which condemned Syria for violations that may amount to crimes against humanity. Earlier Thursday, activists indicated that most Syrian rebels pulled out of the besieged Baba Amro district of Homs after a 26-day siege by Assad's forces. They said a few fighters had remained behind in the shattered quarter to cover the "tactical withdrawal" of their comrades. Syrian forces again shelled Baba Amro earlier in the day, despite world alarm at the plight of civilians trapped there. Snow blanketed the city, slowing a ground assault begun on Wednesday, but also worsening the misery of residents short of food, fuel, power, water and telephone links, activists said. Reports from the city could not be verified immediately due to tight government restrictions on media operations in Syria. Assad is increasingly isolated in his struggle to crush an armed insurrection that now spearheads a year-long popular revolt against four decades of his family's iron-fisted rule.

Turkey: Iran, Russia will realize they must side with world on Syria
By Reuters /Turkish President Abdullah Gul says thinks that in time Russia will see its support has been abused by the Syrian regime.
Turkish President Abdullah Gul said on Thursday Russia and Iran would soon realize they had little choice but to join international diplomatic efforts for the removal of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
He acknowledged, however, the divisions in the Syrian opposition and its lack of preparedness to take power, saying it must create a structure that embraces all segments of society.
"This transformation will no doubt take time." Turkey has been in the forefront of fostering the Syrian opposition since abandoning its long-time ally Assad over his violent crackdown on protests. The opposition Syrian National Council meets in Istanbul and the 'Free Syrian Army' operates from Turkish soil on the Syrian border. Turkey and Western and Arab allies were angered by Russia's vetoing, along with China, of a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Assad's use of force, which has intensified in past days with a siege against the city of Homs. "We have to wait and see how long Russia will be able to take upon itself the burden of this regime," he told Reuters in an interview. "In my opinion, it won't be very long. "In the time of the Cold War, such things happened in a very closed environment. However, today developments take place in the open. "I think in time Russia will see its support has been abused by the Syrian regime. They will recognise this fact when they see the heavy weapons being used against the people in Syria. That is not very tolerable, not even for Russia," he said. Russia has continued to supply arms to Syria as protests have grown, with the formation of rebel military units, into something approaching civil war. Defeated Syrian rebels pulled out of the city of Homs on Thursday after a 26-day army bombardment, but fighting continues across the country. Sources say arms are being brought into Syria for the opposition forces by non-government parties.
A trap
Russia and China moved a step towards joining international action on Thursday when they joined other Security Council members in expressing "deep disappointment" that Damascus had refused to allow U.N. humanitarian aid chief Valerie Amos into the country.In vetoing the resolution, Russia had argued that both sides of Syria's conflict should be condemned for the violence, not just Assad's government.
The Turkish presidency is not executive and most power in the country rests with the prime minister, Tayyip Erdogan. However, Gul commands great personal influence and plays a central role in foreign policy.
Gul said Ankara was talking to Iran, a close ally of Assad, in an effort to persuade it to accept the inevitable and back diplomatic action against Assad."Even Iran doesn't have the power to make water run uphill - And if the worse scenario were to come true, it is not possible that Iran could not feel any responsibility for that. It will be responsible." He said Russian and Iran should be persuaded by the international community and countries of the region to persuade the Syrian government to accept reality and stop the crackdown. He cited the 'Yemeni Model' as the most reasonable option as a way out for Assad. In Yemen, president Ali Abdullah Saleh stepped aside, under pressure from Gulf Arab states, with guarantees of protection to allow an election for a new leader.Gul has warned in the past of the danger of violence in Syria fuelling sectarian conflict that could envelop the entire Muslim Middle East. "It's a trap in the region, and similar incidents happened in the Middle Ages in Europe. The Middle East should not repeat these mistakes. "We know that the danger is there, but awareness is also there." In Syria, any new administration must find ways of accommodating Sunni Muslims and Christians as well as the Alawites who have been the bedrock of Assad's rule.

Ex-senators: Saudi Arabia linked to 9/11 attacks
Yitzhak Benhorin/Ynetnews
NYT reports former Senator Bob Graham said in affidavit that there was a 'direct line' between at least some 9/11 terrorists and government of Saudi Arabia. Senator Bob Kerrey: Significant questions remain unanswered. WASHINGTON – Was the Saudi government, seen by US diplomats as a crucial partner in the war on terror, involved in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001? According to two former senators who were privy to top secret information on the Saudis’ activities said they believe that the Saudi government might have played a direct role in the terrorist attacks.I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, was quoted by the New York Times as saying in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others.
Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks. Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions.
“Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued,” Kerrey said. According to NYT, the Saudis are seeking to have the case dismissed in part because they say American inquiries — including those in which Graham and Kerrey took part — have essentially exonerated them. A recent court filing by the Saudis prominently cited the 9/11 Commission’s “exhaustive” final report, which “found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi individuals funded” al-Qaeda, the report stated. However, the report said, Kerrey and Graham said that the findings should not be seen as an exoneration and that many important questions about the Saudis’ role had never been fully examined, partly because their panels simply did not have the time or resources given their wider scope. According to NYT, Graham said in his affidavit that unanswered questions include the work of a number of Saudi-sponsored charities with financial links to al-Qaeda, as well as the role of a Saudi citizen living in San Diego at the time of the attacks, Omar al-Bayoumi, who had ties to two of the hijackers and to Saudi officials.

Kidnappings of Syrians work of one gang
March 02, 2012/By Wassim Mroueh/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A recent series of kidnapping of Syrians in Lebanon were carried out by the same group of “four or five members,” a senior Internal Security Forces source told The Daily Star Thursday, adding that the assaults were not politically motivated. “We know their names, we are pursuing them and we will never allow this [kidnapping] to continue. The situation is intolerable,” the source, who wished to remain anonymous, said. The source said members of the gang, which is allegedly headed by Lebanese Mohammad Fayyad Ismail, move between the villages of Hor Taala and Brital in the eastern Bekaa, but that they do not live in either of these villages. Four kidnappings have targeted Syrians in Bekaa in recent months. All of the captives were released after ransoms were paid. Syrian brothers Hisham and Imad Abdul-Raouf, 45 and 47, and their driver Khaled al-Hamadah, 23, were released Wednesday after 18 days in captivity. They were released onto the Deir Znoun road in Bekaa after their captors received a ransom of $90,000. They originally demanded $2 million. On Feb. 11, the three were kidnapped when a group of armed men in a GMC Envoy intercepted their car. A third brother, Osama Abdul-Raouf, 47, was released soon after the incident. “They [kidnappers] assume that Syrian businessmen in Lebanon [such the Abdul-Raouf brothers] are financially well-off,” the source said, suggesting a motive for the kidnappings. On Tuesday, two Syrian teenagers, Bara and Ali Ezzeddine, were released after their Monday kidnapping from their home in the Karak neighborhood of Zahle. The source said that the kidnappers called the brother’s mother, demanding a $3 million ransom. It is not known how much ransom was paid.
Mohammad Jabi, also a Syrian, was kidnapped and freed in early February after paying a ransom of 1 million Syrian lira (approximately LL26 million) and some of his wife’s jewelry. The source stressed that the kidnappings were not politically motivated. “Money is their [the gang members’] only goal, just like the motivation of car thieves,” he said. Another security source told The Daily Star that gangs in eastern and northern Bekaa are coordinating kidnappings with gangs on the Syrian side of the Lebanese-Syrian border. He added that such gangs have thrived amid a relative security vacuum in Syria, where an anti-regime uprising is nearing its first anniversary. More than 6,000 Syrian refugees have fled to Lebanon in wake of the unrest, which opposition groups say has killed around 7,500 Syrians. The source agreed that the kidnappings were not politically motivated. Other sources said that Ismail’s gang takes advantage of the rugged terrain of the upper areas of the village of Brital to evade authorities. Tfeil, a Lebanese village in the area, can only be accessed from Syria because there is no road from Lebanon. These sources said that Syrians may be preferred targets by kidnappers, because of the assumption that authorities will be less concerned about their fate than by that of Lebanese victims. Lebanese Ahmad Zeidan, the CEO of the country’s largest dairy farm, Liban Lait, was kidnapped for several days in December on the way to his factory in the Bekaa village of Talia. Speaker Nabih Berri secured the release of Zeidan, whose kidnapping is believed to have been carried out by Ismail’s group. – With additional reporting by Rakan Fakih

Qabbani files lawsuit for libel against Nicolas
March 02, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Beirut MP Mohammad Qabbani filed a lawsuit for libel and slander Thursday against Metn MP Nabil Nicolas. Qabbani, who chairs Parliament’s Public Works, Transport, Energy, and Water Committee, filed the lawsuit with Beirut Investigative Judge Ghassan Oweidat following accusations by Change and Reform bloc member Nicolas that Qabbani has not paid over LL15 million in electricity bills.According to the lawsuit, Qabbani says documents Nicolas used as support for his claim at a news conference were fraudulent and not issued by Electricite Du Liban as the Metn MP had claimed.Judicial sources told The Daily Star that Oweidat will bring the lawsuit to the Prosecutor General’s office so it can ask Parliament to lift Nicolas’ parliamentary immunity. Speaking at Nijmeh Square, Qabbani told reporters that Energy and Water Minister Gibran Bassil and “his people started” defaming him with misleading accusations that he was evading paying his electricity bills. According to Qabbani, the bills belong to an individual who had rented a restaurant in a building he owns, and all the electricity the tenant had used was illegally transferred to Qabbani’s bill. “Bassil used an inspector at EDL to mislead the public and this same inspector protects many influential people who do not pay their bills including those who are close to Bassil. This corrupt inspector should be referred to the Disciplinary Board,” Qabbani said.“My battle against corruption is ongoing,” he added.Qabbani added that Bassil attempted to pressure a number of journalists to launch campaigns against him using falsified information.

Hizbullah Hits Back at Ban: U.N. 'Miserably Failed' to Liberate Lebanese Land
by Naharnet /Hizbullah on Thursday hit back at U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon’s call for the group to disarm, stressing that “Lebanon has the right to possess weapons to defend its land and sovereignty against Israel’s occupation and threats.”“Hizbullah stresses that it took up arms to liberate the Lebanese territory, which Ban Ki-moon and his international organization had miserably failed to protect,” Hizbullah said in a statement, noting that the U.N. “failed to force the Israeli occupier to withdraw.”In his latest report on the implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah, Ban described Lebanon’s security situation as generally stable and reiterated his call on Hizbullah to transform itself into a political party.The party’s arms continue to pose a serious challenge to the state’s ability to exercise full sovereignty and authority over its territory, he said.“It seems that Mr. Ban Ki-moon’s eyes cannot see Israel’s hostile practices, the same as they cannot see the Judaization of Jerusalem and the occupation’s terrorist practices in occupied Palestine,” Hizbullah charged.

Time for Assad to go
By Dennis B. Ross/US Today
Every day brings new horrors in Syria. The Assad regime has declared war on its own citizens, with the death toll rising into the thousands. Whether in Homs or Hama or Daraa or Idlib or other cities and villages, the Syrian civilian population faces indiscriminate fire from the tanks, artillery, mortars and heavy machine guns of the Syrian security forces.
Not given the choice of limiting their actions to peaceful demonstrations, it is small wonder that opposition to the Assad regime has become more violent. In truth, if Syria is to be spared a destructive and destabilizing civil war, the only hope is to accelerate the departure of Bashar Assad.
It is easier to speak of his departure than to produce it. Indeed, there is no single step that will guarantee it, but there are a series of actions that could accelerate his departure. Though the isolation of the Assad regime and the sanctions against it have weakened the Syrian president, they have not undermined his hold on power. Several actions will be needed:
•First, it is necessary to keep the pressure on the Russians to change their posture. Propping up Assad might preserve the Russian position in Syria for the time being, but it will undermine it over time. No successor leadership in Syria is going to want ties to the Russians, whose veto at the U.N. Security Council has been seen in Syria and throughout the Middle East as giving the Assad regime a license to kill.
Unless the Russians change course and are able to take credit for producing the end of the Assad regime, they will see their position deteriorate both in Syria and in the region more generally.
Russians a key player
Having Arab leaders remind the Russians of this could produce a change and it is vital. Assad and those who support him in the security establishment see the Russians as their insurance policy — a protector in the U.N. and an impediment to external intervention. Change that perception, and the balance of power is likely to shift inside Syria.
•Second, it is time to raise the status of the Syrian National Council (SNC), the formal Syrian opposition. It must increasingly be seen as the recognized successor to the Assad regime — or at least the vehicle for managing the transition to a new and inclusive leadership.
Withholding recognition of the council as the alternative to Assad made sense as a way to encourage its leaders to overcome petty rivalries and develop a coherent, non-sectarian plan for shaping the future of Syria. Last week, when the "Friends of Syria" — a group that includes the U.S., Britain, France, Turkey and a number of Arab countries — met in Tunis, international leaders treated the SNC as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Though a step in the right direction, more will need to be done to create an aura of inevitability about the SNC as the alternative to Assad.
Buttressing opposition
That, too, is likely to have an effect on those who continue to back Assad or fear an alternative to him. Clearly, the opposition council will have to create greater coordination with those who are deserting from the Syrian military and make up what is known as the Free Syrian Army as it challenges the regime and tries to protect the Syrian public. Raising the international standing of the SNC could assist that effort.
•Third, it is necessary to reach out to the Alawite community that makes up 12% of the Syrian population but represents the backbone of the security establishment. Assad has become an exclusively sectarian leader, seeking to convey that if he goes, Alawites will be decimated by a radical Sunni onslaught.
It is essential to find ways of communicating with key Alawites and making clear that Assad is not the key to their salvation but the greatest threat to their survival. The longer he stays, the more violent the breakdown in Syria will become. The outreach to the Alawites must be consistent, involve Sunnis forswearing vengeance against Alawites, and reassurance from the SNC and the "Friends of Syria" about how the transition will be managed to preserve the unity and non-sectarian nature of Syria's future.
•Last, more must be done to play on Assad's fears. Sanctions and isolation alone won't make him leave. He must see that the balance of power is shifting against him. Assad is no Moammar Gadhafi. He won't go underground and try to lead an uprising. He must see that options he thought would not be considered are on the table.
Creating humanitarian corridors or safe areas for civilians, though difficult to implement, need to be on the table and developed as a real possibilities. Arming the Free Syrian Army when it lacks clear organization and is highly localized raises a number of troubling questions about who would be armed and what could take shape in Syria. But there is help short of arms that could alter the realities on the ground, such as blocking the communications of Assad's forces and facilitating those of the Free Syrian Army. Moreover, given the behavior of Assad's forces, lethal assistance managed in a coherent way through Jordan and Turkey should not be ruled out.
For reasons of morality and the interest of not seeing violence in Syria build and expand outward, it is essential to try to accelerate the departure of Bashar Assad.
**Dennis B. Ross was a special assistant to President Obama and senior director of the Central Region on the National Security Council staff from 2009 to 2011. He is now a counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.