Matthew 18 Who Is the Greatest

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 05/2012

Bible Quotation for today/Duties to Parents
Sirach 03/01-16: "Children, listen to me; I am your father. Do what I tell you and you will be safe,2 for the Lord has given fathers authority over their children and given children the obligation to obey their mothers.3 If you respect your father, you can make up for your sins,4 and if you honor your mother, you are earning great wealth.5 If you respect your father, one day your own children will make you happy; the Lord will hear your prayers.6 If you obey the Lord by honoring your father and making your mother happy, you will live a long life.7 Obey your parents as if you were their slave.8 Honor your father in everything you do and say, so that you may receive his blessing.9 When parents give their blessing, they give strength to their children's homes, but when they curse their children, they destroy the very foundations. 10 Never seek honor for yourself at your father's expense; it is not to your credit if he is dishonored.11 Your own honor comes from the respect that you show to your father. If children do not honor their mothers, it is their own disgrace.12 My child, take care of your father when he grows old; give him no cause for worry as long as he lives.13 Be sympathetic even if his mind fails him; don't look down on him just because you are strong and healthy.14 The Lord will not forget the kindness you show to your father; it will help you make up for your sins.15 When you are in trouble, the Lord will remember your kindness and will help you; your sins will melt away like frost in warm sunshine.16 Those who abandon their parents or give them cause for anger may as well be cursing the Lord; they are already under the Lord's curse.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Talking Points/By: Steven J. Rosen/Foreign Policy/March 4/12
The Syrian crisis: a massacre, not a war/By Tariq Alhomayed/March 04/12
Syria's revolutionary sects/By Mshari al-Zaydi/March 04/12
Ahmad al-Asir/By: Hazem al-Amin/March 04/12
Moscow’s interests in Assad/Tony Badran/March 04/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March 04/12
Nasrallah: Resistance, militant jihad sole options to liberate Al-Quds
Baalbek Teen Released after Four-Days of Captivity
Pro and anti-Assad demonstrators face off in downtown Beirut
Mikati stresses rallies should remain peaceful
Parliament Session without Settlement on Govt. Spending
Report: Recent STL Amendments Confuse Hizbullah
Geagea Holds Talks on Lebanon, Syria with Qatari FM
Suleiman Heads to Qatar to Participate in Telecom. Conference
adamant Obama confronts Netanyahu with a lone decision on Iran
Foreign Minister: Israel Will Take own Iran Decisions
Peres to tell AIPAC: Israel not 'rushing into war'
Amid fresh violence in Syria, Turkey calls on Iran to cut support for Assad regime
Iran elections weaken Ahmadinejad, bolster Supreme Leader Khamenei
Former top aide: Netanyahu thinks state comptroller wants to destroy him
Insider info on Netanyahu's office shows Israel may be in untrustworthy hands
Report: Assad's air force pounds population centers in Syria's Rastan
Syrian forces shell rebels, Red Cross kept waiting
Bodies of Marie Colvin, Remi Ochlik Arrive in Paris
Suicide bomber kills seven in southern Syria town, resident says
Report: Iran boosting Syria military aid amid escalating crackdown
Displaced Syrians head toward Lebanon border
China lays out stance on Syria, rejects "interference"
Canadian FM, Minister Baird Condemns Continued Violence, Aid Impasse in Syria
Iranian opposition group eyes Jordan relocation
Egypt lawmakers clash over writing constitution

Nasrallah: Resistance, militant jihad sole options to liberate Al-Quds
March 4, 2012 / /Now Lebanon
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Sunday that “the option of negotiations [with Israelis] for recovering Al-Quds is not realistic,” adding that the status quo “leaves no other option before the people and the [Islamic] Umma but that of resistance and militant jihad.” Nasrallah gave televised remarks at a forum held in Beirut announcing Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as the capital of Palestine, Arabs and Muslims. The Shia leader addressed the attendees, saying: “[Even] if we assumed that negotiations with the Zionist enemy is possible for reaching a solution for part of the occupied lands and part of the Palestinian refugees, it is certain that [this issue will not be settled], because [Israel] is holding on to [Al-Quds] as a capital that unites the Zionist entity.” “We believe that the great changes in the region in which the resistance movements [participated], [in addition to the current] developments in the world, make us feel that we are closer to achieving our objective of liberating Al-Quds than ever before,” Nasrallah said. He added that the “steadfastness of the Palestinian people”, the inability to eliminate the Palestinian cause and the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran have all contributed to efforts to liberate Jerusalem. “We stand in awe and praise before the Islamic Republic [of Iran]; its people and leaders who clearly announce that [Israel] is an illegitimate state and a cancerous gland that needs to cease to exist,” Nasrallah said. “Al-Quds is facing a campaign [that seeks] to Judaize it, and the Christian and Islamic holy sites in it are being insulted and desecrated… Its indigenous people are being expelled.” Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state and adamantly reject Jewish settlement construction in the territory. They accuse Israel of building settlement neighborhoods in East Jerusalem while denying Palestinian building permits and revoking their residency in a bid to rid the city of Arab residents. Israel captured Arab East Jerusalem in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed it later in a move never recognized by the international community. It claims all of Jerusalem as its eternal and indivisible capital. -AFP/NOW Lebanon

Report: Recent STL Amendments Confuse Hizbullah
by Naharnet /The recent amendments to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s indictment in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has “confused” Hizbullah, reported the Kuwaiti al-Seyassah newspaper on Sunday.A source monitoring the situation told the newspaper that Hizbullah understood the amendment to be a precursor for allowing the tribunal to accuse parties in the assassination of the former premier.STL Pre-Trial Judge Daniel Fransen has requested the Appeals Chamber to define the crime of “criminal association” following the Prosecution’s recent request to amend the indictment, announced the STL in a statement on Friday.It did not explain whether the amendment would indeed mean that parties can be accused of the February 2005 assassination.
The source added that the Hizbullah leadership is now studying the amendments in order to determine how it will properly deal with them.
“Hizbullah leaderships believed that no one would dare accuse the party of being behind Hariri’s murder due to its popular and military might,” said the source.
“The party was counting on the STL to take into consideration civil peace in Lebanon and therefore it would have refrained from accusing Hizbullah of being behind the crime seeing as such a step would lead the party to a confrontation with the Lebanese society,” it explained.In addition, the Hizbullah leaderships had believed that the tribunal was going to follow the example of the international investigation commission that was only seeking to accuse Syria of the assassination, said the source.In August, the tribunal released its first indictment in which it accused four Hizbullah members of being involved in Hariri’s 2005 assassination.Salim Ayyash, Mustafa Badreddine, Hussein Oneissi, and Assad Sabra are wanted for the February 2005 suicide car bomb attack in Beirut that killed Hariri and 22 others, including the suicide bomber.Ayyash has been named in the indictment as coordinator of the assassination team.Ayyash and Badreddine face five charges including that of "committing a terrorist act by means of an explosive device" and homicide, while Oneissi and Sabra faced charges of conspiring to commit the same acts.

Baalbek Teen Released after Four-Days of Captivity
by Naharnet /A Baalbek teenager has been released on Sunday after being kidnapped for four days, reported the National News Agency. Ziad Khaled Abou Esper, 16, was apparently released after the security forces’ frequent raids in the Baalbek area forced the kidnappers to let him go, reported NNA.Esper was released on the road leading to the town of al-Jamaliya, north of Baalbek. The captors contacted the boy’s father to pick him up, where he was found cold and shivering in the rain. Esper was kidnapped on Wednesday night from his father’s cow farm in the town of Adous in Baalbek by three armed men riding in an SUV.They had demanded a $150,000 ransom even though the father did not have such funds because his farm had been heavily damaged in a storm in 2010.
His father, Qassem Abou Esper, thanked the security forces and various political, religious, and social leaderships for their efforts to release his son.The kidnappers remain at large.

Parliament Session without Settlement on Govt. Spending
by Naharnet/Minister of Transportation and Public Works, Ghazi al-Aridi, of the National Struggle Front stated that the bloc is counting on various political contacts in order to resolve the dispute over government spending ahead of Monday’s parliament session, reported the daily An Nahar on Sunday.He told the daily however: “We will not attend the session if a settlement is not reached.”
He added: “This does not mean that the bloc has joined the March 14 camp’s ranks.”Speaker Nabih Berri had postponed a parliament session on February 23 after several opposition MPs walked out of the session over a dispute over government spending.They were protesting the proposal of a bill that would legalize the $5.9 billion spending made by Premier Najib Miqati’s cabinet in 2011.
The lawmakers are conditioning the approval of the bill to a comprehensive settlement to the current spending and the $11 billion spent by the previous governments of ex-PMs Fouad Saniora and Saad Hariri between 2006 and 2009.Lebanon has been without a state budget since 2005.Aridi revealed that he had informed Hizbullah of the National Struggle Front’s position.
Furthermore, he said that ministers Wael Abou Faour and Alaeddine Terro’s recent contacts with Berri and Miqati were aimed at clarifying that “we have nothing to do with the division between the March 8 and 14 camps.”“The government spending in 2011 is no different than the spending under previous governments, which was also illegal, but a blind eye was turned to it in order to facilitate state functioning,” he noted.He praised the speaker’s role in resolving the current dispute, saying that had exerted “exceptional efforts” to this end, calling on the March 14 camp to positively approach these efforts.
Contacts to end the dispute intensified on Saturday in order to avert an escalation of the crisis at parliament.President Michel Suleiman had held talks with Health Minister Ali Hassan Khalil and later Abou Faour in order to find a means to end the dispute.An Nahar also revealed that Change and Reform bloc MP Ibrahim Kanaan had held talks with Berri on the deadlock.
Meanwhile, sources from the bloc told the daily that it had informed concerned officials that the majority has to prove during Monday’s session that it truly represents the majority of the people.
It is facing a test where it will either reject the current spending or become part of the flawed system that has marred previous governments, they said.
The March 8 forces, mainly the Change and Reform bloc of MP Michel Aoun, are demanding records on how the $11 billion was spent.
However, Saniora, who heads al-Mustaqbal bloc, stresses the spending was made to cover the expenses of increase in wages of civil servants, subsidize electricite du Liban and pay the interest on the national debt and compensations to the victims of the Israeli aggression on Lebanon in 2006.He said that the total of additional spending between 2006 and 2009 amounted to $11 billion. While the 2010 spending totaled $5 billion, and the amount spent in 2011 totaled $6 billion.Saniora’s effort to sum them up is aimed at pushing parliament at finding a comprehensive solution to the extra-budgetary spending.

Geagea Holds Talks on Lebanon, Syria with Qatari FM
by Naharnet /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea held talks on Saturday with Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani during his ongoing trip to the Gulf state, announced the LF in a statement.The talks focused on the situation in Lebanon, as well as the Syrian crisis and regional developments.Geagea praised Qatar’s role in the Gulf Cooperation Council and Arab League regarding its position in several regional issues.The LF chief had traveled to Qatar on Friday on an official visit where he held talks on Saturday with Lebanon’s Ambassador Hassan Saad.

Ahmad al-Asir
Hazem al-Amin, March 2, 2012
Now Lebanon/Saida Sheikh Ahmad al-Asir announced that he will be heading with his supporters to Martyrs’ Square next Sunday to express solidarity with the Syrian uprising. This announcement sparks legitimate concerns, since the sectarian undertone of the call for protest is obvious. This is added to sectarian instigation, which is manifested – among others – by the appearance of Salafist-style beards, in addition to the strenuous efforts to mobilize solidarity with the Syrian people by invoking Salafist headlines. The loss then would be felt twice over: Both the Lebanese and Syrian peoples would lose and the Syrian Army’s 4th Division, which is besieging Homs, would win. In Lebanon, Hezbollah will have started to reap the fruits of its efforts to create a Sunni counterpart, albeit with a slight difference, namely that this newborn counterpart does not have any nails. And it is always great to have a foe with no nails at all!
Nevertheless, the Asir phenomenon drives us to wonder about the secret underlying this herald’s fast route to stardom despite the flimsiness of the cause he is heralding, knowing that this fast climb coincides with the attacks against Lebanon’s Sunni community since 2005. Though it does not provide enough justification, the answer is obvious, and lies in the fact that the sectarian confrontation started by Hezbollah on May 7, 2008 when it occupied Beirut will inevitably be more appealing than the Asir phenomenon. The new element in the Asir phenomenon is that its emergence coincides, this time, with the killing and ill-treatment against the Syrian people in their towns and villages, which defies the wildest of imaginations. Another new element is the Future Movement’s inexplicable failure to understand the feelings underlying the Syrian tragedy and to allow Asir and others to stand under the limelight. The Syrian indicator is indeed an opportunity to invest in the Sunni community these days. In addition to the absence of the Future Movement, new elements imposed by Arab variables have emerged, as represented by the resounding success of the Muslim Brotherhood and their Salafist and Jihadist fringes. It seems that Lebanon, which had long been an exception with regard to the weakness of the Brotherhood’s presence in it, will not be able to retain this characteristic trait.
There are several indicators that go beyond the Asir phenomenon. For instance, let us keep an eye on the renewed activity of the Jamaa Islamiya within the Future Movement’s circles. This activity takes the shape of rescue operations benefiting Syrian refuges, political gatherings in support of the Syrian uprising and the elaboration of a political document pertaining to these events.
The Future Movement is busy with the issue of billions spent from outside the realms of the budget and is sparking disputes, which are equally unconnected to the streets, with General Michel Aoun, Speaker Nabih Berri and PM Najib Mikati while making statements that exclusively pertain to the Syrian issue. In the meantime, each region in Lebanon will start to produce its own Ahmad Asir. Rumors, whereby Future Movement MP Muin al-Merhebi may resign from the Future Bloc and from parliament, probably bears witness to his feeling that staying close to the feelings of the Sunni public opinion calls nowadays for keeping his distance from the Future Movement. This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Friday March 2, 2012

Foreign Minister: Israel Will Take own Iran Decisions
by Naharnet /Israel will take any decisions on Iran's nuclear activities as an "independent state," Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Sunday, on the eve of a U.S.-Israel summit in Washington.
"Clearly, the United States is the biggest world power and the biggest and most important country that is a friend of Israel, but we are an independent state," Lieberman told Israeli public radio.
"Ultimately, the state of Israel will take the decisions that are most appropriate based on its evaluation of the situation," he said.
Lieberman's comments came shortly before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to hold talks in Washington with U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday, a meeting expected to focus heavily on Iran's nuclear activities. Israel, Washington, and much of the international community believes that Iran's nuclear program masks a weapons drive, a charge Tehran denies.
U.S. intelligence is said to believe that Iran does not currently intend to produce nuclear weapons, though it may be seeking the capacity to do so, and Washington has emphasized the importance of deterrent sanctions and diplomacy. But Israel is reportedly eager to move more quickly and decisively against Iran's nuclear activities, using a military strike to prevent it from obtaining even the capacity to take a decision to produce nuclear weapons."The Iranian file is well-known," Lieberman said. "The direction taken by Iran is clear."But he added that any decisions should be taken "calmly, weighing the pros and cons. All this chatter doesn't help anyone."Lieberman also warned that the international community's failure to deal with the bloodshed in Syria, where a crackdown on anti-regime protesters has killed thousands, showed Israel could rely only on itself for protection."If the international community is incapable of stopping the massacres in Syria, what is the value of its promises to protect the security of Israel?

Moscow’s interests in Assad
Tony Badran, March 3, 2012
Bashar al-Assad (R) shakes hands with Vladimir Putin. Russia will stay by Assad’s side throughout the crisis for its own strategic interests and to send a signal to the international community. (AFP photo)
With the Obama administration adamantly opposed to integrating a military component into its Syria policy, the debate on what to do next continues to revolve around possible diplomatic options. Invariably, this discussion ultimately leads back to Russia. The stubborn notion persists that Russia can yet be brought around, somehow, to support US policy in Syria. The administration is apparently calculating that Moscow’s position might yet change following its March elections. The thinking is that once Vladimir Putin secures his election, the Russian position could become more amenable.
The problem with this thinking is that it continues to misread Russia’s interests and the pillars of its role in the region.
First and foremost, it’s important to remember that Moscow does not have that many strategic relations in the region. “Syria is kind of it in the Middle East at this point for Russia,” one expert on Russia recently told the New York Times. That is, along with Iran, to be fully accurate. But in the context of the Levant, the statement is quite on the mark.
Since the US has mainly crowded it out of the region, Moscow has a very specific target audience to whom it presents itself as an ally worth having: the region’s rogues. Aside from leveraging weapons sales, the Russians’ pitch is that unsavory regimes will find in them a good and reliable friend. “The alliance of rogues is what anchors Russia's strategic position in the region,” David Wurmser, formerly Middle East Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, told me. “Otherwise, what role do they have in the region?” That’s Moscow's currency. To this, add another critical factor. The foundation of the modern, post-Soviet Russian state, and its ruling clique, is the vast energy empire it controls. In particular, the Russians have a direct interest in ensuring Europe’s continued dependence on them for its supply of natural gas.
The discovery and development of significant gas fields in the Eastern Mediterranean is a matter of great concern for the Russians, as it could provide Europe with an alternative source for its gas needs, outside of the Kremlin’s sway. Obviously, then, Russia wants to muscle in on the Eastern Mediterranean in order to try and gain a measure of control over the production and transmission structures to Europe. For that purpose, it has a couple of entry points: Cyprus and Syria (and possibly Greece, whose bankruptcy could provide Russia with opportunities).
Back in July, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad reportedly asked the Lebanese Minister for Energy and Water Gebran Bassil to give priority to Russian companies to drill in Lebanon’s own gas fields. In other words, through Assad’s allies in Lebanon, Russia sought entry into the Eastern Mediterranean gas finds. Little wonder then that Walid Jumblatt highlighted this angle in his recent criticism of Russia’s position on Syria.
In both the Syrian and Cypriot cases, tensions with Turkey play a central part. When Ankara threatened Nicosia over the development of its gas fields, the Russians saw an opening and were quick to flex their muscles and interfere on the Greek Cypriots’ side, dispatching an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean. The Russians then concluded a loan deal with the Cypriots, to help shield them against a possible Greek default. Curiously, shortly thereafter Cyprus released an arms-laden Russian ship which it had intercepted, and the ship ended up in Syria.
The attitude toward Turkey goes a long way in explaining Russia’s position on Syria as well. The Russians calculate, probably quite rightly, that the state situated to project the most influence in a post-Assad Syria is Turkey, especially as the US has all subcontracted its Syria policy to Ankara. As it is, Russia and Turkey are locked in a complex game involving the flow of energy to Europe. And so, challenging Turkey and keeping it on its toes is a Russian interest, as is driving up energy prices.
What all this points to is that, contrary to the prevailing view, Russia sees very little to gain in a post-Assad Syria, and very little to lose in staking out its current position.
As such, former White House official Dennis Ross’s suggestion that “[u]nless the Russians change course… they will see their position deteriorate both and in the region more generally,” in fact gets Moscow’s calculation backwards. The perception of power matters a great deal to the Kremlin. That they have stuck so strongly by Assad is a signal to the rest of the region – and any aspiring rogues that may vie for power – that they can count on Russia to back them in a fashion unimaginable to the Obama administration. At the heart of it, that’s the foundation of Russia’s strategic position in the region.
**Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He tweets @AcrossTheBay.

Adamant Obama confronts Netanyahu with a lone decision on Iran
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 4, 2012/Expectations that the meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Monday, March 5, will produce accord on how and when to stop Iran going nuclear are likely to prove unfounded, say debkafile’s military and Washington sources. Obama has made it clear that a military strike would be “premature” and economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure and negotiations must be allowed to run their course before a military option is considered as a last resort.
When Netanyahu flies home, therefore, he will come away from the White House facing exactly the same dilemma as before: It is up to him to determine Israel’s window of opportunity for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and decide if and when to go through with it.
After he met Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa Friday, March 2, Netanyahu tried to temper his disagreement with Obama by offering to go along with the Six Power negotiations with Iran starting in Istanbul next month, which are a cornerstone of the US president’s Iran policy, although Israel firmly believes Iran is just playing for time. Nonetheless, for the talks to have any point, he proposed that they should aim for three results:
1. The dismantling of the uranium enrichment facilities buried underground at Fordo;
2. The transfer of highly-enriched uranium outside the country to international control, effectively removing the material for assembling a bomb out of Tehran’s hands;
3. A ban on uranium enrichment to a grade higher than 5 percent instead of the 20 percent concentrated fissile fuel stocked at present.
The Israeli prime minister’s proposal was rejected by the White House after Moscow too it unacceptable.
A number of confidential Russian messages advised Israel to forget any reversals of Iran’s nuclear progress. The coming international negotiations, they said, must start with accepting the current status of Iran’s nuclear program, “There’s no turning back.”
The White House message to Netanyahu on the eve of his meeting with Obama was that Tehran would simply not come to the negotiating table if faced with those three demands. This message was reinforced by a leak to the New York Times Sunday, March 4, asserting that “American intelligence agencies continue to say that there is no evidence that Iran has made a final decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. Recent assessments by American spy agencies have reaffirmed intelligence findings in 2007 and 2010 that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program.”
By reverting to its long-abandoned attitude of denial on the Iranian nuclear threat, Washington flies in the face of the last two International Atomic Energy Agency quarterly reports. The last one published ten days ago stated: “The agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program,” and “Iran has produced nearly 110kg of uranium enriched to 20 percent since early 2010. Western experts say about 250 kg is needed for a nuclear weapon.” The report also pointed out that “Iran is shifting the most sensitive aspect of its nuclear work, refining uranium to a level that takes it significantly closer to potential bomb material, to the site.”Nuclear watchdog concerns were further exacerbated by Tehran’s refusal to allow inspectors to visit the Parchin site suspected of nuclear explosion tests in two recent visits. The Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak has warned that Iran was in the process of moving clandestine nuclear projects to a “zone of immunity” safe from outside attack.Notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary, the Obama administration has resorted to turning the Iran’s nuclear clock back to 2007. Then too, in an effort to hold Israel back from a preemptive attack on Iran, the National Intelligence Agency informed President George W. Bush that Iran had abandoned its military program in 2003.
A year ago, all the evidence accumulating of Iran’s rapid nuclear advances appeared to put the US-Israeli dispute to rest.
But now, the White House may be reacting to the explicit statement of Israel’s case by former Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin in the same paper on March 2. He wrote: “What is needed is an ironclad American assurance that if Israel refrains from acting in its own window of opportunity – and all other options have failed to halt Tehran’s nuclear quest – Washington will act to prevent a nuclear Iran while it is still within its power to do so.”
debkafile’s Washington sources report that no American president can be expected to tolerate Israel dictating terms, however just and pressing its case may be. Even before hearing what Israel had to say, Obama was determined to oppose military action on Iran and not be moved on this. Now he is additionally determined to put his Israeli visitor in his place and draw a line on Jerusalem’s influence in Washington - both as a lesson to Jerusalem and an incentive for Tehran.

Minister Baird Condemns Continued Violence, Aid Impasse in Syria
March 3, 2012 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement pursuant to reports of heavy shelling in Homs, Syria: “The depravity and reprehensible acts of the Assad regime continue to sink to new lows. “Assad and his regime are blocking humanitarian aid from getting to the Syrians who need it most, while making life miserable for countless others. “Canada is considering new measures to make clear that Assad must go. Change will happen. Syrians will have their day—and Canada stands with them in their calls for a better brighter future.”

Iran increasing 'secret aid' to Syria
04/03/2012/WASHINGTON, (AFP) — Iran is stepping up its military and intelligence support for Syrian government troops in their crackdown against opposition strongholds, The Washington Post reported late Saturday. Citing three unnamed US officials with access to intelligence reports from the region, the newspaper said Tehran had increased supplies of arms and other aid for Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad as he is trying crush resistance in the key city of Homs. "The aid from Iran is increasing, and is increasingly focused on lethal assistance," the paper quotes one of the officials as saying. Reports supported by US intelligence findings indicate that an Iranian operative was recently wounded while working with Syrian security forces inside the country, the paper said. "They've supplied equipment, weapons and technical assistance -- even monitoring tools -- to help suppress unrest," The Post quoted the official as saying of Iranians. "Iranian security officials also traveled to Damascus to help deliver this assistance." A second senior US official said Iran has recently dispatched members of its main intelligence service, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, to Damascus to assist in advising and training Syrian counterparts in charge of the crackdown, according to the report. The head of the Quds Force, Brigier General Qassem Suleimani, also has paid at least one visit to Damascus in recent weeks, the paper noted, citing US officials.

The Syrian crisis: a massacre, not a war!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat,
The Sunday Times photo-journalist Paul Conroy, speaking from his hospital bed in Britain, revealed shocking information about the situation in Homs, after he was rescued by the Farouk brigade affiliated to the Syrian revolutionaries. Conroy torpedoed everything that is being said about a civil war taking place in Syria when he stressed that what is happening there is “not a war, it’s a massacre”.
The statements made by the British photographer are saddening and frightening, particularly as he has prior experience in photographing wars and conflicts. In an interview with Sky News, Conroy revealed shocking details about what is taking place in Syria, telling the interviewer that the world must take action to stop what is happening there. Conroy said “forget the geo-politics, forget the meetings, forget all of that, do something because as I’m talking to you now they’re dying” adding “they need help.” This is clear talk, from a man who is bedridden and whose body is wounded, exposing the crimes of the al-Assad regime which, for its part, sensed the danger – or let us say harm – that the journalists who were rescued from Homs could do to the tyrant’s regime. This is because these journalists will shame al-Assad and awaken the world’s conscience, particularly that of Europe, against al-Assad. This is why the tyrant’s regime took the initiative to issue a statement late on Friday expressing its deep sadness over the death of the American journalist [Marie Colvin]; however this is the same regime that did not feel a moment of pity as it killed almost ten thousand Syrians! The tyrant’s regime has realized – as I stated last week – that it has fallen into a trap and it is clear that the al-Assad regime is feeling anxious and confused in this regard. Evidence of this can be seen in the tyrant of Damascus’s ambassador to the UN issuing a call for western journalists to be held accountable for illegally entering Syria, whilst Hezbollah affiliated media previously called for the same thing. In addition to this, the tyrant’s regime also issued a statement expressing its sadness over the death of the American journalist!
Therefore, the stories that the rescued journalists will reveal will not just confuse the tyrant of Damascus’s regime and awaken the world’s conscience, but this will also refute the silly American story about an Al Qaeda presence in Syria, particularly as the French journalist and British photographer were rescued by the Farouk brigade, 13 of whose members were killed at the hands of al-Assad regime forces attempting to kill the journalists as they were fleeing Homs for Lebanon. This refutes the American claim of Al Qaeda being present in Syria, for Al Qaeda – which beheaded American journalist Daniel Pearl in Afghanistan – would never allow British and French journalists to be smuggled into Lebanon! Therefore the testimony of the British photo-journalist, in addition to what the French journalist will no doubt reveal in the future, will represent a significant blow to the al-Assad regime, in addition to exposing its crimes to the international community, particularly as Mr. Conroy told Sky News that “there was no restraint with the cameras there. God knows what’s happening now the cameras are gone.” He added that one day in the future we will shamefully ask ourselves “how did we let this happen under our nose?”This is the question that we must ask ourselves today, not tomorrow, for what is taking place in Syria is a massacre, not a war, and it is a disgrace that the world is allowing this to happen!

Syria's revolutionary sects
By Mshari al-Zaydi/Asharq Alawsat
The last thing the revolution of Syria's oppressed people needs is to be tainted with sectarianism and radicalism. Yet this is exactly what the al-Assad regime wants to perpetuate and entrench, so as to deter minorities internally, and the countries of the world externally. For this reason, I wish that some of our preachers and religious speakers would adopt a measure of asceticism in the media these days, and desist from their harmful support for the Syrian revolution. I am saying this after one famous preacher recently said that rising up against the al-Assad regime and fighting its troops is a duty because in addition to being a tyrant and a killer, religiously al-Assad is a "heretic."If only we could recognize these harmful acts of support. What is happening in Syria is a revolution for the sake of freedom; a revolution against the oppression that has spared no one in the country.
At the forefront of the Syrian revolutionaries are all kinds of people who have sacrificed what is most precious and most dear; they have risked their lives and have been outspoken in their support for the oppressed, that is, the Syrian people. So how could such people, in full, not be considered a full part of the beautiful mosaic that makes up Syrian society? Take the following names as an example: Writer Samar Yazbek, courageous actress Fadwa Suleiman (who remains a fugitive on the run from the regime’s security apparatus, but who suddenly appeared in the squares of Homs chanting anti-Assad slogans), Munther Khaddam, Munther Majos and Mohammed Saleh al-Ali among others. All the aforementioned are members of the opposition who belong to the Alawite sect, which the regime claims to be protecting and safeguarding.
There are other names like the creative writer Rima Fuleihan, a woman who has adopted an uncompromising stance in terms of clarity, courage and awareness, not to mention Montaha al-Atrash, the daughter of Sultan Pasha al-Atrash and the revolution's artist Samih Choucair, the man who wrote the famous song in support of the city of Daraa. All the aforementioned are from the Druze sect and the people of Jabal al-Arab. Their stances are mirrored by those of Lebanese Druze Leader Walid Jumblatt, who called for the arming of the revolutionaries in Syria and warned Syria's Druze population against siding with the murderous al-Assad regime, as quoted in his interview with the French daily newspaper "Le Monde".
Alongside the Druze, other stances have been adopted by other sects, such as the Syrian Christians for example. Here we have Mai Skaf, the actress who risked her life by sending a strong-worded message to the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, asking him to spare the Syrian people from his evils. Likewise there is also Faris al-Helo, Michel Kilo and George Sabra. All these are Syrian Christian citizens who, along with the rest of the population, have created this revolution that many people are now conspiring against.
Furthermore, we cannot forget Mashaal Tammo, the Syrian-Kurdish hero of the revolution who was assassinated by the regime. Even the Ismaili sect has participated in the Syrian revolution. A reliable source on the Syrian revolution operating from within told me that the city of Salamiyah, the capital of the Ismaili sect, participated in demonstrations and protests against the oppressive regime. Moreover, this city provided support, shelter and protection for the inhabitants of al-Rastan when they escaped from the brutal al-Assad killing machine.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, or a drop in the ocean, which reveals concrete evidence that this is the revolution of the entire Syrian "people" and not just a particular sect. It is a revolution powered by the purely humane feelings of the people who are sick of living in constant "degradation". These feelings have been embodied by the emotional slogan of the Syrian revolutionaries: "Death is better than humiliation." To live with dignity is a demand shared equally by all mankind, without the slightest consideration for religious, ethnic or cultural differences.
The irony is that those promoting the idea of a sectarian revolution, claiming that it is the work of Sunni radicals, or a "Sunni revolution" as they sometimes call it, are adherents of the al-Assad regime. However, many of the radical Sunni currents outside of Syria, under the pretext of supporting the Syrians, are unwittingly helping to bring oppression and ignorance together.
The regime is at a loss with regards to the resilience of this revolution and its growth. It is counting on creating sectarian and social rifts within the revolutionary ranks. Yet according to the regime's leader, Bashar al-Assad, the regime is confused when it comes to calculating its profits and losses. By analyzing the latest statements made by Bashar al-Assad following the farcical referendum held on his new constitution, his regime is arguably powerful and capable on the ground. Nevertheless, it lacks control over space, that is the satellite media; and it needs to gain control of this in order to overcome the crisis. In an atrocious underestimation of what is actually happening, Bashar al-Assad says his forces are capable on the ground. He understands capability here in the context of his military power being dominant and all-conquering, and he is right about that. According to last Sunday's edition of the American online news website the "World Tribune", and as reported by sources within the Syrian regime, "The regime of President Bashar al-Assad, despite nearly a year of fighting, has been using only a fraction of its military might against the Sunni rebel movement."
But what the "sage" Bashar al-Assad has neglected to consider is that "even a mosquito can blind a lion”, as the ancient Arab proverb goes. This proverb has been wasted on al-Assad, just like he has missed the numerous Arab slogans.
The problem is not whether the al-Assad regime possesses heavily armed troops and lethal weapons. Such an arsenal could be of use in a regular war, something that the Syrian army has not fought since the Yom Kippur War of 1973, during the rule of Hafez al-Assad. The real problem lies in the collapse in the legitimacy of the ruling elite in the eyes of the public. When people stop believing in you, no weapon on Earth will be of any use, just as we have seen in the past with those who had far greater numbers and resources than al-Assad.
This is the real problem for the regime. Something is wrong with the regime’s mindset, just like there is something wrong with the mindset of many of those dealing with Syria's revolution or crisis. A state of buffoonery, or let's say confusion, dominates the approach to Syria's predicament in particular. This crisis has confused many of the "dinosaurs" affiliated to the age-old left-wing, or shall we say the long-dead camp of "Arab resistance and opposition", even though some of them have reaped part of the benefits of the Arab Spring in countries other than Syria. This, in some way, explains the recent contradictory positions of the "revolutionary" President of Tunisia, Moncef Marzouki. Despite expressing "ideological" sympathy for the Syrian people, Marzouki has ignored or objected to every practical solution that goes beyond mere slogans to proper action on the ground. Even though the role of Marzouki and the entire Tunisian state is not vitally important for the course of events in Syria, as Abdul Rahman al-Rashed noted in his recent Asharq al-Awsat column, this confusion highlights the problem for the old Arab mentality of resistance. It is “struggling” to come to terms with overthrowing the Syrian regime which once served as an ideal embodiment of its empty discourse.
Just as many young members (and even some elders) of Arab leftism and pan-Arabism have gotten lost in evaluating the situation in Syria, as they labored under the illusions of organized conspiracies, some religious figures, especially those belonging to political movements, have contributed further detrimental analysis of the Syrian crisis by approaching it from the door of pro-Sunni sentiments in Levant. This is exactly what the al-Assad regime wants, so as to prove to Syrian civil intellectuals and the rest of Syria’s sects, along with the Sunni business community, that this is what will await them if they join the religious extremist revolutionaries.
What is most needed now is to establish an all-encompassing Syrian national dialogue, without being carried away by the sectarian and emotional deluge. Such a dialogue would strip the al-Assad regime of its logical capabilities, and nullify its intimidating discourse.
According to some foreign reports, including the most recent publications of the "International Crisis Group," there are real fears among some members of religious minorities in Syria over their future. Religious leaders from the Christian denomination have expressed such fears which are quite justifiable. They should be given due attention and not be a source of disturbance. The Syrian opposition should offer absolute and solid guarantees for the protection of the unity of the Syrian people. I wish that a country such as Saudi Arabia, or the Gulf States collectively, would open up to all components and sects of the Syrian people with total transparency, and provide guarantees that Syria will not fall into the hands of an extremist radical ruling system after the anticipated overthrow of the current poisoned regime.
Without taking such action, and without adopting such a mindset, the Syrians’ suffering will increase and the revolution might end up yielding a bitter harvest, instead of the delicious fruit of the Levant.

Talking Points
by Steven J. Rosen/Foreign Policy
March 2, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3184/obama-netanyahu-talking-points
A hallmark of U.S. President Barack Obama's approach to Israel has been to confront Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly about areas of disagreement almost every time they meet. The headlines are always about settlements, occupied territory in Jerusalem, restraining Bibi on Iran, and pushing Israel on borders. Obama's theory seems to be that you have to show daylight with Israel to get progress on peace and win friends in the Muslim world.
But what if the president tried the opposite approach? He could begin by using his speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference this coming Sunday, March 4, to build trust and win the confidence of the Israeli government as a foundation for future diplomatic cooperation. What could Obama do to set a new tone? Here are four ideas.
1. Obama should sharpen the message his administration is sending to Iran. Netanyahu believes recent comments by senior U.S. officials cautioning Israel against striking Iranian nuclear sites have reassured the Iranians and encouraged them to press ahead with their nuclear program. Particularly disturbing were remarks by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who referred to the Iranian government as a "rational actor" and said an attack by Israel would be "destabilizing" and "not prudent." To restore credibility to the threat that "all options are on the table," what if Obama repeats this weekend the exact words Senator Obama said at the AIPAC conference in June 2008, during his presidential campaign: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything." Hearing those words from a sitting president would be hard to ignore.
2. For more than three years, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has refused to sit down with the Israeli prime minister for serious top-level peace talks. In taking this position, Abbas is openly violating the solemn pledge he made in November 2007 in front of the foreign ministers of 47 countries at the Annapolis peace conference. There he said: "We agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations … [and to] engage in vigorous, ongoing, and continuous negotiations." Abbas is now ignoring the core commitment his predecessor Yasir Arafat made to then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in September 1993: "The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process … and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations." And he is defying the Middle East Quartet's appeal of March 2010, which called for "the resumption, without preconditions, of direct bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues as previously agreed by the parties." On more than 13 occasions, Obama and his top officials have publicly rebuked Netanyahu on points of disagreement. Not once has any Obama official similarly remonstrated with Abbas. This Sunday is an opportunity for Obama to restore some balance in how he assigns blame for the sorry state of the peace process. It is time to single out Abbas's refusal to negotiate with Israel.
3. At last year's AIPAC conference, Obama upset Netanyahu by pressing Israel to accept the 1967 borders with land swaps as a starting line for negotiations. This year, Obama could restore some balance by bringing up a final status issue for which he believes the Palestinian camp needs to take a similar forward step. He could call on Abbas to acknowledge that it is unrealistic to expect that the 5 million people now registered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency as Palestinian refugees will be "returning" to Israel (where, in any case, more than 90 percent never lived). Yes, Palestinians will find this upsetting as a rejection of their "narrative," but no more so than Israelis when they are told that the lands of their ancestors are occupied territory that rightfully belongs to the Arabs. And it would support the administration's plan, announced in June 2011, to get both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government to adopt Obama's principles "as a basis for negotiation."
4. George W. Bush's administration announced in July 2002 that it would veto one-sided anti-Israel U.N. Security Council resolutions, a policy known as the Negroponte Doctrine. The Obama administration has never revealed whether the United States remains committed to this doctrine. As a presidential candidate, Obama wrote to Zalmay Khalilzad, then Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, urging him to "ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution" that fails to blame the Arab side for the attacks that provoke Israeli responses. "The Security Council should … make clear that Israel has the right to defend itself against such actions," Obama wrote. "If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all." Obama's ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said in July 2010 that the United States would "combat all international attempts to challenge the legitimacy of Israel -- including and especially at the United Nations." In February 2011 she said the United States was vetoing a unilateral statehood resolution because it "could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations and, if and when they did resume, to return to the Security Council whenever they reach an impasse." At AIPAC on Sunday, Obama could add deterrent value to these principles by pledging that the United States will veto all one-sided resolutions against Israel at the Security Council.
If Obama decides to work with Netanyahu, instead of confronting him, the president might get some surprising results. Unlike Israeli leaders from the left, prime ministers from Netanyahu's center-right Likud party who are prepared to take bold steps -- like Menachem Begin giving up the Sinai or Ariel Sharon disengaging from Gaza -- might not advertise in advance the concessions they are willing to consider. It is time to recognize that Netanyahu is the Israeli people's clear choice to lead their nation, and the president of the United States does better when it works with him than when it works against him.
**Steven J. Rosen served for 23 years as a senior official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He is now the director of the Washington Project of the Middle East Forum.