LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
September 12 /12

Bible Quotation for today/
Luke 18/18-23: "A certain ruler asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: "You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honour your father and mother." ’He replied, ‘I have kept all these since my youth.’When Jesus heard this, he said to him, ‘There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Why Nabih Berri today/By: Hazem Saghiyeh/Now Lebanon/September 11/12
Robert Satloff on Next Steps in the Iran Crisis/Jeffrey Goldberg and Robert Satloff /Washington Institute/September 11/12
The Tip of the Iceberg of Christian Persecution/By Raymond Ibrahim/September 11/12
Analysis: Canada may have cut ties with Iran to avoid retaliation/By Marcus George and Randall Palmer/Reuters/September 11/12

Secret Syria strike helps Israel signal resolve on Iran
By Dan Williams | Reuters –
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - An Israeli cabinet minister on Tuesday invoked his country's ostensibly secret 2007 air raid on an alleged Syrian nuclear reactor to suggest Israel could successfully strike Iran without U.S. support. Israel has never formally acknowledged the bombing of the desert site at Deir al-Zor nor said what was destroyed - a precaution against drawing Syria into a retaliatory war, according to then-U.S. President George W. Bush, who in his memoir described the target as a nascent, North Korean-supplied reactor.
That Bush, by his own account, declined to carry out a U.S. strike as initially requested by Israel resurfaced this week in an expose by the New Yorker magazine. It touched a topical nerve given current tensions between the allies over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hints he could defy Washington by taking similar action against Iran's disputed nuclear program. "According to what was reported, then, too, President Bush was not enthused by an attack, did not agree to the United States taking part, and in any event the right step was taken," Environment Minister Gilad Erdan told Israel Radio. Erdan, a influential member of the ruling, rightist Likud party, was answering a question about whether Israel could afford to deepen its rift with the United States, which has resisted Netanyahu's demand for a "clear red line" beyond which it would be willing to resort to force on Iran. The Netanyahu government has made clear Israel is prepared to attack unilaterally if necessary, despite divided domestic opinion and Western calls to give diplomacy with Tehran more time. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, as did Syria in 2007. As noted by the New Yorker, differences abound between the single, exposed structure hit by Israel in neighboring Syria and the numerous, distant and defended Iranian facilities.
LIMITS OF SECRECY
The unprecedented public debate in Israel about prospects for a war with Iran further limits comparison with Syria in 2007 and the sneak Israeli bombing of Iraq's atomic reactor in 1981.
Israeli officials insist they have the technical means to surprise Iran, and that their reticence about Deir al-Zor exists, in part, to preserve such secrets.
But they have also bristled at statements from within the Obama administration questioning whether Israel has the capabilities to cause significant damage to Iran, and countered by invoking the previous missions in Iraq and Syria. "The mistake then, as now, was to underestimate Israel's military ingenuity," Amos Yadlin, one of the fighter-bomber pilots who took part in the 1981 operation and went on to command Israeli military intelligence during the Deir al-Zor attack, wrote in a New York Times opinion piece in February. He referred to "the destruction of the Syrian reactor in 2007" - straying from Israel's no-comment policy. Asked by Reuters when Israel might give an on-record account of what happened at Deir al-Zor, dropping its censorship order, a defense official said there was no such decision pending. But the official also indicated Israel no longer feels the same reluctance to offend Damascus, having written off President Bashar al-Assad as a 17-month-old Syrian insurgency deepens.
"Can you imagine what the mess in Syria would look like today if Assad had nukes?" the official said. Syria does acknowledge having chemical weapons, developed partly to counter Israel's reputed atomic arsenal.(Editing by Mark Heinrich

Incriminating evidence links Sayyed to former MP Michel Samaha plot
September 11, 2012/By Mirella Hodeib The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Security authorities have acquired “incriminating evidence” that ex-General Security head Maj. Gen. Jamil Sayyed accompanied former MP Michel Samaha when he transported explosives from Syria to Lebanon, a senior security source said Monday. “The evidence was taken from a DNA sample that was analyzed after being taken from Samaha’s vehicle, which was transporting 24 different explosives to be distributed in different areas in the north [of the country],” the source said. Sayyed refused to deny or confirm the report. He said he was going to wait until his meeting with Military Investigative Judge Riad Abu Ghayda, while maintaining that the accusations were politically motivated. Sayyed slammed Internal Security Forces chief Brig. Gen. Ashraf Rifi and Information Branch head Brig. Wissam Hasan, saying the two were behind the reports and were trying to implicate him in the Samaha case to achieve political gains. Samaha is being probed on terror charges.
“This is the fourth time they [Rifi and Hasan] have tried to drag my name into the Samaha case,” Sayyed told The Daily Star.
“I have repeatedly called on them to submit the information they own to the judiciary rather than resort to press leaks,” he added.
Samaha, who is close to the Syrian government, has been charged with plotting to carry out terrorist attacks in the country, assassinations of religious and political figures.
The accusations are also directed at the head of Syria’s Intelligence Gen. Ali Mamlouk and another Syrian army officer. Samaha was also charged with transporting explosives from Syrian into Lebanon.
In his confessions to the Internal Security Forces Information Branch published in Lebanese daily Al-Joumhouria shortly after his arrest on Aug. 10, Samaha allegedly said Syrian President Bashar Assad wanted bomb attacks in Lebanon. A judicial source, who also requested anonymity, said Monday that both the interrogation with Samaha and DNA tests of samples from the seats of the former minister’s car proved Sayyed was in the vehicle during the trip. “Investigations with Samaha proved that the person who was with him while transporting explosives from Syria to Lebanon is Jamil Sayyed,” the source said.The military prosecutor referred the results to Abu Ghayda, who is presiding over Samaha’s case, the source added.
According to Sayyed, the information security bodies owned “relied on the form rather than the substance.”
“My name has not figured once in the Samaha confessions unlike the names of several senior Syrian officials,” said the retired major general. “The Investigative Judge has questioned Samaha and is well aware of the names of those involved.” Sayyed was one of four high-ranking, pro-Syrian generals who was arrested in 2005 in connection with the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.The four were released nearly four years later without charges or trial. Sayyed accused the ISF and the Information Branch of using “secondary material” in a bid to exploit the case politically.
He added that the two security bodies ought to be providing “evidence and information to convince the judiciary rather than the general public.”
“Whether I was with Samaha in his car or not, I am not denying or confirming it, but I don’t think Samaha’s car would fit two donkeys,” he said. – With additional reporting by Youssef Diab

Sources: Lebanon's Former General Security head Maj. Gen. Jamil al-Sayyed in Samaha's car during Syria-Lebanon bombs transport
September 10, 2012 The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Former General Security head Maj. Gen. Jamil al-Sayyed accompanied former MP Michel Samaha, who is being probed on terror charges, when he transported explosives from Syria to Lebanon, sources said Monday. Sayyed would not confirm or deny the report.
"We have put forward incriminating evidence that Jamil Sayyed was with Michel Samaha while he was transporting explosives [from Syria to Lebanon]," a high-ranking security source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Daily Star. "The evidence was taken from a DNA sample that was analyzed after being taken from Samaha's vehicle, which was transporting 24 different explosives to be distributed in different areas in the north [of the country]," the source added. Samaha, who is close to the Syrian government, has been charged with plotting to carry out terrorist attacks in the country, assassinations of religious and political figures. The accusations are also directed at the head of Syria’s Intelligence Gen. Ali Mamlouk and another Syrian army officer. Samaha was also charged with transporting explosives from Syrian into Lebanon. In his confession to the Internal Security Forces Information Branch shortly after his arrest on Aug. 10, Samaha said Syrian President Bashar Assad wanted bomb attacks in Lebanon, according to security sources. A judicial source, who also requested anonymity, told The Daily Star Monday that both the interrogation with Samaha and DNA tests of samples from the seats of the former minister’s car proved Sayyed was in the vehicle during the trip. “Investigations with Samaha proved that the person who was with him while transporting explosives from Syria to Lebanon is retired Maj. Gen. Jamil Sayyed,” the source said. “The judiciary has the prerogative to decide on the issue of Sayyed and measures to be taken against him,” the source added.
The military prosecutor referred the results to Investigative Judge Riyad Abu Ghida presiding over Samaha’s case. Sayyed was among three other high-raking pro-Syrian Lebanese generals who were arrested in 2005 in connection with the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a car bomb. The four were released nearly four years later without charges or trial.Speaking to The Daily Star, Sayyed would not confirm or deny the reports. He slammed Internal Security Forces chief Brig. Gen. Ashraf Rifi and Information Branch head Brig. Gen. Wissam Hasan, saying the two were behind the reports and were trying to implicate him in the Samaha case. “This is the fourth time they [Rifi and Hasan] have tried to drag my name into the Samaha case,” he said. “The judge who is looking into the case has clear information about the case. Therefore, I will not respond to leaks from Rifi and Hasan,” he said, adding that the “leaks” were meant to be exploited politically. “Whether I was with Samaha in his car or not, I am not denying or confirming it but I don’t think Samaha’s car would fit two donkeys,” he said. – With dditional reporting by Mirella Hodeib and Youssef Diab

Why Nabih Berri today?
Hazem Saghiyeh/Now Lebanon/ September 11, 2012
A lot can be said about Speaker Nabih Berri. Indeed, he is one of the warlords whose rise coincided with that of militias and who benefited – like others did – from the Syrian tutelage. Afterwards, he took advantage of the institutional and political paralysis and equally contributed to causing this paralysis. This holds without mentioning his alliance with Hezbollah, which rallied the Shiite community behind the party, its methods and its weapons. Yet what can also be said about Nabih Berri is that Shiite political opinions, which do not get along with Hezbollah and do not wish to sacrifice self and country for the delusion of “liberating Palestine,” will find their expression only in him. Many Shiites are opposing Hezbollah from clearer position and more transparent backgrounds, but none has the strength needed to compete with Hezbollah. Since Lebanon cannot be without the Shiite community and since there can be no civil peace without Shiite involvement in it, dealing positively with Nabih Berri has become a pressing necessity. In spite of everything, the current parliament speaker is bound to resort to politics and incurs damage as a result of the unilateral [control of] weapons, which has forced him to adopt stances that defy political logic. He is Hezbollah’s only reserve competitor and the main objective beneficiary of Hezbollah’s retreat or demise. More importantly, the Amal Movement’s orbit and horizon is Lebanese – i.e. non-Iranian – and its sole condition is to have a country that provides decent living conditions regardless of the serious divergences about the nature of this country.
This Lebanese horizon and orbit is no stranger to broad social interests that were underlying Sayyed Moussa Sadr’s movement ever since its inception in the early 1970s. These interests transcend the Shiite bourgeoisie, which developed abroad, and is seeking to settle down and invest, or the top civil servants and cadres who have crossed over to the private sector. They now concern large numbers of middle- and lower-class individuals who do not want their homes to be destroyed or their families to be displaced or forced into exile once again. The number of those people is disproportionate with the shyness of their expression, which is understandable given the fear and intimidation inspired by Hezbollah. Nevertheless, the transformation initiated by the Syrian revolution, one that is bound to impact on Lebanon, will overcome the current fears and pave the way for greater boldness and initiative. In this sense, it would be a mistake to weaken Berri and to abstain from helping him when such help seems possible. At the end of the day, politics is not about revenge and the useless settlement of old scores.
**This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Monday September 10, 2012

Netanyahu ramps up Iran attack threat
September 11, 2012/Daily Star/JERUSALEM: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ramped up Tuesday threats to attack Iran, saying if world powers refused to set a red line for Tehran's nuclear program, they could not demand that Israel hold its fire. "The world tells Israel 'wait, there's still time'. And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?' Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel," Netanyahu, speaking in English, told reporters. "Now if Iran knows that there is no red line. If Iran knows that there is no deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it's doing. It's continuing, without any interference, towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there, nuclear bombs," he said. Netanyahu's use of the word "deadline", at a news conference with visiting Bulgarian government leaders, appeared to be a swipe at U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton said earlier this week that the United States would not set deadlines in any further diplomacy with Iran, drawing an angry response from a senior Israeli government official on Monday. Netanyahu has said Israel and the United States were in talks on setting a "clear red line" for Iran's nuclear programme. But the two allies remain at odds over whether to spell out a clear threshold for military action. Israel and the West believe Iran is working toward nuclear weapon development capability. Israel, widely thought to be the Middle East's only atomic power, says a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its existence. Iran says its nuclear work is for peaceful energy purposes only.

US on Iran: There is still time for diplomacy
Attila Somfalvi/09.11.12, 09/Ynetnews
White House spokesman Jay Carney says US believes 'there remains time and space' for efforts on sanctions to 'bear fruit' amid heightened tensions over Israeli demand for a deadline
Amid heightened tensions between Israel and the United States over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's demand for an American "red line" on the Iran nuclear issue, White House Spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that there is still time for diplomacy. The US, he said, believes in an effort that is focused on punitive sanctions to isolate and pressure Iran and on diplomacy to bring about a change in behavior.We believe that there remains time and space for that effort to bear fruit…” he told reporters at a news briefing.
Carney stressed that President Barack Obama is determined to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and shares this view with Israel.
“We share that view with Israel and Israel’s leadership in a way that has been made clear again and again. That’s why the president has pursued the policy that he has, that has put, together with our international partners, unrelenting pressure on Iran to abide by its international obligations and to forsake its nuclear weapons ambitions,” he said.
“But we’ve also made clear that the window of opportunity for reaching a solution by that means will not remain open indefinitely and that the president retains all options on the table in the pursuit of his commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” Carney asserted.
"The Americans are signaling that they will not be dictated to by Israel," an Israeli state official explained. He estimated that disagreements over the Iranian issue are part of the reason the US has yet to issue an official statement on a possible meeting between Netanyahu and Obama top be held on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly later this month.
It is possible that officials at the Obama campaign are worried that an unsuccessful meeting between the two could be politically detrimental to the president. "They are debating over the meeting fearing a bad one could result in a sour photo op which may affect the US elections," the state official said. "There is a very serious trust issue between the US administration and Netanyahu."
Over the past week it appeared as though both the prime minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak made attempts to soften the rhetoric that pertains to a strike on Iran, evidently in order to allow the US and the international community an opportunity to step up pressure on the Islamic Republic.
But in the wake of the recent exchange, some state officials estimate tensions will rise again. They expect Netanyahu will respond to State Department Hillary Clinton's statements in order to illustrate the urgency of a need for a deadline.
Meanwhile, senior European officials have held brief visits in Israel recently to present their positions on the settlement issue as well as on Iran. Sources at the Foreign Ministry said this was nothing more than a formality as Europe understands it is not a factor in the debate on Iran which is solely between the US and Israel.
Former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz also voiced his opposition to Netanyahu's demand from Obama. "I don't believe in red lines, because when the time comes red lines are no longer relevant because circumstances have changed," he said in Washington. "Global powers don't need to set red lines. An elephant doesn't need to set an ant a red line, he just crushes it."
Speaking at a J Street event, Halutz reiterated his position that Israel should not strike Iran alone, adding that any public debate between Israel and the US only benefits Iran. "We've talked too much and it's hurt our deterrence."
He further added, "We don't need to make a decision about an attack right now. I don't recommend attacking immediately, but we should never preclude

Jihadis Threaten to Burn U.S. Embassy in Cairo
by Raymond Ibrahim • Sep 10, 2012/Cross-posted from Jihad Watch
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2012/09/jihadis-threaten-to-burn-us-embassy-in-cairo
Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya have issued a statement threatening to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground. According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: "The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released."

Analysis: Canada may have cut ties with Iran to avoid retaliation
By Marcus George and Randall Palmer | Reuters – ...DUBAI/OTTAWA, Sept 10 - Canada's surprise decision to sever relations with Iran may well have been triggered by Ottawa's fear of retaliation for stepping up its denunciations of Tehran and a parallel move to list Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.
The break in relations, announced on Friday, has led to speculation that it was a prelude to Israeli or U.S. military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Canada has categorically denied having any information about planned attacks.
"Canada wants to be able to continue to speak up on the Iranian regime's behavior, and we didn't want our guys in there as hostage," said Andrew MacDougall, chief spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, explaining the decision to close the Tehran embassy and order Iranian diplomats out of Canada.
The Canadian announcement offered a long list of reasons for cutting ties: Iran's nuclear program, hostility toward Israel, Tehran's military assistance to Syria, and what Ottawa said was Iran's support for terrorist groups. But none of those reasons had surfaced overnight, leaving people asking, why now?
Indeed, the decision appeared to catch Canada's Western allies off-guard.
"It was news to us," one Western diplomat based in Tehran told Reuters by telephone hours after the announcement. "There seemed to be nothing specific that made them pull the plug."
Still, the announcement came on the same day that Canada designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. A new Canadian law required the government to come up with a list of state terrorism sponsors by September 13, and many feared such a declaration could have sparked reprisals in Tehran if Canadian diplomats had stayed.
Canadian officials were mindful of the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran last November after a tightening of banking sanctions. The incident led London to close the embassy.
"With the British gone, who will be on the frontline of Iran's animosity?" reflected the Western diplomat. "There's France and Canada, and it's got a lot of people thinking."
A Canadian official who asked not to be identified said the timing of the announcement hinged partly on getting the last Canadian diplomat out of Iran.
"We had gotten to the point where all our diplomats had left safely ... and we were able to announce it," he said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to welcome Canada's tough stance, but the announcement has come in for criticism by some in Canada.
John Mundy, whom Tehran expelled as Canadian ambassador in 2007 and who has since retired, says Ottawa's reasons are not convincing and called on the government to say if it had received specific threats. "When the going gets rough you really need your diplomats," he wrote in Monday's Globe and Mail newspaper. "Canada's tradition is to be one of the last countries to leave in a crisis, not the first."
MacDougall, the prime minister's spokesman, dismissed the remarks as ill-informed: "This is a former ambassador who, quite frankly, isn't aware of the specifics or anything of this."
He added: "The prime minister's not willing to have civil servants who don't get paid to go to war for their country to be pawns in any dispute. The prime minister and minister of foreign affairs didn't feel that they could guarantee the safety of our diplomat personnel there, and so got them out."
On Saturday Iranian officials lashed out at Canada, describing the embassy closure as a hostile and anti-Iranian act that was taken under Israeli and British influence.
Already on a downward slump, the value of the Iranian currency, the rial, has fallen by more than 10 percent since Friday.
While there has been muted reaction among people in Iran, many Iranians in Canada sense ominous news to come.
"Many Iranians here interpret it as a green light to Israel for military action. They aren't happy with it," said blogger Mahmoud Azimaee, based in Toronto, home to around half of Canada's Iranian community of an estimated 120,000 people.
"What has to be avoided are bombers and Israeli missiles flying over Iran, because that will be a 10-year setback for any democratic movement. Cutting ties with the regime does not help that," said Arash Abadpour, a 33-year-old IT engineer.
Canada is also home to some of the most vocal critics of the Iranian government over its human rights abuses and they strongly support the Harper government's actions.
They have highlighted the cases of Saeed Malekpour and Hamid Ghassemi-Shall, both Iranians with Canadian citizenship, who have been sentenced to death and languish in prison in Iran.
Also behind bars is Hossein Derakhshan, an Iranian Canadian blogger, who was sentenced to 19 years in prison on charges of cooperating with hostile countries and spreading propaganda.
Activists have long alleged that the Iranian embassy in Ottawa has carried out secretive activities to monitor dissenting voices and intimidate them into keeping quiet.
"Many Iranians here are apprehensive to speak publicly against human rights violations because they fear the regime is keeping tabs on them," Toronto-based activist Maryam Nayeb Yazdi told Reuters by email.(Additional reporting by David Ljunggren; Editing by Frank McGurty)

Iranian-Canadian demonstrators wave thank-you placards at Harper government
By The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press –
OTTAWA - A group of Iranian-Canadians is demonstrating outside the Department of Foreign Affairs — but their message is one of gratitude. About three dozen members of different advocacy groups are waving placards with thank-you messages directed towards Stephen Harper's Conservative government. They're happy with last week's surprising move by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird to close the Canadian embassy in Iran and send Iranian diplomats in Canada home.Some say operatives connected with the Iranian embassy had intimidated them, and harassed family members still living in their home country. The demonstrators say there was no longer any point in the Canadian government trying to communicate with the Iranian regime. Some in the crowd, including former Liberal MP David Kilgour, want the government to remove People's Mujahedin of Iran — a resistance group — from Canada's

Canadian Government aims to strip Canadian citizenship from 3,100 it says cheated system
By The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - The federal government plans to revoke Canadian citizenship from 3,100 people it says cheated on the process.
It's also looking at thousands of others who may have obtained or maintain permanent residence fraudulently.
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says cheats will be stripped of citizenship and residence status.
He says it's part of a three-year crackdown on immigration fraud.
So far, he says, federal agencies have removed or denied admittance to more than 600 former permanent residents linked to the fraud investigations.
They have denied about 500 citizenship applications where the applicants did not meet residence requirements and almost 1,800 applicants linked to cheating have simply abandoned their citizenship applications.

Is Canada’s closure of its Tehran embassy a precursor to an attack on Iran?
.By Andy Radia/Politics Reporter
By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – Sun, 9 Sep, 2012.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke to reporters this weekend to clarify the reasons behind his government's decision, Friday, to cut ties with Iran.
"Ever since the attack on the British embassy last year, I have increasingly concerned about the safety of our diplomats," he said.
"Whether it's [their] nuclear programs, support from Assad, its antisemitism, its support for terrorism...the risk to our diplomats just keeps going up so ever since last year we have been scaling down our presence."
Harper says nothing Iran does would surprise him
Prime Minister Harper says he wouldn't be surprised at anything Iran does in response to his government's move to cut diplomatic ties with Tehran. The Iranian Foreign Ministry is calling the action hostile and racist.
[ Related: Why Canada severed relations with Iran ] There are many in the Twitterverse, blogosphere and comment boards that remain skeptical, believing that the closure of Canada's embassy in Tehran is a precursor to an imminent Israeli attack on Iran. In other words, Harper is getting our diplomats 'out of dodge.'
[ Related: Cut of diplomatic ties to Iran a bad idea: professor ]
On the one hand, it's a theory not without merit.
Over the past month, there have also been a growing number of Israeli media reports suggesting that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities within the coming weeks. According to Time Magazine, the the front pages of the Israeli newspapers have been peppered with such headlines:
"'[Benjamin] Netanyahu and [Ehud] Barak determined to strike Iran in the fall,' proclaimed Yedioth Ahronoth.
Haaretz offered: 'Senior Israeli official — The Iranian sword at our throat is sharper than the run-up to the war in 1967.'
Maariv informed us in its banner headline that 37 per cent of the Israeli public believes that 'If Iran gets the bomb, it might result in a second Holocaust.'
And Yisrael Hayom said: 'Iran significantly speeds up its progress toward the bomb.' The following day, the latter paper included a headline claiming that, according to Israeli TV, a 'Decision by [Prime Minister] Netanyahu and [Defence Minister] Barak to strike Iran is almost final.'"
There is also speculation that some in the Israeli cabinet are pushing for an attack on Iran before the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 6; the theory here is that the Barack Obama administration would be politically motivated to back Israeli action.
But while Israel seems motivated to attack, its allies don't.
According to Reuters, Washington has urged Israel to hold fire to give economic sanctions and diplomacy more time to curb Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons capability.
Martin Indyk, the U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Clinton, told USA Today that a pre-Nov. 6 attack on Iran would be "disruptive" for Obama and for that reason he doesn't believe Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will act before then.
"[Netanyahu] knows he's going to need the United States," Indyk said.
The impact to Canada if Israel attacks Iran:
Even with our diplomats out of Iran, Canada would experience some painful impacts if Israel attacks:
Gas prices would soar:
Former Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who now operates Tomorrowsgaspricetoday.com, recently told Yahoo! Canada News that in the event there is a war with Iran, "the sky is the limit" with regards to gas prices.
"Remember [oil prices] doubled in 1991...last time during the Gulf War," he said.
Canada enters the war:
An Israeli attack on Iran will inevitably lead to a retaliation.
The anecdotal evidence tells us that Canada would come to the defence of its ally. Both Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird have publicly touted their unconditional support for the Jewish state.
"There is no better friend to Israel than Canada," Baird said in speech in January.
"We shall always be there for you, and in front of you."
High terror alert levels:
An Israeli attack against Iran would likely spur a new wave of international terrorism.
Does that mean they would attack Canada or Canadian consulates abroad? At the very least, you can expect high terror alert levels in both Canada and the United States.
For Canadians, that would mean longer border lineups and security delays at our airports.

Iranian born professor says Canada’s closure of Tehran embassy ‘not the best course of action’
.By Andy Radia/Politics Reporter
By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – Fri, 7 Sep, 2012..The Canadian government made a bold move on Friday, with an announcement stating that it has closed its embassy in Iran and will expel all remaining Iranian diplomats in Canada within five days.
Citing Iran's nuclear program, its assistance to the government of Syria and its hostility towards Iraq, foreign affairs minister John Baird defended his government's action while in Russia for the APEC summit. "Canada's position on this regime is very well known," Baird told reporters.
"Canada views the government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today."But is complete suspension of diplomatic relations going too far?
Payam Akhavan, an Iranian-born law professor at McGill University thinks so.
While Akhavan has been a harsh critic of the Iranian regime, he says he would have liked to have seen a more tempered action from the Harper government. "I was anticipating a downgrade of diplomatic relations but not a termination," he told Yahoo! Canada News.
"The problem with a complete termination...is that it affects a lot of ordinary people. There are many Iranian-Canadians that travel back and forth and have family there. It would make things very difficult for them. Also when you speak about having no diplomatic presence in Tehran — well you have two Canadian-Iranians who are on death-row. You should talk to their families and see what they think about this," he said.
"Although the regime is radicalizing and should be isolated I would have thought the better course of action would have been to maintain a minimal diplomatic relations. And also when at a time when there's talk of war and escalation, I think that keeping a channel of communication is especially important."
Akhavan, who is the co-founder of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Centre, says that we should be concerned about the Iranian regime using Canada as a base for its operations. There have been recent allegations about Iranian diplomats in Ottawa spying and in some cases intimidating Iranian expatriates living in Canada.
There are also what he calls 'regime insiders' who brought over hundreds of millions of dollars of illicit wealth to Canada and invested it in the real estate markets of Toronto and Vancouver.
"If the Canadian government is really serious about putting pressure on the regime it would go after individuals and those assets," he told Yahoo!.
"It would impose travel bans and asset seizures like the United States has done, like the European Union has done."
Canada now joins the U.S. and the U.K. in a growing list of countries that do not have a functioning embassy in Iran. The U.S. hasn't had one since the 1979-81 hostage crisis and Britain's embassy was shuttered last November after it was stormed by protesters.

Syrian general who defected says regime can be toppled without outside intervention
By Bassem Mroue,Greg Keller, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press/ BEIRUT - Syria's most prominent defector said in an interview that aired Monday that he opposes any foreign military intervention in the country's civil war and that he is confident the opposition can topple President Bashar Assad's regime.
But Manaf Tlass, a Syrian general who was the first member of Assad's inner circle to join the opposition, said the rebels need weapons.
"The Syrian people must not be robbed of their victory, they must be given support, aid, arms," Tlass said in a recorded interview that aired Monday on French television station BFM.
He called on outside powers to give the opposition "all the aid and support" needed to topple Assad.
Foreign military intervention, however, "could not provide a solution" to the conflict, he said. The uprising against Assad's regime began in March 2011 with mostly peaceful protests against the family dynasty that has ruled Syria for four decades. But the battle has transformed into a civil war, and activists estimate that at least 23,000 people have been killed.
Tlass' defection in July was hailed as a resounding triumph by many Syrian opposition activists. But many in the opposition are deeply suspicious of Tlass, saying he is just trying to vault to power. In the weeks after he abandoned the regime, Tlass began touring regional powers to garner support for the uprising.
"My role is to unify, bring together my people, that is my role," he said in Monday's interview.
Tlass, who is in his forties, is the son of former defence minister Mustafa Tlass, who was the most trusted lieutenant of the late Hafez Assad, the president's father and predecessor.
Although the Assad regime has been hit by a string of defections, the inner circle has remained remarkably ironclad over the course of the conflict. Still, the government has not been able to crush the rebellion, leading to a murderous grind. The new U.N.-Arab League envoy to the country, meanwhile, said the Syrian people are desperate for peace and stability.
Lakhdar Brahimi said he will travel to Syria this week to meet with regime officials as well as civic groups in a new bid to broker a diplomatic solution to the conflict.
"I answer to no one except the Syrian people," Brahimi told reporters in Cairo, where he was meeting with Arab League officials and Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. "Syrians aspire to peace, stability and to realizing their goals of freedom and political progress."
Brahimi replaced former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who stepped down in August in frustration after his six-point peace plan that included a cease-fire collapsed.
The fight for Aleppo, a city of 3 million that was once a bastion of support for Assad, has emerged as one of the main battlegrounds of the civil war. Its fall would give the opposition a major strategic victory with a stronghold in the north near the Turkish border. A rebel defeat, at the very least, would buy Assad more time.
Syria's state run news agency, SANA, said Monday the death toll from a car bomb in the city the night before had risen to 30 civilians — including women and children — with 64 people wounded.
The blast happened near two hospitals. According to Aleppo-based activist Mohammed al-Hassan, one of the hospitals, Al-Hayat, was turned into a site for the treatment of government troops shortly after the fighting in Aleppo began in July. SANA also reported that the blast was caused by a small truck rigged with more than 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) of explosives, which left a crater 6 metres (20 feet) deep. SANA blamed terrorists, the term the regime uses for rebels, for the attack. But there was no immediate claim of responsibility from the rebels or any other group.
Some opposition activists disputed the SANA claim that the dead were all civilians. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, citing hospital sources that it did not name, said members of the military were among the dead. It was impossible to confirm the claims. Syria heavily restricts media access to the country, making official media and activist reports crucial sources of information.
*Keller reporter from Paris. Associated Press writer Maggie Michael contributed to this report from Cairo.

J'lem officials slam Clinton's 'deadline' remark
Attila Somfalvi 09.10.12/Ynetnews
State sources say US' refusal to set deadline for Iran could spur its pursuit of atom bomb
Taking a jab at US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent statements on Iran, officials in Jerusalem asserted on Monday that a failure to set a deadline for Tehran's nuclear program is counterproductive. In an interview with Bloomberg Radio on Sunday, Clinton said that the US is "not setting deadlines" for Iran and still considers negotiations as "by far the best approach" to prevent the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear weapons.These kinds of statements won't stop Iran's centrifuges, and could have the opposite effect," one top state official said, suggesting that instead of deterring Tehran's nuclear ambitions, Clinton's assertion could spur its pursuit of an atom bomb. Without a clear red line, Iran won't stop its race towards a nuclear weapon," he added.
'Israel is anxious' Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday said that Jerusalem and Washington are in talks over the "red lines" that need to be established to pressure Iran.
Speaking to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the Israeli leader said Iran "will not stop unless it sees clear determination by the democratic countries of the world and a clear red line. "I don't think that they see a clear red line, and I think the sooner we establish one, the greater the chances that we won't need other types of action," he argued.
Clinton, meanwhile, said Israel is "more anxious about a quick response because they feel that they’re right in the bull’s-eye, so to speak, but we’re convinced that we have more time to focus on these sanctions, to do everything we can to bring Iran to a good-faith negotiation."
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland on Monday further rebuffed Israel's bid to convince the US to declare "red lines" that Iran must not cross. While US President Barack Obama "has said unequivocally he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon," the idea of deadlines or red lines was "not useful," she said.
"So, you know, we are absolutely firm about the president's commitment here, but it is not useful to be parsing it, to be setting deadlines one way or the other, red lines," she said, promising "intensive consultations with Israel."Over the past week it appeared as though both the prime minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak made attempts to soften the rhetoric that pertains to a strike on Iran, evidently in order to allow the US and the international community an opportunity to step up pressure on the Islamic Republic. "It is our responsibility as the political echelon to delay any wars that can be delayed," Barak said on Monday evening. *Yitzhak Benhoring contributed to the report from Washington

Can Israel still surprise Iran?
Reuters Published: 09.11.12/Ynetnews
Stealth Israeli strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities may no longer be possible, but plans for attack have not necessarily been shelved
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cancellation of a security cabinet session on Iran following a media leak last week laid bare a conundrum long troubling Israeli strategists: Could they count on any element of surprise in a war on their arch-foe?
Possibly not. Years of public speculation, much of it stoked by official statements in Israel and abroad, about the likelihood and timing of such a conflict, have afforded the Iranians plenty of notice to fortify their threatened nuclear facilities and prepare retaliation. Given the difficulties Israel's jets would face in reaching and returning from distant Iran, as well as their limited bomb loads, losing the option of mounting sneak attacks may seem to have put paid to the very idea of an attack launched without its ally the United States.
Yet experts are not rushing to rule that out. Some believe Israel is still capable of achieving a modicum of surprise, and that in any case it might hope a combination of stealth, blunt force and, perhaps, hitherto untested innovations can deliver victory – even if Iran is on high alert. Israel, whose technologically advanced military has a history of successful derring-do, might place less importance on catching Iran completely off-guard and instead strike openly and with combined forces, causing disarray among the defenders in hope of delivering enough damage to a select number of targets.
"The probability of achieving surprise is low, but I think the Israelis will count on their technical competence in defense suppression to allow them in," said Walter Boyne, a former US air force officer and a writer on aviation history. He predicted the Israelis would mesh air raids with a swarm of strikes by ground and naval units, a view echoed by Lynette Nusbacher, senior lecturer in war studies at Britain's Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. She suggested Israel could also incorporate cyber-attacks to blind Iran as an assault began.
"There is no question that Israel can achieve tactical surprise if required," Nusbacher said, differentiating the short-term shock from Iran's long readiness for an attack. "As long as the direction or timing or form of the attack is unexpected then surprise is possible." Israel and its Western allies believe Iran is covertly seeking means to build nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists it wants only to generate electricity and medical isotopes. US President Barack Obama says he hopes sanctions and diplomacy will deflect Iranian policy. But Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have made clear they might soon resort to force. Nusbacher indicated that pinpoint intelligence and planning might also help Israel overcome Iran's anticipation and counter-measures, making up for limitations on the element of surprise:
"Remember that while the Iranian nuclear facilities are each more or less defended, their locations are known to the meter," she said. "Precision can't entirely make up for surprise.
"But surprise isn't everything."
Jitters and chatter
Israeli military planners chafe at their civilian compatriots' freewheeling and jittery discourse about a possible confrontation, worried that the Iranians could glean key warnings simply from monitoring Israeli news and social media. If they do indeed contemplate a solo surprise attack, they may also be concerned that the United States, loath to see a war on the eve of a presidential election and while it still favors a diplomatic solution, could also be tipped off about a strike early enough to insist its Israeli ally stand down. There were no such problems in 1981, when a squadron of Israeli fighter-bombers took off from the then-occupied Sinai desert to destroy Iraq's atomic reactor, nor in 2007, when Israel alleged launched a similar sortie against Syria out of the blue. By contrast, experts think Israel would need to dispatch many scores of jets and support aircraft against Iran, and possibly fire ballistic missiles, all difficult to hide from the public in a small country.
Though a media blackout would be allowed under Israeli emergency laws, such sudden and sweeping censorship would be so unprecedented as to telegraph what was meant to go unpublished – and in any event may prove impracticable in today's wired world.
Nonetheless, some other measures could limit exposure, such as choice of timing. Operation Cast Lead was launched on December 27, 2008 – deep in the Western holiday season and on a Saturday morning, the Jewish Sabbath, when Israel's own media pare coverage to a minimum and newsrooms are barely staffed. Israel is also trying to restrict the circle of those in the know. The number of those privy to the details of Iran planning in the military and government has been kept very small, a depth of secrecy akin to that surrounding Israel's own nuclear program, which is assumed to include the region's only atomic weapons. Netanyahu would be legally required to gain security cabinet approval for an attack on Iran. But after a newspaper reported on Wednesday that ministers on the panel had been presented with conflicting intelligence assessments about Iran, a leak that angered Netanyahu, at least one senior leader, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, called for the 14-member security cabinet to be shrunk in order to ensure more discretion. For similar ends, Israel may go so far as to temporarily misdirect its own populace, away from talk of imminent attack.
Asked about such ruses, a senior Israeli official shrugged and said that they were a legitimate tactic for military planners dealing with a democratic society: "Such things are kosher," he said, "when you have a free press and free speech." And while certainly not advocating the kind of extensive public discussion seen lately in Israel on the prospects for a conflict, the same official saw a counter-intuitive benefit in that such perpetual talk might erode Iran's level of alertness:The more you brace to defend yourself, the more tired you get – or you make the mistake of writing off the threat as a bluff," he said. "Perhaps that's the case with Iran."

US rebuffs Israel, says red line on Iran 'not useful'
Yitzhak Benhorin, AFP /09.10.12, 23:00 / Ynetnews
State Department says Israel shouldn't question President Obama's commitment to barring Iran from obtaining atom weapons with demand for deadline . WASHINGTON - The United States on Monday rebuffed a bid by Israel to convince it to declare "red lines" that Iran must not cross if it is to avoid international action over its nuclear program.State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters that, while US President Barack Obama "has said unequivocally he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon," the idea of deadlines or red lines was "not useful."
Earlier, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Jerusalem is in talks with Washington about laying down a clear threshold for action over Iran's nuclear program.
"Iran will not stop unless it sees clear determination by the democratic countries of the world and a clear red line," Netanyahu told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
But the State Department distanced Washington from the Israeli stance, which would be seen by many as locking the United States and Iran into a logic of confrontation that could quickly escalate into military action. "The American people know that the president has said unequivocally he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon," Nuland said.
"So, you know, we are absolutely firm about the president's commitment here, but it is not useful to be parsing it, to be setting deadlines one way or the other, red lines," she said, promising "intensive consultations with Israel."
Not setting any deadlines
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had earlier played down talk of imposing a timetable on Iran.
"I think we've maintained a steady course of our two-pronged policy," Clinton told Bloomberg radio Sunday at the end of a trip to Asia.
"We have always said every option was on the table, but we believe in the negotiation, the diplomatic effort through the P5+1, but also pressure," she added in the remarks released Monday. Washington and Western nations accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapons capability under the guise of a civilian program. Tehran denies the charges. Clinton said tight sanctions imposed on Iran were having an effect, and that the group of nations leading negotiations would continue working on the issue even though negotiations with Tehran have ground to a halt.
The group comprises the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, and the European Union. It will meet in New York in the coming weeks on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Clinton said.
"We're not setting deadlines. We're watching very carefully about what they do, because it's always been more about their actions and their words," she said, in an interview given in Vladivostok during Asia-Pacific talks.
"So, you know, we are absolutely firm about the president's commitment here, but it is not useful to be parsing it, to be setting deadlines one way or the other, red lines," she said, promising "intensive consultations with Israel."

U.S., Israel still at odds over Iran "red line"
By Maayan Lubell and Matt Spetalnick | Reuters –
..JERUSALEM/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel and the United States were in talks on setting a "clear red line" for Iran's nuclear program, but the two allies remained at odds on Monday over whether to spell out a clear threshold for military action against Tehran.
The Israeli leader, who has been pressing President Barack Obama for a tougher line against Iran, again signaled that a sharper U.S. ultimatum for Tehran could deter it from developing nuclear weapons and mitigate the need for a military response.
Netanyahu's recent calls for world powers to set clear markers that would show they were determined to stop Tehran's nuclear drive has suggested a growing impatience with the United States, Israel's main ally.
Washington, which has resisted the idea of laying down red lines for Iran in the past, has urged the Israeli leader to give diplomacy and sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic more time to work to rein in Iran's nuclear work peacefully. But Obama has not ruled out military action if all else fails.Recent heightened Israeli rhetoric has stoked speculation that Israel might attack Iran before the U.S. elections in November, believing that Obama would give it military help and not risk alienating pro-Israeli voters.
In his latest call for an unambiguous message on boundaries that Tehran must not cross, Netanyahu said in interview with Canada's CBC television aired late on Sunday: "We're discussing it right now with the United States." But he has yet to define publicly what he wants.
Senior U.S. officials offered no sign that the United States and Israel were any closer to narrowing their differences.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made comments that were interpreted by Israeli media as rejecting Netanyahu's call for a red line and drew admonishment from a senior Israeli official.
In an interview with Bloomberg Radio, Clinton was asked about Netanyahu's demand that a red line be set and also whether she thought a time limit should be put on negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.
Clinton responded only to the second part of the question, saying, "We're not setting deadlines." Israeli media seized on those comments as a rejection of Netanyahu's red-line demand.
The Israeli official said: "These statements will not stop Iran's centrifuges from spinning."
Obama, who has had a strained relationship with Netanyahu, is facing accusation from Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney that he is lax in his support for Israel and not hard enough on Iran.
WHITE HOUSE AVOIDS 'SPECIFICITY'
White House spokesman Jay Carney dodged questions on whether Obama was ready to offer new red-line assurances to Israel.
"The line is the president is committed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and he will use every tool in the arsenal of American power to achieve that goal," he told reporters, reiterating Obama's position.
Asked whether that meant the United States would act only if Iran began building a bomb, Carney said: "It is not fruitful as part of this process to engage in that kind of specificity."
Netanyahu has faced opposition at home to any go-it-alone attack. Opinion polls show a majority of Israelis do not want their military to strike Iran without U.S. support.
"I don't think that they (Iran) see a clear red line, and I think the sooner we establish one, the greater the chances that there won't be a need for other types of action," Netanyahu told CBC, apparently referring to military steps.
"If Iran saw that, there's a chance, I won't say it's guaranteed, but there's a chance they might pause before they cross that line."
Israel and the West believe Iran is working toward nuclear weapon development capability. Israel, widely thought to be the Middle East's only atomic power, says a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its existence. The Islamic Republic says its nuclear work is for peaceful energy purposes only.
The Jewish state says little time remains before Iran achieves a "zone of immunity" in which Israeli bombs would be unable to penetrate deeply buried uranium enrichment facilities.
The United States has more potent weapons that would allow more time for the sanctions push to work.
Israeli newspaper Haaretz said on Monday that Netanyahu had told German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle that if Iran enriched uranium above 20 percent, that would provide a red line, proving Tehran had chosen to exceed the level of refinement suitable for civilian energy and "break out" with an atom bomb.
Enrichment to 90 percent fissile purity is the typical threshold for weapons-grade nuclear fuel. Haaretz said Netanyahu stressed that from the moment Iran decided to make a nuclear bomb, it would need only six weeks to enrich to 90 percent.
Many independent analysts say, however, that Iran would need additional time - from several months to a year or more - to fashion weapons-grade material into a nuclear warhead and fit it onto a missile capable of delivering the payload.
Netanyahu is scheduled to travel to the New York and address the U.N. General assembly about Iran later this month.
A meeting with Obama, who is deep in his re-election campaign and due to speak to the forum two days before Netanyahu arrives, has not been finalized, the Israeli official said.
(Editing by Jeffrey Heller, Michael Roddy and Mohammad Zargham)

The Tip of the Iceberg of Christian Persecution
by Raymond Ibrahim
Investigative Project on Terrorism
September 11, 2012
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/12255/the-tip-of-the-iceberg-of-christian-persecution
Two Christians living in the Islamic world under arrest and awaiting execution—the one charged with apostasy, the other with blasphemy—were just released.
According to a September 8 report on CNN, "A Christian pastor sentenced to death in Iran for apostasy was reunited with his family Saturday after a trial court acquitted him... Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, born to Muslim parents and a convert to Christianity by age 19, was released after being held in prison for almost three years under a death sentence.... Setting aside the death sentence, a trial court convicted Nadarkhani of a lesser charge—evangelizing Muslims—and declared that his prison sentence had already been served... His case drew international attention after his October 2009 arrest, and the 34-year-old pastor refused to recant his Christian beliefs."
In a separate story published the same day, "Pakistani authorities on Saturday released a teenage Christian girl detained over accusations of blasphemy," for allegedly burning pages of a Koran. Up till then, local Muslims were calling for the death of the 14-year-old Christian girl, Rimsha Masih, warning that, if released, they would "take the law into their own hands."
Why were these two Christians released—when both apostasy and blasphemy are great crimes in Islam, punishable by death? Is this a sign that Iran and Pakistan are reforming, becoming more "moderate"? One U.S. paper, for example, optimistically offers the following title, "Rescue of Christian Girl may be Turning Point in Abuse of Blasphemy Law."
Nadarkhani and Masih were certainly not released because their governments are acting according to universal standards of justice or reason. If so, they would not have been arrested in the first place. Nor do these releases suggest that Iran or Pakistan are rethinking their Islamic apostasy and blasphemy laws.
The fact is, there are many more Christians imprisoned in both countries for apostasy and blasphemy. Unlike Nadarkhani and Masih, however, the Western mainstream has never heard of these unfortunate Christians.
And that's the whole difference.
In Iran, where at least as early as 1990 a convert to Christianity, Pastor Hossein Soodmand, was executed by the state, apostates from Islam are under siege. A few examples from the last few months include:
A six-year prison sentence for Pastor Farshid Fathi Malayeri—whose crime was to convert to and preach Christianity[M1] —was upheld last July following an unsuccessful appeal hearing.
Another prominent house church pastor, Benham Irani, remains behind bars even as his family expresses concerns that he may die from continued abuse and beatings, leading to internal bleeding and other ailments. The verdict against him contains text that describes the pastor as an apostate who "can be killed." According to one activist, "His 'crimes' were being a pastor and possessing Christian materials." He is being beat in jail and getting sick, to the point that his hair has "turned fully gray."
A woman, Leila Mohammadi, who had earlier converted to Christianity was arrested when security agents raided her house. Imprisoned for five months in Iran's notorious Evin prison without any word on her fate, she was later sentenced to two years in prison.
A June 17 report [M2] indicated that, five months after five Christian converts were arrested, their condition and fate had remained unknown. They were accused of "attending house church services, promoting Christianity, propagating against the regime and disturbing national security." Being imprisoned for 130 days without word "is an obvious example of physical and mental abuse of the detainees…. one of the prison guards openly told one of these Christian detainees that all these pressures and uncertainties are intended to make them flee the country after they are released."
A young woman, who had recently converted to Christianity and was an outspoken activist against the Islamic regime, was found dead, slumped over her car's steering wheel, with a single gunshot wound to her head.
Then there are Iran's many other faces of Christian persecution, including the shutting down of churches, regular crackdowns on house-church gatherings, detaining and abusing Christians, banning church services in Farsi, and confiscating Bibles and other Christian literature.
As for Pakistan's blasphemy law—which calls for the death penalty—here are a few stories from the last few months:
A Muslim mob doused a man with gasoline and literally burned him alive for "blaspheming" the Koran (graphic picture here).
A 26-year-old Christian woman was arrested after neighbors accused her of "uttering remarks against Muhammad." A few days prior, some of her relatives who converted to Islam had pressured her to do likewise: "She refused, telling them that she was satisfied with Christianity and did not want to convert." She was arrested of blasphemy soon thereafter.
A female Christian teacher was targeted by Muslims due to allegations that she burned a Koran. A mob stormed her school in an attempt to abduct her, but police took her into custody.
A Christian man was arrested and charged with "blasphemy" for rescuing his 8-year-old nephew from a beating at the hands of Muslim boys who sought to force the boy to convert to Islam. Later, "a Muslim mob of about 55 led by the village prayer leader besieged the Christian's house," and insisted that "the blasphemer" be turned over to them.
A banned Islamic group attempted to burn down a Christian village after accusing a 25-year-old mentally retarded Christian man of "blasphemy."
A 20-year-old Christian man was arrested and charged with "blasphemy" after Muslims accused him of burning a Koran soon after a billiard game. The Muslims kept taunting and threatening him, to which the Christian "dared them to do whatever they wanted and walked away." Days later came the accusation and arrest, which caused Muslim riots, creating "panic among Christians" who "left their houses anticipating violence."
In the last two decades, over 50 people have been murdered in Pakistan for blasphemy. Even the recent assassination of the nation's only cabinet-level Christian, Shahbaz Bhatti, was in retaliation for his being an outspoken critic of Pakistan's "blasphemy" laws.
In light of all the above, why were Pastor Nadarkhani and Masih, the Christian girl—whose fates were sealed—released? Because unlike the many nameless and faceless Christians persecuted for blasphemy and apostasy in Pakistan and Iran, not to mention the rest of the Islamic world, the mainstream media actually reported the stories of these two in the West, prompting much public outrage, international condemnations, and the threat of diplomatic actions and/or sanctions.
For example, Canada just cut relations with Iran, citing, among other reasons the fact that Iran is "one of the world's worst violators of human rights." It was the very next day that Pastor Nadarkhani was "coincidentally" released, even as the Iranian regime, playing the victim, accused Canada of being "racist."
These two particular Christians were simply too much of a liability to punish as Sharia law demands—the same Sharia, incidentally, that teaches Muslims to be lax and tolerant when in their interest. While it is good that Western outrage and condemnation was fundamentally responsible for the release of Nadarkhani and Masih, the West must learn that these two Christians merely represent the tip of the iceberg of Christian persecution in Muslim countries.

Robert Satloff on Next Steps in the Iran Crisis
Jeffrey Goldberg and Robert Satloff /Washington Institute
September 10, 2012
Atlantic Monthly national correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Institute executive director Robert Satloff about the current state of the international crisis over Iran's nuclear program and U.S. and Israeli policy.
Read this article on the Atlantic's website.
Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has been a close observer of the Iranian nuclear program -- and the world's response to the Iranian regime's nuclear ambitions -- for years. Periodically, we here at Goldblog check in with Satloff to get his latest views on the crisis. We exchanged e-mails over the past couple of days, at the dawn of what might be a very interesting week in this continuing drama. Here is our conversation:
Goldberg: Iran is increasing the pace of enrichment activities, and taking measures to protect and make redundant its centrifuge operations. Sanctions have not dissuaded the regime from this path. Negotiations have clearly not worked. Tell me why we're not heading toward a military confrontation.
Satloff: I believe there is indeed a significant chance of Israeli preventive military action against the Iranian nuclear program in the near future. Looking at the situation from afar, my assessment is that the Obama administration has not satisfied Israel's requirement for clear, bold U.S. red lines on Iran sufficient to convince Israeli leaders to limit or possibly surrender their option for independent action of their own.
If such Israeli action does not happen, it will either be because the Israeli government becomes satisfied with U.S. red lines in the very near future or because the Israeli government becomes unnerved at the prospect that the United States may not be willing or able to help Israel by leading effective international efforts to prevent Iran from repairing and reconstituting its nuclear weapons program when the dust clears from an attack.
Goldberg: Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, describes the Israeli government as being at "wits' end" over what he terms the White House's lack of clarity on red lines. Why do you think the Administration isn't providing these red lines, and can you speculate about what such red lines might look like?
Satloff: I have no idea what the Administration is saying to the Israelis privately, leader-to-leader, or whether the Administration is undertaking clandestine efforts against Iran's nuclear program that would constitute fresh, substantial and tangible evidence to back up the Administration's commitments. In the public (or semi-public) domain, the Administration has not drawn a red line based on a clear definition of what "preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon" really means in practice: for example, is it about enrichment, weaponization, or the institutional know-how to build a device? Indeed, the Administration rarely even says that it is seeking the immediate suspension of Iran's enrichment activities, as called for in various UNSC resolutions.
In the public messaging domain, I also thought the President missed an opportunity in his Charlotte convention address to include a one-liner along the lines of "I kept my word when I said we will hunt down Bin Ladin; I will keep my word when I say we will make sure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon." Why the reluctance? It's unclear but apparently the Administration believes it already provided adequate assurances, wants to avoid additional assurances that may constrain its freedom of action, prefers not to employ the sort of clandestine means that might trigger their own unintended consequences, and may believe that further definition of "red lines" would torpedo any chance for successful negotiations (such as they are).
Goldberg: You're an expert on, among other things, Israeli politics, and you know how to read the Israeli press (which is to say, carefully, and skeptically). Would you care to speculate about the recent stories suggesting that Ehud Barak has changed his mind about a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities? To the extent that this is not all opaque, can you analyze the workings of the security cabinet, and the Barak-Netanyahu dynamic?
Satloff: Two important caveats: First, I think there is a potential for over-psychoanalysis of Israeli leaders and the interplay among the members of the security cabinet. Second, there is also the possibility of disinformation in anything one reads or hears on the issue. My experience is that this is a remarkably disciplined security cabinet, with internal debates quite closely held. To the extent there are differences among members of the group, I don't think there are differences over estimates of Israeli military capabilities or the likelihood of technical success of any military mission; rather, there have been serious discussions as to how military action fits in a larger strategy of ensuring that the Iranians don't get a military nuclear capability one year, two years, five years down the road, i.e., the real "day after" question. And this connects to the American relationship.
All that said, the dynamic at play is fascinating -- contrary to his reputation, Netanyahu has always been reluctant to use military force, in contrast to several of his predecessors, but this would be one of the gutsiest-cum-riskiest decisions to use force ever made by a PM; Barak has virtually no political base left in the country yet he is in a critical position to affect its destiny; and the two men have a history, of course, going back to their military service, with Barak having served as Netanyahu's commander. Bottom line: if PM Netanyahu and DM Barak concur on the need and timing for action, chances are quite likely they will be able to win over a majority of the security cabinet.
Goldberg: Come back to red lines. What would your red line be if you were the Israeli prime minister, and what would your red line be if you were the American president?
Satloff: Thankfully, I am neither, just a humble think-tank director. The rub is that America and Israel have similar and complementary interests but not identical interests; the threshold for risk to be borne by a great power thousands of miles away and a small though potent regional power in the neighborhood are different; and therefore the red lines the Israeli prime minister and American president will lay down will necessarily be different. Especially at this hyper-politicized moment, when President Obama is allergic to the idea of deepening foreign entanglements, it is highly unlikely that he could begin to approach the sort of commitment-to-use-military-force-when-Iran-crosses-a-certain-enrichment-threshold that PM Netanyahu would like to hear. (Interestingly, in his Charlotte address, the President referred to al-Qaeda as America's top enemy, even when his advisors privately boast that al-Qaeda is on the ropes, nearing total defeat, so the chances that he would publicly authorize the use of force -- or the imminent use of force -- against a lesser foe in the near future are really slim.)
As an American, I shudder at the thought that my country (under either political party) would end up accepting an Iranian nuke the way we ended up accepting North Korea's and Pakistan's nukes. And here, we have a powerful weapon that we seem unwilling to brandish to the fullest extent possible -- UN Security Council resolutions demanding Iran's suspension of enrichment activities until Iran comes into compliance with its IAEA obligations. We won that fight at the Security Council, fair and square, and if I were president -- especially a president as justifiably and legitimately committed to non-proliferation as President Obama -- that's what my red line would be. But then, I am just a humble think-tank director.
Goldberg: Final questions, and big ones: Do you see anything in Iranian behavior or ideology that might cause them to reverse course and comply with Security Council demands? Do you see any proof that sanctions have worked? Have you seen anything to suggest that the Iranians might reach a certain point and then just stop -- freeze their enrichment work, freeze whatever they may be doing on missile development or warhead development?
Satloff: Sanctions have been both a remarkable success and an abysmal failure -- the former, in creating an effective international coalition that succeeded in dramatically raising the cost to the Iranian economy for its leaders' pursuit of nuclear weapons; the latter, in having no discernible impact on the pace and scope of the Iranian nuclear program, except perhaps to see it speed up during the sanctions period.
So far at least, the basic idea of U.S. strategy -- that the high-price of sanctions would compel Iran's leaders to re-calculate the cost of their egregious behavior and seek a diplomatic way out -- has not worked out as intended. Of course, that may happen tomorrow or next week, but chances of that decrease every day. But perhaps the strategy is simply too circuitous, i.e., why count on an economic lever to have political impact when there are political levers that might be able to do the job more effectively and more directly? Here, the basic point is that if the Khamenei-led regime were faced with the stark choice -- desist from pursuit of nuclear weapons, with all that it entails, or risk the end of the regime -- there is a much higher likelihood they would buckle and at least slow down their program or suspend parts of it, as they apparently did with weaponization in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq. It's not a 100 percent certainty, of course, but a much higher chance. This would be akin to Ayatollah Khomeini agreeing to drink the chalice of poison and end the Iran-Iraq War.
However, there is no sign that any external actor -- America, Israel or anyone else -- is putting Iran to that dilemma or considering such a policy and, in its absence, it is not irrational for the Iranians to bear an economic burden to acquire the nuclear insurance that, in their eyes, would protect them from the fate of Saddam's Iraq and Qadhafi's Libya.