LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

Bible Quotation for today/You cannot drink from the Lord's cup and also from the cup of demons; you cannot eat at the Lord's table and also at the table of demons
01 Corinthians 10/14-22" So then, my dear friends, keep away from the worship of idols. I speak to you as sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup we use in the Lord's Supper and for which we give thanks to God: when we drink from it, we are sharing in the blood of Christ. And the bread we break: when we eat it, we are sharing in the body of Christ. Because there is the one loaf of bread, all of us, though many, are one body, for we all share the same loaf. Consider the people of Israel; those who eat what is offered in sacrifice share in the altar's service to God. Do I imply, then, that an idol or the food offered to it really amounts to anything? No! What I am saying is that what is sacrificed on pagan altars is offered to demons, not to God. And I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink from the Lord's cup and also from the cup of demons; you cannot eat at the Lord's table and also at the table of demons. Or do we want to make the Lord jealous? Do we think that we are stronger than he?"

You Can't Love Lebanon and at the same time side with its enemy, The Axis Of Evil
Elias Bejjani/05 August/13/ We call on those who falsely allege to love their country Lebanon, no matter to what religion or denomination they are affiliated to. We call on them to be honest with themselves and fear Almighty God in their acts, rhetoric, stances and affiliations. They deceive themselves and no body else when rhetorically they brag to love their country Lebanon, and at the same time side with its enemies, the Axis Of Evil countries and organizations who are determined to destroy it and erect on its ruins a religious dictatorship, a replicate of that imposed by force and terrorism on the Iranian people. How could they love their country, Lebanon, when they are partners with Hezbollah that is merely an Iranian terrorist armed militia? In reality and actuality they are as guilty as Hezbollah is, and accountable even more than Hezbollah. Hezbollah is deeply involved in numerous criminal organized acts against all the Lebanese people, e.g., killing, assassination, corruption, intimidation, drug trafficking, money laundering, smuggling, forging, stealing, and embezzlement etc. Hezbollah is a cancerous evil entity that is infiltrating and devouring viciously all Lebanon's communities and institutions on all Levels. Hezbollah is not Lebanese or Arabic, but a mere Iranian armed brigade that occupies Lebanon by force and holds the Lebanese people hostages. Hezbollah knows nothing about all the tags of liberation, resistance, and obstruction that it falsely and evilly advocates for. Those Lebanese who are blindly siding with Hezbollah against their own people and country are ought to wake up and learn that they are committing suicide and destroying their country. Those Lebanese must remember that they can't adopt two contradicting stances at the same time; They can't be with Lebanon and at the same time with its enemies. We strongly suggest they read wisely and thoroughly what Saint Paul said to the Corinthians who were in the same position that they are in: "You cannot drink from the Lord's cup and also from the cup of demons; you cannot eat at the Lord's table and also at the table of demons. Or do we want to make the Lord jealous? Do we think that we are stronger than he?"(01 Corinthians 10/14-22)

Explosives, Map for Future Targets Found in Daraya after Egyptian Was Killed Preparing Bombs
Naharnet/One Egyptian national was killed and two other people were wounded on Sunday when they were setting up explosive devices in Mount Lebanon's Iqlim al-Kharroub's region, MTV reported. "An Egyptian was killed while a Syrian and another Egyptian were gravely wounded when explosive devices they were preparing detonated at a house in Iqlim al-Kharroub's town of Daraya,” MTV elaborated.
OTV said the incident took place near Ahmed Basbous mosque in Daraya. MTV noted that the material damage did not go beyond the room in which the explosion took place. "A military expert inspected the location of the explosion and State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Saqr Saqr has handed the investigation over to the army police,” the same source revealed. "Numerous security forces have cordoned off the location of the explosion and strict measures have been adopted. Explosive experts and investigators also arrived to inspect the scene." The state-run National News Agency identified the Egyptian victim as Abdul Latif al-Dakhakhni. His brother Mohammed and Syrian national Mohammed Hasan Masaoud were gravely injured, according to the NNA. Radio Voice of Lebanon (100.5) remarked that the investigation revealed that the Egyptian that was killed in the incident is a fugitive. Later on Sunday, al-Jadeed television revealed that up to 18 explosives ready to be set up were discovered in the same house. Quoting security sources, it added that a map was also found. "It contained three target places for future explosion, which are al-Saadiyat, Wadi al-Zeina and Hadath," al-Jadeed detailed.
Al-Manar television said the owner of the house, Egyptian national Ahmed al-Dakhakhni was arrested along with his two sons and a Syrian. It added that an underground room was discovered containing tens of bombs and explosives. The NNA pointed out that al-Dakhakhni and his son Abdullah, who were both arrested, have lived for a long time in Daraya. MTV reported that investigation is focusing on whether there are links between those involved in the Daraya incident and Salafist groups. The municipalities and the political parties present in Iqlim al-Kharroub condemned "any event that destabilizes the country.""We will leave the final word in this incident to security and judicial forces," they expressed. On July 19, the military prosecution charged six al-Qaida-linked al-Nusra Front members who were arrested for the possession of arms and explosives, and for plotting terrorist attacks. The NNA had said that the suspects had formed an armed gang for the purpose of carrying out terrorist activities and financial crimes. The network was reportedly comprised of four Syrian and Lebanese members.
And on May 9, the Army revealed that it has broken up a cell, detained its members and confiscated a quantity of detonators and explosives. Meanwhile, on April 7, Army troops thwarted an attempt to deliver arms to “extremists” in the Shouf area of Ain Zhalta.

Lebanon's Military Intelligence Tasked with Investigating Daraya Blast
Naharnet/The army intelligence was tasked on Monday with carrying out the preliminary investigations in the Daraya blast, reported LBCI television. It said that State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Saqr Saqr the military intelligence to conduct the investigations. Abdul Latif al-Dakhakhni, an Egyptian and his brother Mohammed were killed and a Syrian identified as Mohammed Hasan Masaoud were gravely injured in the Iqlim al-Kharroub town of Daraya on Sunday when the bomb they were preparing accidentally exploded. The dead men are the sons of Daraya mosque Imam Sheikh Ahmed al-Dakhakhni who is married to a Lebanese and has been living in the village for a long time. A security source told As Safir newspaper Monday that Abdul Latif al-Dakhakhni is a follower of Salafist cleric Sheikh Ahmed al-Asir who has gone into hiding over the deadly clashes between his supporters and the Lebanese army in the southern city of Sidon. The source said the Sheikh is in custody. Investigators are questioning him over maps locating the targets of the bomb attacks that they were plotting and al-Nusra Front flags found in his residence.

Lebanese Environment Minister Denies Suleiman Seeking to Extend his Mandate
Naharnet /Caretaker Environment Minister Nazem el-Khoury denied on Monday that President Michel Suleiman discussed his term extension with caretaker Health Minister Ali Hassan Khalil. Khoury, who is close to Suleiman, told An Nahar newspaper that Tawhid Movement leader Wiam Wahhab's statements that the president's speech on the occasion of the Army Day came after Khalil informed him that the March 8 alliance rejects extending his mandate. The official urged Khalil, who is Speaker Nabih Berri's adviser, to clarify the issue and deny Wahhab's statements. Suleiman's six-year term expires in May 2014. “If he (Suleiman) was seeking to extend his term he wouldn't have said his speech, which prioritized the national interest over his personal interest,” Khoury told the newspaper. He stressed that Suleiman has continuously announced that he has no intention of extending his mandate. In a ceremony marking the 68th anniversary of the army’s founding on Thursday, President Michel Suleiman criticized Hizbullah without naming it, saying it was time for the Lebanese state and the army to be the sole decision-makers on the use of the nation's capabilities

Berri Defends Hizbullah as Party of Ethics after Rocket Attack Accusations
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri has defended Hizbullah against accusations that it is involved in the latest rocket attack on the Baabda area, saying it is a respectable party. “Hizbullah is not only innocent from this act but its ethics and its path of resistance prevent it from such a behavior,” Berri told An Nahar newspaper published on Monday. “The party is a respectable Lebanese political faction that does not make acts of sabotage in the country,” he said. “The first target in this operation is the army,” Berri added. He also rejected any attack on Baabda palace or any action against the presidency. A rocket landed in the garden of the Freiha villa that is located near the Officers' Club in the Baabda area near the presidential palace on Thursday night. A second rocket landed near the Khashoqji castle in al-Yarzeh. The accusations made by the March 14 alliance against Hizbullah are "ridiculous," Berri said in remarks to As Safir daily. He added that it was a "shame" to point the finger at the party. The speaker's remarks came after Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea hinted during an interview with Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3) on Sunday that Hizbullah was behind the rocket attack. “Up till now, military experts haven't found the launchpads,” the LF chief said, adding there was information that the rockets were placed on trucks in the areas of Dohat Aramoun and Bshamoun. “They were launched from areas that come under the military control of a certain party,” he told VDL. “Who has the ability to move freely” in those areas? Geagea wondered, saying he would leave it to the Lebanese people to decide on the answer, in a hint to Hizbullah's involvement in the attacks.

Syrian Defense Minister Tours Seized Homs District
Naharnet/Syrian Defense Minister Fahd al-Freij visited army troops in Khaldiyeh, a Homs district the army won back from rebel control in late July, state news agency SANA said on Monday. The general conducted "a tour of Khaldiyeh, where he visited the army units that had restored security and stability in the neighborhood," SANA said. The army's takeover of Khaldiyeh, in the central city of Homs, came after an intense month-long campaign of daily air and artillery shellings. Like other districts under rebel control in Homs, Khaldiyeh had been under a suffocating army siege for more than a year. The army's takeover of Khaldiyeh was its second military success since June when it captured the rebel-held town of Qusayr in Homs province with help from Hizbullah. Freij's visit comes a day after President Bashar Assad said the country's crisis could only be solved by "striking terror with an iron fist". Homs city, dubbed by rebels the "capital of the revolution", straddles a route linking Damascus to the Mediterranean coast and the Alawite hinterland of Assad's Alawite minority community. More than 100,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed in Syria's 28-month war, the U.N. says. Millions more have been forced by violence to flee their homes. Source/Agence France Presse.

No Official News on Release of Pilgrims heled at Syria's Aazazas
Naharnet/The case of the remaining abducted Lebanese pilgrims in Syria's Aazaz isn't expected to be resolved ahead of Eid al-Fitr, media reports said on Monday. “We haven't received any official news on the release of the 9 men and negotiations are ongoing with the Turkish authorities,” Daniel Shoaib, the brother of pilgrim Abbas Shoaib, said in comments to Voice of Lebanon radio (100.5). “We don't trust them,” he added.
On Sunday, the Northern Storm Brigade announced that it will not negotiate over the release of the men before the Syrian regime frees female prisoners. Sheikh Abbas Zgheib, who has been tasked by the Higher Islamic Shiite Council to follow up the case of the abducted Lebanese pilgrims in Syria in May, held the Turkish intelligence and government responsible for the standstill. “They will pay the price. The Northern Storm Brigade work for the Turkish state that defends the organized international abductions and terrorism,” Zgheib said. He denied that Hizbullah is part of the negotiations, pointing out that previous negotiations with the Turkish authorities stated that female prisoners would be released in exchange for the release of the remaining 9 men. The Northern Storm Brigade accused Hizbullah in its statement of stalling the release of the women, pointing out that "If Iran's party wanted us to release two pilgrims before the Fitr holiday, it should rush and free the female detainees.”On July 19, a number of women jailed by the Syrian regime were released, including several whose names are on a list set by the kidnappers of Lebanese pilgrims in Aazaz. The release, however, did not contribute to free any of the pilgrims. Eleven Lebanese pilgrims were kidnapped in Syria's Aleppo region in May 2012 as they were making their way back by land to Lebanon from pilgrimage in Iran. Two of the captives have since been released, while the rest remain held in Aazaz.

Jumblat to Nasrallah: Palestinians Should Be Allowed to Decide their Fate Themselves
Naharnet /Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat noted on Monday that years ago Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has sought to liberate all of Lebanese occupied territory, but the party is now seeking to liberate the whole of Palestine from Israeli occupation. He said in response to Nasrallah's recent speech: “Let the Palestinians decide their fate themselves.” He made his remarks in his weekly editorial in the PSP-affiliated al-Anbaa website. “We back Nasrallah's call to liberate Lebanese land, meaning the Shebaa Farms, but Palestinians should be left to decide Palestine's fate,” he added. During a speech on Friday, Nasrallah had declared: “Entire Palestine, from the sea to the river, must return to its people. No one in the world, no king, prince, sayyed, leader, president or state has the right to give up a single grain of sand of Palestine's land.” He added that Hizbullah will continue to “protect our country alongside the national Lebanese army" and that it will not "abandon Palestine.” Addressing local developments, Jumblat lamented the failure to form a new government, warning of the spread of vacuum in a number of officials posts. “The National Struggle Front believes that the political deadlock can no longer continue, especially ahead of next year's presidential elections,” he stressed. “The Front is therefore studying a number of solutions that may help end the deadlock away from theories of conspiracies,” he stated. On this note, the MP praised former Prime Minister Saad Hariri's recent initiative in which he voiced his readiness to resume dialogue with or without the formation of a new government in order to resolve pending disputes, most notably devising a national defense strategy. Hariri announced this position during a speech on Friday. Moreover, Jumblat lauded Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun's recent remarks in support of President Michel Suleiman. Aoun had voiced last week his rejection of media campaigns against Suleiman, saying that despite differences in positions, the presidency should not be targeted in such a “debased” manner.

U.S. Extends Some Embassy Closures over Qaida Threat
Naharnet/U.S. missions across the Middle East and Africa will be closed through August 10, officials said Sunday, amid intelligence reports an al-Qaida attack may be imminent. The State Department, noting it was acting "out of an abundance of caution," said 19 diplomatic outposts would be shuttered through Saturday. The list includes 15 that were already ordered closed Sunday due to the security fears, as well as four additional posts. "This is not an indication of a new threat stream, merely an indication of our commitment to exercise caution and take appropriate steps to protect our employees, including local employees and visitors to our facilities," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement. At least 25 U.S. embassies and consular offices had initially been ordered closed Sunday in response to a terror threat, a move lawmakers said was prompted by intercepts of high-ranking al-Qaida operatives signaling a major attack. Briefed members of Congress called the intelligence reporting among the most serious they've seen in recent years. The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Michael McCaul called it "probably one of the most specific and credible threats I've seen, perhaps, since 9/11."He said an attack appeared to be "imminent," possibly timed to coincide with the last night of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month. Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told ABC's "This Week" that al-Qaida's "operatives are in place."
He said the United States knows this "because we've received information that high level people from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula are talking about a major attack." General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told ABC News the threats were "more specific" than previous threats. While an exact target was unknown, "the intent seems clear. The intent is to attack Western, not just U.S., interests," Dempsey said.
ABC News cited an unnamed U.S. official as saying there was concern that al-Qaida might deploy suicide attackers with surgically implanted bombs to evade security.
The diplomatic posts to be closed through Saturday included those in: Abu Dhabi, Amman, Cairo, Riyadh, Dhahran, Jeddah, Doha, Dubai, Kuwait, Manama, Muscat, Sanaa, Tripoli, Antananarivo, Bujumbura, Djibouti, Khartoum, Kigali, and Port Louis. The new closures are located in Madagascar, Burundi, Rwanda and Mauritius. The outposts that are reopening include those in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Mauritania, Iraq, and Israel.
Security was especially tight in Yemen's capital Sanaa on Sunday where Britain, France and Germany also shuttered their embassies in the wake of the U.S. warning late last week. Special forces with armored personnel carriers were stationed outside the buildings as police and army checkpoints went up on all the city's main thoroughfares.
Residents said they heard the sound of a drone overhead, which could only be American as Washington is the sole power to operate the unmanned aircraft in the region.
The United States considers al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula to be the jihadist network's most active and dangerous branch, and has waged an intensifying drone war against AQAP militants in Yemen.
In Jordan, meanwhile, authorities beefed up security around the closed U.S. mission. "Authorities have conducted a sweep for explosives at all U.S. diplomatic locations and beefed up security measures around the U.S. embassy," a Jordanian security official told AFP. Although Washington has responded to terrorist threats before by closing diplomatic missions, this was believed to be the most widespread closure ever.
"I've spent 21 years in the CIA, and I don't think I've ever seen 22 embassies closed simultaneously. This is very, very unusual," Robert Baer, a former U.S. case officer in the Middle East, told CNN.
Baer said the U.S. action comes amid an al-Qaida resurgence, including prison breaks in Libya and Iraq in which hundreds of inmates have escaped, and turmoil in Egypt, Mali and elsewhere in the region.
Adding further tension to the situation, Interpol on Saturday issued a security alert after hundreds of militants were freed in jailbreaks. The worldwide police agency said it suspected al-Qaida was involved in the getaways across nine countries, notably Iraq, Libya and Pakistan, that had "led to the escape of hundreds of terrorists and other criminals" in the past month alone. The State Department late last week issued a worldwide travel alert to U.S. citizens, warning of the "potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure." Hours after the U.S. alert was issued, an audio recording was posted on militant Islamist forums in which al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri accused the United States of "plotting" with Egypt's military, secularists and Christians to overthrow Islamist president Mohamed Morsi.
Washington has been especially cautious about security abroad since an attack on its consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi on September 11 last year. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack blamed on Islamist militants.
Source/Agence France Presse.

Canada Looks to Iran for Proof of Strategic Shift
August 4, 2013 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement, on the occasion of the inauguration in Tehran of President Hassan Rohani:
“The Iranian regime has a clear choice to make: it can either march Iran down its current path toward continued isolation and economic disparity for the Iranian people, or it can let President Rohani change the regime’s nuclear policies, its wanton disregard for human rights, and its destructive meddling in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the wider region.
“The regime’s record has not improved since the elections in June:
according to Human Rights Watch, executions in Iran have continued at an alarming rate—more than 71 people have been executed since Iranians went to the polls;
the regime continues to prop up the murderous Assad regime in Syria, having recently extended $3.6 billion in credit; and
political prisoners continue to languish in Iranian prisons, at the hands of the Basij militia.
“The worst outcome for the people of Iran would be for the world to cease its calls for respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Iran. Canada will be watching for concrete actions and meaningful change and calls for the Iranian regime to:
hold genuine talks with the P5+1 [the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany];
fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and stop the reckless expansion of Iran’s nuclear program;
open space for Iranian civil society by rolling back the apparatus of tyranny and releasing all political prisoners; and
stop meddling in neighbouring countries, using and supporting terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, and collaborating with the Assad regime’s slaughter of the Syrian people.
“The people of Iran deserve to have a future in which they can live without fear. A future where they can enjoy the benefits of their hard work. A future where they can raise their families with the realistic hope that their children will have better a life. These are the hopes that Iranians have told us they have invested in Mr. Rohani. Canada and the rest of the world will be looking to the regime to make these hopes a reality.”
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada
613-995-1874
media@international.gc.ca
Follow us on Twitter: @DFATDCanada

Talk to Iran's New President. Warily.
Dennis Ross/New York Times
Preserving an open-ended multilateral approach or allowing Russia to determine what is offered is not a prescription for successful nuclear diplomacy with Iran.
The election of Hassan Rowhani as Iran's new president has created a sense that there are new possibilities of progress on the nuclear issue; we need to respond, but warily. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, allowed Mr. Rowhani to win the election recognizing that he had run against current Iranian policies that have isolated the country and invited economically disastrous sanctions. But it isn't clear why Mr. Khamenei allowed such an outcome, and here are some theories that have been proposed:
He believes that Mr. Rowhani's election could provide a safety valve for the great discontent within Iran.
He believes that Mr. Rowhani, a president with a moderate face, might be able to seek an open-ended agreement on Iran's nuclear program that would reduce tensions and ease sanctions now, while leaving Iran room for development of nuclear weapons at some point in the future.
He believes that Mr. Rowhani might be able to start talks that would simply serve as a cover while Iran continued its nuclear program.
He wants to rebalance the power relationship among Iran's leading factions, reconciling their fissures while restoring the relative weight of the clerics vis-a-vis the Revolutionary Guard. Mr. Rowhani is himself a cleric, but also a likely conciliator who might be a bridge between the harder-line clerics and more pragmatic forces.
None of this means there will be a nuclear deal. Even if he were given the power to negotiate, Mr. Rowhani would have to produce a deal the supreme leader would accept. So it is far too early to consider backing off sanctions as a gesture to Mr. Rowhani.
We should, instead, keep in mind that the outside world's pressure on Iran to change course on its nuclear program may well have produced his election. So it would be foolish to think that lifting the pressure now would improve the chances that he would be allowed to offer us what we need: an agreement, or credible Iranian steps toward one, under which Iran would comply with its international obligations on the nuclear issue. Our bottom line here is that Iran must be prepared to change its program so that it does not have a breakout capability to develop nuclear weapons.
The real question for ourselves is whether we should change our approach to diplomacy with Iran, now that a new Iranian president has advertised his desires to end Iran's isolation and the sanctions imposed on it, and to repair the "wound" that he has said exists between the United States and the Islamic Republic.
Until now, we have taken an incremental, confidence-building approach within multilateral negotiations with Iran, but they have probably already run their course. Indeed, while our side (the United States, China, Russia, Germany, Britain and France) negotiated with Iran on and off for the last several years with no results, the Iranians were dramatically expanding the numbers of centrifuges they had installed to enrich uranium. They now have roughly 17,000 and have succeeded in upgrading to a new generation of far more efficient centrifuges.
Those developments have shrunk the time we have available to ensure that the Iranians cannot break out and present the world with the fait accompli of a nuclear weapons capability. So we may have time for diplomacy, but not a lot. We should move now to presenting an endgame proposal -- one that focuses on the outcome that we, the United States, can accept on the nuclear issue. And we should do so even if our negotiating partners -- particularly the Russians -- aren't prepared to accept such a move, since the clock is ticking. We should give Mr. Rowhani a chance to produce, but the calendar cannot be open-ended.
Diplomacy often boils down to two simple elements: taking away excuses for inaction and providing explanations for a deal that could be struck. On the first point, the Iranians say they don't know what we will accept in the end. The answer should be that we can accept Iran's having civil nuclear power but with restrictions that would make the steps to producing nuclear weapons difficult, as well as quickly detectable. Our offer should be credible internationally; if Iran was not prepared to agree to it, the Iranians would be exposed for not being ready to accept what they say they want. Indeed, if we make a credible proposal that would permit the Iranians to have civil nuclear power with restrictions, it would allow them to save face for themselves: they could say the proposal was what they had always sought and that their rights had been recognized.
This is not to say that such an endgame proposal can be made without risk. The Russians, in particular, may not want the situation clarified. They may fear it will mean an end to the diplomacy because the Iranians, in turning down such a proposal, will have signaled that their real aim is to obtain nuclear weapons and not just civil nuclear power. That would leave the use of force as the only alternative. The Russians may prefer the step-by-step approach that keeps the diplomacy going -- even without results.
To be sure, if the Iranians were prepared to suspend the further development of their nuclear infrastructure while diplomacy were under way, that would be an acceptable approach and time would not be of the essence. But Mr. Rowhani has already publicly dismissed the possibility of such a suspension, saying it was tried before, but in a different era. So this time, it is the Iranians who are forcing the window for diplomacy to close.
Mr. Rowhani may well create an opening. But we should be on our guard: It must be an opening to clarify what is possible and to test outcomes, not to engage in unending talks for their own sake. Preserving a multilateral step-by-step approach that has outlived its usefulness, or allowing the Russians at this point to determine how we proceed -- particularly at a time when the Russians appear more competitive with the United States than cooperative -- is not a prescription that permits us to see if there is an opening and to act on it.
If we want diplomacy to succeed, the United States must find out now whether it can, and it must do so on its own initiative.
**Dennis Ross is counselor at The Washington Institute.

US sources: Terror alert prompted by suspected suicide bombers with implanted explosives

DEBKAfile Special Report August 5, 2013/The Obama administration continued Monday, Aug. 5, to try and impress Americans and the world that its far-reaching still ongoing terror alert across a host of Muslim countries was serious and credible. Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees - Democrats and Republicans alike - fully backing the White House, said the chatter picked up over the past two weeks exceeds anything in the past decade. US officials are beginning to release nuggets of information about the nature of the threat.
According to one high placed US official, concern focuses on the possibility of terrorists carrying explosive devices implanted inside their bodies. DEBKAfile’s counterterrorism sources add that plastic explosives in the body of a would-be suicide bomber without metal components are undetectable by standard screening devices such as those used at most international airports.
It has been suspected for some years that doctors and surgeons in Yemen in the service of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula were experimenting with implanting of plastic explosive devices inside the bodies of suicide bombers or even animals. According to Western counterterrorism sources, the surgeon would open the abdominal cavity and implant the explosive device amongst the bomber’s internal organs.
Some US sources are calling the current threat the most serious since 9/11. They are alarmed by the degree of confidence AQIM leaders show in openly using electronic communications to boast about the unstoppable attack they are plotting.
A senior US official described the terrorists as saying the planned attack is “going to be big” and “strategically significant.”
Britain, Germany and France closed their embassies in Yemen Sunday and Monday. British authorities said some embassy staff in Yemen had been withdrawn. Canada also closed its embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh
US sources explain the exceptionally broad geographic area covered by the terrorist alert – from Mauritania to Bangladesh including the Middle East, North Africa, the Indian subcontinent and homeland America. We don’t know the exact target of the planned attack, according to one US official. “We do not know whether they mean an embassy, an airbase, an aircraft, trains.”
US agencies are concerned that just three or five suicide bombers with undetectable implanted devices would not be caught in time to prevent them form detonating their devices in a coordinated attack on three or more continents. This might set off the signal for a large wave of bombing attacks in many more countries.
DEBKAfile reported earlier on the extention of the terror threat to the American homeland.
Saturday night Aug. 3, the global warnings issued last week by the US State Department and Interpol against terrorist attacks covering almost the entire Muslim world, suddenly reached the American homeland. Sunday morning, Aug. 4, as US missions closed in 22 countries, including Egypt and Israel, the New York Police Department went on high alert. Security was beefed up in high-profile areas outside houses of worship and transportation hubs, although Police Commissioner Ray Kelly complained that “a lack of specific information was cause for concern.”
Friday, Aug. 2 the State Department issued a worldwide travel alert warning to Americans overseas of potential al Qaeda attacks in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia.
Saturday night, National Security Adviser Susan Rice convened security officials on the situation. The White House stated: “Given the nature of the potential threat through the week, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and counter-terrorism Lisa Monaco has held regular meetings with relevant members of the inter-agency to ensure the US government is taking those appropriate steps.”
Nothing in this statement specified the nature of the “potential threat.”
Sunday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told the ABC that the threat was "more specific than previous ones" and “the intent is to attack Western, not just US interests.” He reported that the diplomatic facilities closed “range from Mauritania in northwest Africa to Afghanistan.”
Western and Middle East terrorism and intelligence experts say that in additional to the lack of information, at least six elements don’t add up in the various global warnings released since Thursday Aug. 1:
1. Thursday, US President Barack Obama ordered that "all appropriate steps" be taken to protect Americans in response to a threat of an al-Qaeda attack. What does this mean? The experts comment that even if all US agencies were pressed into service worldwide, there is no way they could protect all Americans in the vast area marked out in the warnings.
2. If the threat is specific why does the warning extend to so many countries? Al Qaeda is not even active in all them. If the danger is so immediate, why haven’t any governments in North Africa and as far east as Bangladesh declared their own terror alerts?
3. US officials reported that some of the intelligence came from terrorist communications intercepted by the National Security Agency over the past days. This too raises questions, considering that al Qaeda leaders are wont to avoid electronic media and satellite phones for their communications on operations, preferring couriers who are not susceptible to electronic interception or eavesdropping. The Internet serves them for propaganda and planting red herrings.

4. In the past week, US drones conducted three attacks against al Qaeda targets in Yemen, where the organization is defined by US officials as al Qaeda’s most dangerous affiliate and capable of attacking the US embassy in Sanaa. The last drone attack Aug. 1 killed five low-profile al Qaeda operatives, who were driving in a vehicle in the Qatan Valley of Hadramouth province (Osama bin Laden’s place of birth).
All 12 US drone attacks in Yemen of the last eight months targeted Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Although its deputy chief Said al Shiri, a former inmate of the Guantanamo Bay facility, was eliminated, AQAP’s entire high command has remained intact and fully functional. In other words, US intelligence counter-terror agencies have not discovered their whereabouts.
5. Neither have they run down the location of al Qaeda’s top leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Tuesday, he released a communiqué accusing US agents of engineering the coup which deposed the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood president by penetrating the Egyptian army. He called for more attacks on America.
6. Saturday, the international police agency, Interpol, published a global security alert following "the escape of hundreds of terrorists and other criminals" in the past month, including jailbreaks in Iraq, Libya and Pakistan. Interpol feared that the escapees would team up with al Qaeda to hit Western targets. Yet none of its 190 member states have declared terror alerts on this score either.
7. Finally, the sweeping warnnings from the Obama administration dramatically refute its own oft-heard claims that al Qaeda is no longer a force to be reckoned with, because it has lost its compact central command and control of its component branches, which have split up into regional franchises operating autonomously. Al Qaeda, they have been saying, is no longer capable of large-scale terrorist attacks on a global scale.

Al-Sisi’s Popularity
By: Mohammad Salah/Al Hayat
The stance taken by Islamists in Egypt in general, and by the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, on Defense Minister Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi is well known and understandable. Indeed, the man has overthrown their rule in the greatest Arab country and destroyed their dreams of bringing their plans to fruition after only one year. Yet the stances taken by secular forces on the events and the situation in Egypt are incomprehensible – not just because they are confused or contradictory, but also because they are surprising. One could almost discover in the end that they have no stance at all. Indeed, the stances of every secular faction or figure, whether Liberal, Leftist, Nasserist or Nationalist, appear upon analysis to have been taken on the basis of personal interests, or of the dictates of their own faction or movement, regardless of the nation’s interest! On the whole, there is a question: will some of the prominent figures of Egypt’s secular forces rest after Al-Sisi’s statements to the Washington Post, and his pledge not to run as candidate in the next presidential elections?
I do not think so, as the issue with these people does not concern the presidential seat, for which they consider one of them to be more deserving than any member of the military, or of the Muslim Brotherhood of course. Rather, it concerns anyone who might turn into a popular hero or a leader of the masses without a presidential seat. Indeed, they also believe that any kind of leader can only come from among them!
Do not ask about the behavior and the deeds of Egyptian secular forces. And do not be surprised by their lack of influence on the street, and by the fact that they suffice themselves with fighting through microphones and struggling through the screens of satellite television shows. Indeed, this has always been their behavior, reflecting their inability to compete, whether against a political party, an Islamist group, a government institution, or a figure from the military!
They are the ones who rode the wave of the January 25 Revolution and won its cake, becoming “broadcasters” on satellite television shows, members of local, regional and international committees and organizations, or experts in the field of politics without having any talent, education, or qualifications for it! They are also the ones who tried once again to ride the wave of the June 30 Revolution, and who fear that it could represent a reason for them to fade away and disappear. It is true that some of those associated with secular forces have struggled and opposed ruling regimes throughout the decades, going in and out of prisons and detention centers. They represented a valuable record which the January 25 Revolution had relied on. But the catastrophe resides in the new Egyptian elite, which has leapt on the scene, seized the cake and is still hoping for more. It is that same elite that allied itself with everyone against everyone according to personal interests, or as a result of either its ignorance of the rules of politics or its denial of the nation’s higher interests! Those are the same people who supported the Islamists against the military then turned against them; supported the army then turned against both; then returned to hold a truce with the Islamists; and finally claimed to stand with the people, despite the fact that their actions have only ever served their own interests.
To be quite candid, some prominent figures of Egypt’s secular forces, who had achieved stardom with the January 25 Revolution or even before it, strongly fear the growth of Al-Sisi’s popularity and view him as a potential rival in the next presidential elections. In fact, they realize that it would be nearly impossible for them to compete against him, after the successes the man has achieved and the ever-positive popular reactions to him in the street. They do not believe that he will not run for President, and prefer to smear, obstruct or hinder him, so that he may become unable rather than unwilling to compete! And regardless of Al-Sisi’s performance, his success or his failure, or even the reservations voiced by some over the notion of a military candidate, the fact of the matter is that the man really enjoys a great deal of popularity, which has remained unaffected by the campaign waged against him by the Muslim Brotherhood using all possible means, or by the insinuations made by some prominent figures of the country’s secular forces concerning him. Yet, on the whole, the issue of whether or not he might run as candidate in the next presidential elections remains one that is not urgent, at a time when Egypt is suffering from aches, ills, and pains that are no secret to anyone. But the problem is that the secular forces opposed to Islamists in general, and to the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, have now begun to exploit these aches and those ills and pains to achieve gains at the expense of the country as well as of ordinary citizens. They are unable to compete and believe that defeating their opponents by abusing them or smearing their image is better than confronting them. And one can only smile sarcastically when one hears them accusing the Muslim Brotherhood of being exclusionist and of smearing their opponents! The stances taken by secular forces have been incomprehensible, whether on the two protests of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Rabia Al-Adawiyya and Al-Nahda public squares, the issue of the new constitution, the roadmap laid out by Al-Sisi, the violent and bloody events in the Sinai, or the marches organized by the Muslim Brotherhood day and night, blocking roads and hindering people’s activity. There is no one stance taken by secular forces on any event. Rather, there are always numerous, differing and conflicting stances on every event that cannot bear disagreement, outbidding, or blackmail. Egypt’s misfortune did not lie with the National Democratic Party (NDP), the Muslim Brotherhood or the Islamists alone… but with its secular elites as well.

The Nuclear File and Syria: Rohani’s Impossible Mission?
By: George Semaan/Al Hayat
The new Iranian President Sheikh Hassan Rohani is assuming the presidency in difficult and complicated times for his country and the region. He is facing the remnants of eight years of his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s consecutive terms, which were the worst in the history of the Islamic Republic on the domestic and foreign levels, and threatened the country’s national interests with the deepening of the disputes between the political movements and the mounting tensions between the regime’s pillars and institutions. In addition, demonstrations and protests which followed the 2009 presidential elections shook the authority and social fabric and increased polarization and oppression. The economic and social crisis also escalated due to the poor governmental performance and the spread of corruption and nepotism, as well as the mismanagement of foreign policy, especially the nuclear file, which increased the sanctions and tightened the blockade. And during the past two years, the Arab spring increased the challenges facing Tehran and toppled the balance of power and the prevailing network of relations throughout the Middle East, whose regional system collapsed along with ruling regimes here and there.
This heavy legacy which has been accumulating since 2005 was the first and main factor considered by the Iranians when selecting their new president, while the economic crisis and its ties with domestic and foreign issues was the greatest voter. This is why it will be at the top of Sheikh Rohani’s list of priorities. But his citizens will have to wait a long time, considering that the desired change will not happen as easily as they expect it. Indeed, the new president exited the womb of the political regime and did not come from outside of it. He was the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, the Guide’s representative, a member of the Expediency Discernment Council and the Assembly of Experts. This means that any change at the level of the domestic and foreign policies will remain under the tutelage and with the consent of the Guide, as long as the constitution which has been in place for three decades has not been amended. Moreover, the balance of power inside the Shura Council remains in favor of the conservative movement whose candidates failed to compete with Sheikh Rohani, not to mention the weight enjoyed by the military and security forces, apparatuses and militias, especially the Revolutionary Guide and its various branches. The latter constitute more than two thirds of the republic’s economic, commercial and industrial cycle, just like the military institution in Egypt, and have their say at the level of the domestic and foreign policy-making, or the decision-making process at the very least.
Hence, any domestic change would be impossible if it were to shift away from the regime’s principles or affect the core of the revolution and the system tying the ruling institutions, while any change would be impossible at the level of the regional and international foreign policy if it were to threaten to undermine the strategy built by the Islamic Republic throughout three decades. And whether the new president is classified as being a reformist, a conservative or between the two, Iran will continue to move underneath the guide’s cloak, regardless of the Iranians’ aspirations. Before Ahmadinejad, the latter had chosen President Mohammad Khatami for two terms, hoping to rebuild the relations with the West in general and settle the disputes with the United States. But throughout eight years, the reformist president failed to change the republic’s course, thus merely ensuring some sort of a truce or an appeasement with the region and the international community, and decreasing the tensions and threats with the outside world. Today, the hardliners perceive him as being a symbol of strife, and some of them inside the Shura Council are even calling for the exclusion of candidates to occupy ministerial posts in the new government for being close to him or to similar symbols.
Rohani will not be able to change many equations on the domestic arena unless he reopens the door before a minimum level of liberties and finds a formula to cooperate with all the movements, so as to ensure their reunification under the regime’s cloak. This is one of the Guide’s main goals, after he suffered for a long time from the problems left behind by President Ahmadinejad, in a way that almost toppled all the beliefs and principles. And unless this goal is achieved, the new president will not be able to act to contain the inflation, stop the national currency devaluation, suspend the policy of austerity, entice investors, enhance commercial imports and exports, and revive the banking sector.
But these internal files will not be settled and will not have acceptable and fast solutions, regardless of Rohani’s ability to induce change or the guide’s wish to alleviate popular disgruntlement. Indeed, they are among the repercussions of Iran’s foreign policy, and are more linked to these repercussions than to the new president’s achievements on the internal scene and his ability to mend the relations between the various movements. And it is not enough for him to resort to the reconciliatory discourse currently seen towards the international community and his regional neighbors, knowing that the two most heated issues nowadays are naturally the Iranian nuclear file and the position towards the Syrian crisis, which pushed the sectarian conflict to the brink of the abyss.
During the past decade, President Khatami’s government managed to keep the nuclear file in the hands of the International Atomic Energy Agency. But President Ahmadinejad’s hostile policy and political and media rhetoric provoked hostility with the international community, which took the file to the Security Council and consequently to the table of the P5+1 group. International sanctions were then followed by stronger unilateral American and European ones, knowing that it would definitely be difficult to reach an understanding similar to the one sealed by Khatami’s government to suspend enrichment in 2003. The nuclear program is as much a component of the national spirit, part of the Republic’s strategy and a booster of its regional role, as it is a factor of tension with the near and distant outside world. And the ongoing war in Syria and Iran’s implication in it through fighters from Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guard and some Iraqi militias, can only complicate any settlement surrounding this program.
For a long time, Iran relied on a series of elements to build its foreign strategy. It thus hastened the establishment of a nuclear program and the building of a massive missile arsenal. It deepened its role in Baghdad and became the first ally and main supporter of the regime in Syria, for which it provided a bridge into Lebanon, Israel’s border and the Mediterranean shores. In addition, it did not conceal its expansion to Gaza and North Africa, but also from Sudan to a number of African states to compensate for its troubled relations with influential states and from Turkey to India and Brazil among others. Still, the Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut triangle remained the main pillar of this entire strategy. At the beginning of the Syrian crisis, there was a lot of talk about a possible deal between Tehran and its opponents, by which it would trade this card with others enjoyed by the Republic. However, a logical and realistic look at the developments in the region does not herald the existence of an opportunity for such tradeoffs.
A quick look at the Iranian triangle also reveals the depth of the challenges facing President Rohani and reflecting on the internal issues. On the eve of President Rohani’s assumption of his responsibilities, the U.S. House of Representatives ratified new sanctions against the Iranian oil sector. For its part, Iraq is quickly returning to the situation which prevailed a decade ago, as the current government – through its factional policy and its support to President Bashar al-Assad’s regime – secured the necessary climate for Al-Qaeda to regain its social base in the Sunni provinces. This is not to mention its continuously tense relations with the Kurdistan province and many other neighboring states, and the depletion of the Iranian military, financial and human capabilities in the long war in Syria. This is in addition to the repercussions of this war on the situation in Lebanon where Hezbollah’s participation in the Syrian clashes is provoking the reassessment of the political and sectarian alignments and heralding an imminent explosion amidst a frightening political and government vacuum. And there is no doubt that any concession offered by Tehran in the Levant threatens to topple all that it built throughout decades under the slogan of “rejectionism and resistance”!
In addition to all these negative factors surrounding the pillars of the Iranian strategy, the current fallout of the Arab spring on throughout the region, and especially Egypt, caused the retreat of the attention attributed to Palestinian cause, i.e. the basis of the Iranian discourse and rush towards the Arab world. There is no doubt that the resumption of the talks between the Palestinian authority and Israel in the midst of these developments and under American tutelage, reveals Tehran’s inability to interfere, whether via Lebanon, Gaza or any other. Hence, President Rohani has no option but to move fast from the stage of intentions to that of the definition of the goals, in order to change the facts and strategies. So, can he conduct a drastic reassessment of the Islamic Republic’s policy with all that this requires in terms of painful concessions? Can he do that in light of internal polarization, so as not to say the divided movements and the prevalence of the power centers and their tools? Or will he settle for wasting time while wagering on the appeasement of the situation with the outside world, as it was done by his predecessor Khatami? Domestic economy and the developments seen in the Great Middle East, from the Mediterranean to Afghanistan, do not tolerate the luxury of anticipation. They require urgent decisions at the level of the nuclear file, the Syrian crisis – along with the network of regional and international relations connected to them – and the Palestinian cause, as this is the only way to reactivate Iran’s economic wheel.

Two courses lie before the Brotherhood
By: Abdullah Al-Otaibi/Asharq Alawsat
As was expected after June 30, the Muslim Brotherhood and other political Islamist groups reverted to type by creating violence. Their members in Sinai and other places carried out attacks against police, killing a number of their officers.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy is obvious. It mobilizes groups affiliated to it, or jihadist groups allied to it, to spread chaos and destruction. At the same time, they expand their protests in a way which disrupts the country, and they attack its institutions to provoke a forceful response and play the victim as they have done before.
What is good about the current situation is that the mask has fallen off the faces of those hidden groups in the stable Arab states, exposing them to everyone. Followers of the Brotherhood appeared openly on social media websites announcing their support for the Brotherhood in Egypt, not the Egyptian people.
They even announced what seemed like condemnation of their countries’ policies. It is easy for a researcher—or indeed anyone—to identify the members of the group who worked silently for many years and who have now started to expose themselves after the start of what has become known as the Arab Spring, which has proved to be a failure on all levels. They have now become more exposed with the fall of the Brotherhood in Egypt.
There is no argument that it is good for countries to know who their strategic enemies are, and to deal with them accordingly. Without that knowledge, direction will be lost and issues will become confused.
Decades of hostility held by the Muslim Brotherhood for the stable Arab states were not enough. They added one year of rule, where they became the outright enemy. They sided with the Iranian axis, and enticed their followers against their countries and against their popular and ideological discourse. When the Brotherhood takes the position of a strategic enemy, it should not expect the stable Arab states to welcome it with open arms. States are not moved by sentiments, but by interests.
The awareness of the danger of the Muslim Brotherhood and its followers seems to be heading for certainty in the stable states, and is regaining its place in the uprising states. The the elite and of public opinion have, by their nature, rejected the rule of these groups, and the stable states did not hesitate to support the aspirations for stability in those countries, away from those who proclaimed their enmity.
In Egypt, the people gave authority to the armed forces to protect them from the rule of the Brotherhood and its followers and allies. In Tunisia, the street is still boiling with rejection, which has not reached its ultimate form yet.
In Libya, a branch of the Brotherhood and their allied militias have managed to impose the “political isolation law” to isolate and exclude their political enemies, such as Mahmoud Jibril and his movement, as well as others. Libya, however, is beginning to sense the danger again.
In Yemen, despite the terrible situation there, the Gulf-sponsored political process provides a guarantee to save Yemen from being drawn into the hands of any faction that plans to become an enemy of the natural and strategic Yemeni state.
This is in the uprising states which have ambitions for stability. As for stable states, Saudi Arabia is regaining its regional status and receives the international recognition its regional role deserves, and the Syrian issue and the important developments there are the best evidence of that.
In the UAE, we see gains in development, awareness and policies, while Kuwait is achieving success in elections and heading for more stability. Bahrain is gathering itself in the fight against terrorism and violence.
Away from the Gulf, there is Jordan, where “Jordanian newspapers have been busy directing strong criticisms at the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood.” A Jordanian official said: “There is resentment within the Jordanian political arena caused by the behavior of the Brotherhood,” as quoted in Asharq Al-Awsat last Tuesday.
Does this mean the end of Islamist groups and the disappearance of their supporters and their discourse from the political and general arena in the Arab countries? The right and sensible answer is: No. However, the most important question is about how these groups will behave in the current phase and the next one. What course will they take? And what are the possible outcomes?
The answer to those questions needs some detailed explanation. The larger majority of the Brotherhood seems to have a clear choice, which is mentioned at the start of this article. The escalation of violence and the expansion of protests to disrupt people’s lives and threaten public and private institutions in order to draw a reaction from the security forces, which would be inevitable, and then they might just play the role of the victim.
The other course is the one expected to appear in the next few years, and bring about some young leaders representing political Islam to go in a direction which is more civil, not religious, under the banner of modern slogans. This, however, will not happen until after much tension and suffering.
I do not want to fall into the trap of relying on stereotypes, because differences in time and place and the nature of the discourse will bring about factors which cause differences. But we can see that this latter course is something that looks a little similar to what took place in Turkey, an indicator that should be taken into consideration.
This is what can be called “susceptibility to manipulation,” which is what the Muslim Brotherhood has nurtured in its followers for a long time. They do not take information from sources except those acceptable to the Brotherhood which present issues according to its vision. It may be that this is not something new to those who know the Brotherhood and its nature, but what is new is the magnitude of the susceptibility to manipulation which some of the elites and some youth movements may fall for. Many of them will fall for the for the tricks of the Brotherhood and will come out chanting in support of it, but countries should not be ruled by the sentiments of the crowds, but by the interests of their people. Lastly, some elites will participate in spreading the susceptibility to manipulation, and only later admit this deceit once again.