LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 07/2013

Bible Quotation for today/People who set traps for others get caught themselves.
Proverbs 06/27-34: "Can you carry fire against your chest without burning your clothes?  Can you walk on hot coals without burning your feet?  It is just as dangerous to sleep with another man's wife. Whoever does it will suffer.  People don't despise a thief if he steals food when he is hungry; yet if he is caught, he must pay back seven times more—he must give up everything he has.  But a man who commits adultery doesn't have any sense. He is just destroying himself.  He will be dishonored and beaten up; he will be permanently disgraced.  A husband is never angrier than when he is jealous; his revenge knows no limits.  He will not accept any payment; no amount of gifts will satisfy his anger.

Proverb 26/22-28:"Gossip is so tasty! How we love to swallow it! Insincere talk that hides what you are really thinking is like a fine glaze on a cheap clay pot. A hypocrite hides hate behind flattering words. They may sound fine, but don't believe him, because his heart is filled to the brim with hate. He may disguise his hatred, but everyone will see the evil things he does. People who set traps for others get caught themselves. People who start landslides get crushed. You have to hate someone to want to hurt him with lies. Insincere talk brings nothing but ruin.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
 The U.S. versus the 'Shi'ite Crescent'/by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi/The Jerusalem Post/February 08/13
 Obama’s Outstretched Hand to Iran/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Alawsat/February 08/13
 Don't Let Iran Stall for Time/By: Michael Singh/New York Times/February 5, 2013
Obama's Egyptian Dilemma/By Georgy Gounev/American Thinker/February 08/13

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 08/13
 Canadian's role in Bulgaria bombing underlines fears
Europe set to resist U.S. pressure to brand Hezbollah
Obama’s visit to Israel for consultation, stronger ties – not demands
 Hezbollah: Burden of proof
Germany warns of 'consequences' for Hezbollah
Hezbollah denies involvement in Burgas bus bombing
Hezbollah slams Israel's 'global terror campaign' against party
'Heated debate' in Lebanese Cabinet over Arsal incident
Lebanese MP, Harb meets Sleiman, discuss lifting MP’s immunity
Five-star Iran crush Lebanon on road to Australia
Some 54 countries helped CIA detention efforts: report
Iranians can 'wipe out' Israel if attacked: Ahmadinejad

US Calls on Europe to Brand Hezbollah Terrorists

Syrian rebels fight close to heart of Damascus
Fears Grow over Fate of Syria’s Chemical Weapons
 Anger, protests as Tunisian opposition leader shot dead
Saudi Arabia Boosts Defense Capabilities, Signs Agreement with Lockheed Martin
Over 500 Christian girls kidnapped in Egypt since revolution


Canadian's role in Bulgaria bombing underlines fears
February 06, 2013 / Daily Star/OTTAWA: The revelation on Tuesday that a Canadian-Lebanese dual national took part in the 2012 bombing of a tourist bus in Bulgaria underscores security agencies' concerns about the danger posed by Canadians joining attacks abroad. It is not a problem that is exclusive to Canada. But last April the government's Canadian Security Intelligence Service said as many as 60 Canadians had traveled - or tried to travel - to Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen to join al Qaeda-affiliated groups and engage in terror-related activities.
"I think this particular event demonstrates what they mean when they say that's of a serious security concern," Ray Boisvert, a former CSIS assistant director of intelligence, who retired last year after three decades at the agency, told Reuters. "We have this ongoing problem that some persons living in Canada are linked to a number of issues, whether it's an old homeland issue like Sikh extremism, or it's still supporting the Real IRA, for example, or engaged in supporting Hezbollah or Sunni Islamic extremist groups. There is still fundraising for Hezbollah going on in Canada."
Bulgaria accused Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant movement, of carrying out last July's attack that killed five Israeli tourists. It said one of the three attackers had a Canadian passport and another had a Australian passport.
"I can confirm the individual in question is a dual national who resides in Lebanon," Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird told reporters.
He said the information on this person was much more robust than that provided by Algiers in regard to an attack in January on a natural gas plant in Algeria where about 70 people died.
Algerian Prime Minister Abdelmalek Sellal said a Canadian named only as Chedad coordinated the attack by a group of Islamic militants from a local al Qaeda group.
U.S. intelligence officials said they were concerned by signs that Canadian citizens were involved.
Canadian resident Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian citizen, tried to cross into the United States on a mission to blow up Los Angeles airport in 2000 and is serving 37 years in a U.S. prison.
Another Canadian, Ahmed Said Khadr, was a close associate of Osama Bin Laden and died in a clash with Pakistani forces, while his son Omar pleaded guilty to killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan and conspiring with al Qaeda. Rumors that the hijackers in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States reached the United States from Canada swirled for a long time afterward, but turned out to be wrong.
Boisvert said the United States had problems of its own. "There are lots of homegrown radicalization cases in the United States as well," he said, pointing to large numbers of Somali men returning from the United States to Somalia to fight. Baird played down comparisons between the Bulgarian attack and the Algerian allegation about last month's gas plant attack, saying Canadian officials had been working constructively with their Bulgarian counterparts. "We've had a more robust engagement with Bulgaria and they've provided more information. The situation in Algeria is completely different - we don't even have a name, which is obviously of concern," he said.
Baird said the Bulgarians were taking the lead in the case, adding he could say little about the man in question.
"It's not like they're a resident of Canada where we could have a substantial part of the investigation. They don't live or reside here," he told reporters, saying he was not aware of the last time the man had lived in Canada.
Lebanese immigration to Canada peaked during the 1975-1990 civil war. Canada's 2006 census, the last from which ethnic breakdowns were readily available, said there were around 170,000 Canadians of Lebanese descent living in Canada. In addition, tens of thousands of Lebanese-Canadians live in Lebanon.

Germany warns of 'consequences' for Hezbollah
February 06, 2013/ Daily Star/BERLIN: Germany has warned of "consequences" for Hezbollah if allegations the group was behind an attack that killed five Israeli tourists in Bulgaria last year are confirmed.
Bulgarian officials said Tuesday that the Lebanese group had been linked to the sophisticated bombing carried out by a terrorist cell that included Canadian and Australian citizens.
The announcement put pressure on countries such as France and Germany, which haven't banned Hezbollah despite the urgings of Israel and the United States.
Steffen Seibert, a spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel, said Wednesday that "if the evidence proves to be true that Hezbollah is indeed responsible for this despicable attack then consequences will have to follow."

Europe set to resist U.S. pressure to brand Hezbollah 'terrorists'
 February 06, 2013/By Claire Rosemberg/Daily Star
BRUSSELS: The European Union is unlikely to bow to US pressure to brand Hezbollah a terrorist organisation in the wake of EU member Bulgaria blaming the militia group for an attack that killed five Israeli tourists, diplomats said Wednesday. New US Secretary of State John Kerry has urged the EU to follow Washington's lead by designating Hezbollah as terrorists in a move that will notably lead to a crackdown on its fund-raising activities.
Britain is among EU member states in favour but with key countries like France and Italy reluctant to countenance such a move, there is little prospect of achieving the consensus required for a change of policy in the 27-member EU. A Foreign Office spokesman in London said the right response to the Bulgarian investigation would be to subject Hezbollah's military wing to the EU's terrorism asset freezing regime.
"Designation would send out a clear message that we condemn the terrorist activities of its military wing and that terrorist actions on European soil will not go unpunished," the spokesman added.
London rejects arguments that going after Hezbollah in this way will inevitably destabilise Lebanon, where the militia controls 18 of the 30 seats in cabinet.
Hezbollah has been on a US terror blacklist since 1995 after a series of anti-American attacks, including the bombing of the US embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut in the 1980s.
A well-informed diplomatic source in Brussels said France was the most influential opponent of the EU aligning itself with the US position, but the reservations in Paris are shared by Italy, Cyprus and Malta.
Italy is a major contributor to the UN peace force in Lebanon, making it sensitive to the risk of reprisals, but its position is also based on a view of Hezbollah as a legitimate political force, not just a military organisation.
Nearly seven months after the bombing of an Israeli tourist bus at the Black Sea airport of Burgas, Bulgaria announced Tuesday that Hezbollah militants were to blame.
An EU source said Bulgaria's ambassador in Brussels had informed his EU counterparts of the investigation's findings at a meeting on Wednesday. There was no request from any member state for the special EU working party that works on this question to be convened. "This working party usually meets in May and November to review the terrorist list but a meeting could be called earlier. However Hezbollah has never been proposed for inclusion in recent years," the source said.

Some 54 countries helped CIA detention efforts: report
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As many as 54 countries allegedly helped with CIA programs in which terrorism suspects were held in secret prisons overseas or turned over to foreign governments for interrogation, a human rights organization said in a report on Tuesday. The report by the Open Society Justice Initiative said it focused mainly on human rights abuses associated with the CIA's secret detention and "extraordinary rendition" operations after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. The report, titled "Globalizing Torture," said its information was based on "credible public sources" and "reputable human rights organizations."
The CIA declined comment on the report. "Secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations, designed to be conducted outside the United States under cover of secrecy, could not have been implemented without the active participation of foreign governments. These governments too must be held accountable," the report said. Extraordinary rendition involved the transfer without a legal process of a detainee to the custody of a foreign government for the purposes of detention and interrogation, the report said. It catalogs the treatment of 136 individuals and what help each of the 54 countries provided.
The governments accused of helping the CIA programs included some staunch U.S. allies such as Australia, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and some not usually viewed as U.S.-friendly such as Iran. The report said Iran had transferred some individuals to Afghanistan, which transferred them to the U.S. government. "The United States and most of its partner governments have failed to conduct effective investigations into secret detention and extraordinary rendition," the report said. While President Barack Obama after taking office in 2009 ordered the closing of secret CIA detention facilities, the executive order "did not repudiate extraordinary rendition," the report said. The report's top recommendations were that the United States repudiate extraordinary rendition and that other governments refuse to participate in it.
The 54 countries allegedly participated in the CIA operations in various ways, including by hosting CIA prisons, helping capture and transport detainees, allowing the use of airspace and airports, providing intelligence and interrogating individuals, the report said.

Fears Grow over Fate of Syria’s Chemical Weapons
By Michel Abu Najm/Paris, Asharq Al-Awsat—An Arab government source who met with Asharq Al-Awsat warned of “the civil war in Syria transforming into an ethnic and sectarian war” if the crisis continues as it is. He warned that such an emerging situation would lead to “the disintegration of the Syrian state, pushing it past the point of no return”, which means, according to his explanation, that “it would be impossible to restore the institutions that unite the people and prevent their fragmentation into different groups and communities.” The government source believes that the current path of the Syrian crisis “brings us closer every day to the spark that will ignite all ethnic and sectarian sensitivities in Syria, bringing to the surface all the problems that have been suppressed over the past fifty years, and pushing the entire region towards disaster.”
The source confirmed that “all the countries of the region fear being intimidated by extremist elements”, pointing out that the regime is currently gambling on four factors it believes to be working in its favor. These are: “The absence of a viable alternative capable of holding Syria together in the event of the regime falling or a large gap emerging, the coherence of the regime’s military machine, even today, the lack of an international consensus, with the stances of key countries at odds with each other, and finally the exploitation of terrorism and intimidation.”
The source also touched upon to the subject of chemical weapons, which the Syrian regime possesses a large quantity of, raising sizeable regional and international fears. According to the source, the fate of these weapons could lead to four “grave” scenarios, which are as follows: The regime deliberately using the weapons against its own people, the regime using them against neighboring countries, the weapons falling into the “wrong hands”, in other words into the hands of extremist jihadists, or finally the weapons falling into the hands of those who do not have experience in dealing with them.
However, the source revealed that he has begun identify signs suggesting that the warring parties are beginning to understand “there is no solution possible in Syria other than a political one”. He stressed that these signs must be encouraged as “there is no alternative other than disaster.”

US Calls on Europe to Brand Hezbollah Terrorists
Asharq Al-Awsat/London, Asharq Al-Awsat—Bulgaria yesterday accused the Hezbollah movement of carrying out a terrorist attack that killed five Israeli tourists last year.
A statement attributed to the Bulgarian government revealed that two individuals linked to Hezbollah with Canadian and Australian passports were behind a bomb attack on a bus in the Black Sea city of Burgas last July.
Three people were involved in the attack, two of whom had genuine passports from Australia and Canada; Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov told reporters after Sofia's national Security Council discussed the investigation. "There is data showing the financing and connection between Hezbollah and the two suspects," Tsvetanov said. "What can be established as a well-grounded assumption is that the two persons whose real identity has been determined belonged to the military wing of Hezbollah."
The revelation by Bulgaria sparked global condemnation, particularly from the Obama administration, which yesterday called on Europe to take "proactive action" to disrupt the Hezbollah organization.
In strongly worded statements, Secretary of State John Kerry and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said the Europeans, must act to prevent additional attacks.
"We strongly urge other governments around the world - and particularly our partners in Europe - to take immediate action to crack down on Hezbollah," Kerry said in his first substantive statement as secretary of state. "We need to send an unequivocal message to this terrorist group that it can no longer engage in despicable actions with impunity."
Kerry also discussed the matter with European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in a phone call, the State Department said.
In his statement, Brennan, who is President Barack Obama's nominee to run the Central Intelligence Agency, said the Bulgarian investigation "exposes Hezbollah for what it is: a terrorist group that is willing to recklessly attack innocent men, women, and children, and that poses a real and growing threat not only to Europe, but to the rest of the world.""We commend Bulgarian authorities for their determination and commitment to ensuring that Hezbollah is held to account for this act of terror on European soil," he said. The Netherlands considers Hezbollah a terrorist group and said in August that the EU should also do so, which would mean Brussels could act to freeze Hezbollah assets in Europe. Britain reserves the designation for Hezbollah's armed wing but other EU member states, which have blacklisted the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, have resisted U.S. and Israeli pressure to do the same to Hezbollah.A spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said there was a need to reflect on the outcome of the investigation and the bloc and its member states would discuss an appropriate response based on the investigation.

Hezbollah denies involvement in Burgas bus bombing
By REUTERS 02/06/2013/Deputy leader of Lebanese organization says allegations accusing Hezbollah of involvement in Bulgaria attack part of the Israeli smear campaign; adds that Hezbollah's "compass will remain directed towards Israel."BEIRUT - The Lebanese Islamist Hezbollah movement dismissed on Wednesday Bulgaria's accusation that it carried out a bomb attack which killed five Israeli tourists last year, saying Israel was waging a smear campaign against it. Deputy Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem said Israel was directing "allegations and incitements and accusations against Hezbollah" because it had failed to defeat it militarily.Bulgaria said on Tuesday the Iranian-backed Hezbollah carried out a bombing on a bus in the Black Sea city of Burgas that killed five Israeli tourists in July. The conclusions of the investigation, citing a clear connection to an attack on European Union soil, might open the way for the EU to join the United States in branding Hezbollah a terrorist organization.Qassem said Hezbollah, which fought an inconclusive 34-day war with Israel in 2006 and is now part of Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati's government, would not change course or be deflected by the charges. "Israel is leading an international campaign to intimidate people and countries against Hezbollah," he told religious students in southern Beirut."All these accusations against Hezbollah will have no effect, and do not change the facts," Qassem said. "We will not submit to these pressures and we will not change our priorities. Our compass will remain directed towards Israel." Mikati has said his government was ready to cooperate with Bulgaria in investigating the attack

Hezbollah: Burden of proof
February 06, 2013/The Daily Star
Tuesday’s news, that Bulgaria is investigating Hezbollah’s possible responsibility for a deadly bombing there last year comes at a critically important time for the party. The international community has been paying close attention to Hezbollah, and events in Syria are generating even more concern, particularly in terms of the transfer of weaponry from Syria to Lebanon. The Bulgarian authorities have not issued a verdict or even an official accusation in the case, but they have said they are pursuing tangible evidence and are investigating the role of Hezbollah. The party should reverse its usual course of refusing to cooperate when faced with such accusations, and pursue a different line, namely come clean. If the accusations are based on solid ground, Hezbollah officials must explain exactly what happened. They must explain any connection that their party has to the foreign passports found at the scene of the bus bombing in July 2012 that killed five Israeli tourists. Do they condone such attacks? Prime Minister Najib Mikati has pledged that Lebanon will cooperate with the investigation, which is a praiseworthy step. But he also heads a Cabinet in which Hezbollah is represented, and the party should make clear that it intends to follow the line set down by the head of the government.
It is not in the interest of Hezbollah to hide its head in the sand, and pretend that nothing happened. It is fully aware of the political damage it has incurred by failing to recognize the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, and its refusal to cooperate in any way, shape or form. If Hezbollah is innocent and is confident in its stance, it should prove this openly. But if Hezbollah is somehow involved in the Bulgaria bombing, several key questions emerge.
One is the choice of target. Europe has been in the plus side of the political column for Hezbollah, as it takes a different line than the United States in terms of classifying the party as a terrorist organization. In recent years Hezbollah officials have made periodic visits to European countries, and choosing a EU country as a target can only bring negative consequences.
Also, how does such an attack bring the resolution of the Palestinian issue closer to resolution? Some talk about the attack being a response to the assassination in Damascus of military commander Imad Mughniyeh, but an operation that targets a tour bus is a puzzling one, if this was the motive. Hezbollah touts its military and intelligence capabilities; does it lack the capacity to respond to the Mughniyeh killing by attacking a purely military target? The Canadian and Australian passports found at the site can only invite further anger from these two important Western countries, as if Hezbollah did not have enough to worry about already.
The “old ways” of dealing with serious charges are no longer useful; instead of rhetoric and blanket denial, Hezbollah should offer convincing proof either way.

Hezbollah slams Israel's 'global terror campaign' against party
February 06, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Hezbollah Wednesday accused Israel of running a “global terror campaign” aimed at isolating and cornering the resistance group, a day after Bulgaria accused the party of being behind last year’s bus attack. “Israel is running a campaign of global terror against Hezbollah in particular because it failed in its aggression and incitement against it as well as failed to find an environment suitable to prevent Hezbollah from moving,” Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem said. According to the party’s press office, Qassem also said the Jewish state was “running an international campaign to terrorize people and countries from Hezbollah and to shed a light on the resistance to corner it.” Qassem’s remarks came a day after Bulgarian authorities said their investigation into the bus bombing in July of 2012 in Burgas linked Hezbollah to the two men involved in the attack. The bombing killed five Israeli tourists and wounded the Bulgarian driver.
The accusation led to renewed calls by Israel and the U.S. on the EU to declare the Lebanese movement a “terrorist” organization. The Netherlands has blacklisted Hezbollah while Britain reserves the designation for Hezbollah's armed wing. In his comments Wednesday, Qassem said the Israeli campaign is aimed at distracting the world from the Jewish state’s aggression and occupation practices and to compensate for its loss against Hezbollah by adopting the means to pressure the resistance. It is also aimed at pressuring other powers “to be on its side and in turn lessen the burden of confrontation.”
“Hezbollah is strong and increasing its readiness, support, and training to face these challenges and all these accusations against Hezbollah will not have any effect and will not change facts and reality,” Qassem said.
“We will not accept occupation and we will not succumb to pressure or alter our priorities,” he added, noting that Hezbollah’s “compass” will remain directed at “the Israeli enemy.”In response to Bulgaria's accusation, Prime Minister Najib Mikati said Tuesday Lebanon was ready to cooperate with Sophia in its investigation and that his country condemns any attack on any Arab or foreign country

Obama’s visit to Israel for consultation, stronger ties – not demands
DEBKAfile Special Report February 6, 2013/US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro said US President Barak Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu had agreed that the presidential visit to Israel in spring would be for the purpose of consultation – not demands or laying down conditions - on major issues such as reviving the peace process, preventing a nuclear Iran and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria. Working relations between Obama and Netanyahu were “excellent,” he said.
The US ambassador was answering a question by a Kol Israel national radio interviewer early Wednesday, Feb. 6. The US ambassador said the president does not expect to issue a joint statement after his talks with the Israeli prime minister, but sought to affirm the deep and strengthened ties between the US and Israel.
Shapiro: Obama’s visit would take place after the new Israeli government was in place.
debkafile: Obama’s forthcoming visit has abruptly strengthened the prime minister’s hand in the negotiations for a post-election government coalition and refocused its agenda from haggling on domestic issues to establishing a broad security-diplomatic front. Party leaders such as Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) are already muting their demands for joining government.
debkafile reported Tuesday, Feb. 5:
The day Israel announced the posting of extra Iron Dome and Patriot anti-missile interceptors in its northern regions, Tuesday, Feb. 5, the White House in Washington disclosed that US President Barack Obama would be visiting Israel in the spring. The visit had been discussed when Obama phoned Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Jan. 28 to congratulate him on his success in Israel’s recent election.
The communique went on to say that the US president was coming to discuss issues of common interest such as furthering the peace process but added, the start of Obama's second term offers an opportunity to reaffirm Israel's close relationship with the US and to discuss major issues like Syria and Iran.”
debkafile translates this as referring to the chemical weapons in the hands of Syria and most likely Hizballah as well as Iran’s nuclear program. The date of his visit was not released.
debkafile’s sources have divided the White House bulletin into two parts: security and political.
The reference to Syria and Iran as the “major issues” to be discussed in the framework of the “close relationship” points to Washington and Jerusalem being on the same wavelength on the military actions taken by Israel in Syria last week and those still to come.
It is also a signal from the White House to Tehran, Damascus and Hizballah that in so far as those three allies are planning reprisals for those actions, they will find the United States standing behind Israel.
The IDF command’s announcement expanding the areas of northern Israeli under the anti-missile interceptor shield was released shortly before the White House communiqué and during Israel’s chief of staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz talks at US military chiefs in Washington.
According to the IDF bulletin, an extra Patriot missile interceptor and a third Iron Dome battery was deployed in Lower Galilee, a region which covers key towns north of Tel Aviv: Afula, Nazareth, Yoqn’am and Hadera. Batteries were posted earlier outside Haifa and areas of Upper Galilee closer to the Syrian and Lebanese borders.
The Israeli military command is therefore taking into account that some two million Israelis are potentially in danger of missile attack.
The Obama administration cannot be sure if the president’s visit, his first since 2008, will take place before or after a possible confrontation between Israel and Iran, Syria and Hizballah.
As for the political message, the White House announced the coming presidential visit on the day that the newly-elected Israeli Knesset held its first sitting in Jerusalem. It belied the propaganda pumped out by Netanyahu’s political foes throughout the election campaign, accusing him of souring ties with the Obama administration.
By announcing the coming visit at this time, President Obama showed the party leaders who are hanging tough in talks for a coalition government that Netanyahu has his confidence and support and the two leaders are in close rapport on major issues. Last year, debkafile, alone of any other publication, disclosed that Obama and Netanyahu had reached an understanding to embark on regional initiatives in a spirit of partnership straight after the Israeli election. President Obama’s trip will also include the West Bank and Jordan.

Don't Let Iran Stall for Time
Michael Singh/New York Times/February 5, 2013
As the United States and its allies increase pressure on Iran, Washington must remain steadfast in its demands rather than respond to Tehran's obstinacy with increasingly generous offers.
Few of President Obama's original foreign policy goals have eluded him so much as engagement with Iran. Over the weekend, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. announced during a speech in Munich that the United States was ready for direct talks with Iran. With the risk of war over Iran's nuclear program looming, the offer is prudent, but it is also beside the point. As Iran continues to evade negotiations -- literally in this case, since the Iranian foreign minister was in the same building as Mr. Biden -- the real question is not whether America should talk to Iran, but how to get the Iranians to talk to us in earnest.
Diplomatic engagement with Iran isn't a new idea. Every American president from Jimmy Carter on has reached out to Iran. But such approaches have never led to improved relations. That was true of the secret visit by President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser, Robert C. McFarlane, to Tehran in 1986 in what became the Iran-Contra affair; it was also true of quiet talks over Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s, when the former achieved only fleeting tactical progress and the latter none at all.
The reasons for failure in all the approaches share a common thread: Iran shrank from any broad bilateral thaw because it feared engagement with the United States more than it feared confrontation.
"Resistance" to the West -- and especially to the United States -- was a founding principle of Iran's Islamic regime. And while Iran has gradually normalized relations with many European and Asian allies of Washington, it has not done so with the United States itself, just as it has not with America's ally Israel. To lose those two nations as enemies would be to undermine one of the regime's ideological raisons d'etre.
As a result, serious engagement with the United States is likely to be only a consequence of a strategic shift by the regime, rather than a cause of it. And so far, no such shift has taken place. While there are signs of increasing dissent within the Iranian government as sanctions begin to bite more deeply, there are also indications that existing sanctions have done all they can in this regard: Iran's oil exports are ticking upward after a long decline, and high inflation and unemployment have not produced mass unrest. This provides a good reason for America to offer direct talks -- to counter Iran's narrative of "resistance." But there is little hope that Iran will accept this offer, or that talks right now would be productive.
In fact, the regime may feel that time is on its side. American and Israeli red lines for military action depend on the pace of Iran's nuclear activities, meaning that Iran can delay conflict simply by slowing those activities, as it recently has done. Meanwhile, Iran's leaders may be hoping that black-market workarounds and a pickup in global oil demand will allow their country to expand its exports.
So the United States must be more creative in the ways it uses engagement and pressure to hasten a change in Iran's strategic outlook. On the diplomatic front, America has made clear that it is ready to meet bilaterally whenever Iran is ready to do so; such talks should be a complement -- not an alternative -- to the current multilateral talks, which also include Russia, Britain, France, China and Germany. But the bilateral talks would have to deal not just with the nuclear issue; they should also address the full spectrum of American concerns, including Iran's support for terrorist groups.
Since America's partners in the international negotiations are eager to see direct American-Iranian discussions, and to avoid the military confrontation that could accompany diplomacy's failure, the United States should also insist that the others toughen their own approaches to Iran's government, in hopes of strengthening the hands of those within Iran who argue for a course change.
These other countries should better enforce existing economic sanctions, and employ other available levers of pressure. They should warn Iran that they would support American military action if necessary and that they are prepared to treat Iran and its envoys as pariahs. In addition, they should support Iranian dissidents and counter Iranian activities abroad, for example by following America's lead in designating Hezbollah as a terrorist group and addressing Iranian arms smuggling to Gaza.
As the United States and its allies increase pressure on Iran, it is vital that the Americans remain steadfast in their demands, rather than respond to Iranian obstinacy with increasingly generous offers. If Tehran believes it can wait out pressure or escape it via a narrow technical accord rather than a more fundamental reorientation, it will surely do so.
As the possibility of conflict looms larger and talks drag on, the United States and its allies should worry less about who is on their side of the negotiating table, and more about ensuring that whoever is on the Iranian side actually comes ready to bargain. Otherwise, any American-Iranian talks will not be a diplomatic breakthrough; they will just be another way station on the route to war.
**Michael Singh is managing director of The Washington Institute and former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council

Saudi Arabia Boosts Defense Capabilities, Signs Agreement with Lockheed Martin
By Shuja al-Baqmi/Riyadh, Asharq Al-Awsat—Saudi Arabia has boosted its national defense capabilities after Lockheed Martin—one of the foremost aerospace, defense, and security companies in the world—signed a partnership agreement with the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) earlier this week. Lockheed Martin also opened its first headquarters in the Saudi capital Riyadh.
Lockheed Martin underscored its commitment to enhancing job creation and transferring technology and technological expertise to Saudi Arabia, in addition to helping the kingdom build its aerospace and commercial sectors.
Director of the National Electronics, Communications, and Photonics Centers at KACST, Dr. Hatim Behairy, acknowledged that this partnership will include defense and military training but stressed that it will not be limited to this. He told Asharq Al-Awsat, “Lockheed Martin has experience in many fields that we can benefit from thanks to this agreement. This company’s presence in Saudi Arabia, after it established its first headquarters in Riyadh, means that they are serious about transferring and localizing technology in Saudi Arabia. We view this development positively."
Dr. Behairy revealed that the agreement states that Lockheed Marin will train qualified Saudi cadres, transferring its technological expertise to a new generation of Saudi youth. He emphasized that this will include the defense, medical, military and technological sectors, as well as other fields that the American company excels in.
Dr. Behairy also pointed out that Saudi universities will also benefit from the cooperation agreement. He said, "Lockheed Martin will open its laboratories to Saudi doctors, students, and researchers, and there will also be direct meetings with a number of American experts who work in the various sectors that Lockheed Martin excels in.”For its part, Lockheed Martin emphasized its commitment to providing job opportunities and transferring technology to Saudi Arabia, not to mention helping Riyadh establish a strong national aerospace industry. This is in line with steps to support Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2020 project and improve national defense capabilities.
Speaking at the inauguration of Lockheed Martin’s new headquarters in Riyadh, CEO Marillyn Hewson said, "Saudi Arabia is a strategically important market for our company and today marks a significant step in strengthening our partnership with the Kingdom. We have been supporting the Kingdom for nearly five decades, and are committed to working with our local partners to develop mutually beneficial business opportunities for the future.”She added, “The United States has a strong strategic partnership with the Kingdom and we are honored to be part of that team. So, we look forward to working closely with our Saudi partners to support the Kingdom’s efforts to create a more technology-focused economy as part of the Kingdom’s Vision 2020. We are focused on developing partnerships that sustain long-term jobs for Saudi people in the security, aerospace, and commercial sectors.”
Lockheed Martin has an active partnership with KACST, King Abdullah University for Science and Technology (KAUST), and Alfaisal University in Riyadh.
The partnership is focused on helping the Kingdom respond to the challenges of the next decade. This partnership will see Lockheed Martin working to empower Saudi youth through education, knowledge transfer and engagement, bringing tangible long-term benefits to Saudi Arabia as a whole.Lockheed Martin’s official website boasts, “From integrated air and missile defense to maritime modernization to tactical missiles to satellite communications, Lockheed Martin offers the Kingdom the capabilities to preserve peace and stability.”The website adds, “Lockheed Martin also recognizes that Saudi Arabia requires much more than defense and security capabilities. Our diverse portfolio of programs also includes such offerings in other areas such as health, cyber-health, security, air traffic control, and energy solutions.” Lockheed Martin is a global security, defense, and aerospace company employing more than 120,000 people worldwide. It is one of the world’s largest defense contractors; in 2009, 74 percent of Lockheed Martin’s revenues came from military sales. It has more than 300 partnerships in 75 countries.

Obama’s Outstretched Hand to Iran
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Alawsat
Ever since Barack Obama assumed the presidency of his country he has pursued the ‘outstretched hand’ policy towards Iran, without success. Today, four years later, Washington has again renewed this policy towards Tehran, this time in the words of the US vice president, who warned that the diplomatic window is narrowing. Tehran, through its foreign minister, was quick to respond positively to the US offer—which stressed the need to negotiate on the nuclear issue—but only under certain conditions. [Iranian foreign minister] Salehi asked: “How do we trust again this new gesture?” In other words this means that Iran does not trust America, rather than vice versa, although Washington knows full well that Iran is moving in every area to cultivate its agents and spread instability, and of course threaten the interests of the international community.
It is enough to consider what Iran is doing in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Bahrain, and of course Syria, and after all that Iran says it is not confident in Obama’s calls to negotiate. This is odd, but what is even odder is that America’s outstretched hand policy is always used when Tehran is just about to face its internal dues. In 2009, at the start of the Green Revolution against the backdrop of Iranian presidential elections that were marred by fraud, Obama proceeded with the outstretched hand policy. Today, despite all that Iran is doing, and with the Iranian presidential elections around the corner amid the ongoing debate between Ahmadinejad and his opponents in the Iranian regime, Washington has returned with the same policy once again.
Of course, I am not calling for the US administration to wage war on Iran, but rather for greater sincerity and clarity of vision. Economic sanctions are not the only means to rein in Iran’s recklessness, whether in terms of its nuclear ambitions or its destabilization of the region, and there are several other steps that must also be taken. The problem is that the Obama administration has already missed many opportunities to rein in the Iranian regime, including the Green Revolution, the hasty withdrawal from Iraq, and allowing Al-Maliki to remain as prime minister without a cost. The fear now is that the Obama administration is repeating the same mistake with a new set of issues. The US president today faces the opportunity of a lifetime to deal a fatal blow to the Iranian project in the region, through overthrowing Al-Assad, a move that would have significant ramifications. Here we should consider Ahmadinejad’s visit to Cairo, through which he is seeking to break Iran’s Arab isolation, as Tehran senses the gravity of Assad’s downfall. Obama could incapacitate Iran’s foreign designs by overthrowing its primary ally, President Assad, by pressuring Iraq to become more independent and less affiliated to Tehran, and also by avoiding a hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan so that the state does not turn into another theatre for Iranian expansion. All of the above could be achieved if there was a sincere and clear American policy. If the Obama administration realized this then Iran would be the one calling to negotiate, not the other way around.
Here it is wise for the American decision-maker, when dealing with Iran, to remember the African saying that was adopted by former US president Theodore Roosevelt: “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” This is the only language that Iran understands, and anything else is a waste of time.

Iranians can 'wipe out' Israel if attacked: Ahmadinejad
February 06, 2013/Daily Star
CAIRO: The Iranian people are ready to march on Israel to "wipe it out" if the Jewish state attacks the Islamic republic, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in statements published Wednesday by Egypt's state news agency. "The people of Iran are ready to march on Israel to wipe it out if it launches into an adventure against Tehran" and attacks the country, the Iranian president told Egyptian newspaper editors, according to excerpts published by MENA. "The Zionists... hope to aggress Iran and attack it, but they are very afraid of the Iranian reaction and of the consequences of such an attack," he said in the Arabic transcription of the comments made during a visit to Egypt. "Our defence forces are capable of dissuading any aggressor and making him regret his act," Ahmadinejad said. Israeli President Shimon Peres said on Tuesday that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran was growing under the "terrifying dictatorship" ruling the Islamic republic.
"The Iranian danger has grown," Peres said at the opening of the newly-elected Israeli parliament. "It threatens our existence, the independence of the Arab states, the peace of the whole world.
Much of the international community fears that Iran's nuclear programme includes efforts to develop nuclear weapons, a charge that Tehran denies.
Israel believes that Iran must be prevented from reaching military nuclear capabilities at any cost and refuses to rule out military intervention to achieve this.
Ahmadinejad is on historic visit to Egypt, the first by an Iranian president since Tehran severed diplomatic ties with Cairo in 1980 in protest at the Egypt-Israel peace treaty.
While in Cairo, he is attending a summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
 

The U.S. versus the 'Shi'ite Crescent'?
by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi/The Jerusalem Post/February 5, 2013
http://www.meforum.org/3443/shiite-crescent
Writing on his blog 'Karl reMarks', the prominent Lebanese blogger and Twitter user Karl Sharro complained of the 'decline of narrative' in 'Middle East expertise', lamenting the dominance of a 'cold analytical approach' towards events in the volatile region and the role of foreign powers therein. But is the concept of narrative and grand theory actually useful here?
Consider the question of U.S. policy towards the region throughout the course of the Arab Spring. One narrative that has emerged among certain commentators -- mainly on the Western political left like Patrick Cockburn -- is that the U.S. is aligning itself with Sunni forces -- including those of an Islamist nature -- in opposition to a perceived 'Shi'ite crescent' of power in the region.
As is often the case, this narrative bases itself on elements of truth. The U.S. shares the concern of the Sunni Arab Gulf monarchies about Iranian influence in the wider region. The most egregious case of alignment is in Bahrain, where Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia have all deployed troops to assist the monarchy in suppressing protests.
Meanwhile, Washington has called for the Bahraini government to engage in meaningful dialogue with the opposition, but has at the same time approved arms sales to the regime, for the U.S., with its Fifth Fleet stationed in Bahrain, is deeply worried about the influence of pro-Iranian Shi'ite Islamists such as Hassan Mushaima, who have slowly and steadily won more standing among Bahraini protestors at the expense of more moderate factions like al-Wefaq.
It is also correct, as Cockburn noted in a recent article, that the current U.S. government is more sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and associated factions than before. This is evident from the Obama administration's strong reluctance to be openly critical of the present Egyptian government under the MB's Mohammed Morsi, along with a consignment of F-16 fighter jets to Cairo from Washington that began last month.
The sympathy with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in particular is based on two main factors. First, whatever misgivings the Obama administration might express about developments like Morsi's constitutional decree in November last year that gave the president dictatorial powers, the consensus in U.S. policy circles is that an MB-led government can guide Egypt to stable, democratic civilian-rule. In other words, the U.S. sees in Egypt's MB a 'moderate Islamism' that can serve as a non-violent antidote to the Salafists and al-Qa'ida.
Second, it is correct that the U.S. government sees the MB and like-minded factions as a counterbalance to Iranian influence in the wider region. In this case, there is a disconnect between think-tank circles in Washington and policymakers.
While attention has been drawn in the world of punditry to talks between Egypt and Iran as regards establishing ties, the fact is that these engagements remain nothing more than talk, and a significant warming of relations between the two countries remains a very distant prospect. Above all, on the question of Syria, Egypt and Iran are deeply at odds with each other, as the latter continues to back Assad while Morsi's government insists he must be removed from power. In the meantime, the Obama administration has been sympathetic to the MB-dominated opposition-in-exile Syria National Council.
All these points notwithstanding, those who wish to argue that U.S. policy is aligned with the 'Sunni bloc' in a grand sectarian alliance against the 'Shi'ite crescent' need to account for the fact that Washington has consistently backed Nouri al-Maliki -- who leads the Shi'ite religious Dawa party -- as premier of Iraq, rather than his rival Ayad Allawi, who is like Maliki a Shi'ite but leads a very loose coalition of groups that have widespread backing from the Sunni Arab community of Iraq.
Indeed, in the case of Iraq, U.S. policy has something in common with the approach of Iran, which likewise backs Maliki. On the other hand, the Gulf states and Turkey have backed Allawi. Even Assad supported Allawi in his bid to become Prime Minister in 2010, and while Syria outwardly reversed its stance after a sustained lobbying effort by Maliki, the new-found support for Maliki was nothing more than a cosmetic change.
In contrast, Washington has gone as far as to take Maliki's side in the ongoing dispute with Turkey over Ankara's importing oil from the Kurdistan Regional Government without Baghdad's permission.
There are two reasons for the American support for Maliki. First, Washington sees him as more competent than Allawi, who is frequently out of the country, leads a very disunited bloc of groups that is constantly marred by internal splits, and is generally perceived as being out of touch with reality on the ground in Iraq.
Second, as Reidar Visser points out, the U.S. approach towards Iraq is influenced by Yitzhak Nakash's work 'The Shi'is of Iraq' that emphasized the distinct Arab identity of the Iraqi Shi'ite community. Thus, Washington is not all that worried about the question of Iranian influence in the country, and has even maintained friendly ties with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI): the Shi'ite political faction that is arguably closest to Iran in ideology and cordial relations. Last month the U.S. ambassador met with ISCI leader Ammar al-Hakim to discuss the ongoing political crisis and protests in Iraq.
What about Cockburn's claim of a supposed distinction between a 'good' al-Qa'ida in the jihadist faction Jabhat al-Nusra (JAN) in Syria as opposed to a 'bad' al-Qa'ida, or George Galloway's recent attack on British Prime Minister David Cameron regarding supposed UK support for jihadists in Syria?
Here, some conventional wisdom needs to be set aside. The reality is that Western support for Syrian rebel groups has been very limited beyond mere words calling for Assad to step down as president of Syria and recognizing an opposition-in-exile coalition with little credibility on the ground. The West is not in fact arming rebels in Syria, and Washington in particular has not reversed its designation of JAN as a terrorist organization despite objections within Syria and from the opposition-in-exile.
It is true that Saudi Arabia has been providing aid to Salafist factions while Qatar and Turkey prefer to back MB-aligned groups, but U.S. policy has been to ensure that these countries do not provide any heavy weaponry and enforce restrictions on arms supplies.
They have duly followed this approach, having their own concerns about 'jihadist blowblack' a la the aftermath of backing the Mujahideen in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In any case, most of the support Syrian rebel groups receive actually comes from private individuals, from Syrians on the ground or in exile and from some wealthy Gulf Arabs.
In short, the main error in arguing that U.S. policy follows a sectarian alignment against a Shi'ite bloc is to equate opposition to Iranian influence with opposition to any expression of Shi'ite identity on a political level. The case of Iraq clearly shows otherwise. The American approach towards the Arab world can be criticized for inconsistency on a number of levels, but the evidence does not suggest an analysis of U.S. policy under a broad sectarian paradigm of being pro-Sunni and anti-Shi'ite.
*Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University.

Over 500 Christian girls kidnapped in Egypt since revolution
February 6, 2013 by admin
Filed under newsletter-world
CSF/Egypt, February 05, 2013: Over 500 Christian girls have been abducted in Egypt since the revolution of January 2011; they are taken by Salafists who forcibly convert them to Islam and marry them to Muslim men against their will. The number of cases has been documented by the non-governmental Christian organisation Association of Victims of Abduction and Enforced Disappearance (AVAED), which says that Salafist sheiks are behind nearly all of the abductions and the interior ministry colludes with them.
Founder Ebram Louis said:
In every Egyptian province there is a Salafist association which handles the kidnapping of Christian girls. They have homes everywhere where they keep them. If we inform the police where the kidnapped girl is being kept, they inform the Salafists, who then move her away to another home and then we lose all trace of her.
AVAED lawyer Said Fayez said that the age of the abducted girls is becoming younger at typically 13-14 years old.
One case involves 14-year-old Sarah Ishaq Abdelmalek from el-Dabaa. She disappeared on her way to school on 30 September 2012, having stopped at a bookshop; Sarah’s father subsequently accused the Salafist bookshop keeper of abducting his daughter and marrying her against her will.
Mr Louis said that Sarah was smuggled across the border to Libya with the help of the interior ministry.
The kidnappers claim that the teenager left home, embraced Islam and married a Muslim man of her own free will. A spokesman for the Salafist Front said that they would not hand over Sarah under any circumstances, claiming that they were acting in the interests of her human rights.
Under Egyptian law, a person may not marry or change their religion until the age of 18.
The prosecutor in Alexandria has ordered the arrest of Sarah’s kidnapper, but the police have failed to take any action.
Another recent case has had a happier ending. Agape Essam Girgis (13) from el-Ameriya, near Alexandria, went missing on 23 December 2012; she had gone in a taxi with her school’s Muslim social worker and two male teachers.
Agape was drugged and woke up in a secluded place with an elderly woman and two sheikhs, who tried to convert her to Islam. The schoolgirl was forced to wear full Islamic dress and was beaten two or three times when she refused to say the Islamic confessions of faith.
Following demonstrations by Agape’s family and their supporters, she was returned on 31 December.
Her family has decided that she will not return to school. Many Christian parents are no longer sending their daughters to school, fearing that they may be kidnapped.

Obama's Egyptian Dilemma
By Georgy Gounev/American Thinker
At the same time that the Obama administration has decided to provide Egypt with the most sophisticated varieties of American weaponry, mass protests against the increasingly dictatorial regime of Mohamed Morsi reached a magnitude that threatens the very foundations of the Egyptian statehood. This shocking dichotomy raises questions as to why the most important leader in the world and the supreme commander of the most powerful armed force is so confused and so helpless while facing the challenges of radical Islam.
It's very likely that President Obama's views of Islam-related problems is based on his childhood experience in Indonesia. Undoubtedly, those impressions have created an image that the majority of Muslims are good people. This is absolutely correct. As far as the radical Islamists are concerned, however, Mr. Obama's attitude is mistaken. What is even worse is that it impacted in a negative way his strategic thinking and the practical conduct of his policy. For President Obama, the term "radical Islam" is a kind of taboo -- for the first four years of his term, he didn't master the courage to pronounce it even once. Instead, he prefers to define the adherents of radical Islam simply as "terrorists." The problem here is that terror is a method used by the enemy but not its name... Given this ignorance or arrogance, it is a small wonder that the president and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, were not able to develop an effective strategy towards radical Islam in general and towards Egypt in particular.
Consequently, the United States' foreign policy regarding a fanatical and dedicated enemy bent on the destruction of everything that makes life worth living has been seriously crippled. Even more, the actions of the current administration are facilitating the growth of the poisonous seeds of radical Islam.
The first ray of hope for an ambitious and hard-core Muslim Brotherhood leader by the name of Mohamed Morsi to assume that his hour had struck emerged when it became clear that the United States has thrown its loyal ally, Hosni Mubarak, under the bus.
In July of 2011 Secretary Hillary Clinton made a statement to the effect that the United States was recognizing the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate participant in Egyptian political life. In practice, this meant that the United States was ready to recognize a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt provided that Mohamed Morsi won the election.
Secretary Clinton's declaration was a fatal mistake. All the Department of State had to do was to issue a declaration making it abundantly clear that the United States would respect the right of the people of Egypt to choose a government of its liking. At the same time however, this statement should have left no doubt that Washington wouldn't offer any assistance to a tyrannical government that was about to violate the human rights and political freedom of women and minorities. Such an American strategy would have brought a victory to Morsi's rival, Ahmed Shafiq -- a popular and intelligent general with solid secular credentials.
Once in power, Morsi's very first step was to tighten the knot of the cord that President Obama had placed around his own wrists by making clear his belief in the legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Very soon, however, the Gaza conflict broke out. In the middle of the bloody duel between Hamas' missiles and the Israeli bombings, Morsi sent his prime minister, Hesham Qandi, to Gaza. Qandi gave inspirational and highly provocative speeches encouraging the continuation of Hamas attacks on Israel.
At the same time, the Egyptian President was busy building a completely different image on behalf of President Obama, who had sent his secretary of state to Cairo, all the way from distant Burma. Upon reaching the capital of Egypt, the jet-lagged Secretary of State received Morsi's assurances that Hamas was ready to stop shooting missiles into Israel...
This was an excellent strategic move by Morsi, bestowing as it did the status of complete master of the situation in Gaza. With his help, the attacks on Israel would be stopped. But if some kind of pressure on the United States and Israel is desired, then the missiles will fly.
Perhaps dizzy from so much brilliance, Morsi committed one very important mistake. Assuming that the ground for the dreamt-of Islamo-totalitarian eternity he had prepared for Egypt was ready, the new President of Egypt rushed to proclaim absolutist power over the country. The new dictator was in such a precious hurry to Islamize Egypt that he immediately imposed a constitution suspiciously similar to the Iranian one.
This decisive step proved to be premature. The young opponents of the authoritarian regime of President Mubarak once again filled Tahrir Square, demanding this time the resignation of the impatient totalitarian by the name of Mohamed Morsi.
An interesting difference emerged between the current demonstrations and the turmoil that brought down President Mubarak. When historic Tahrir Square was filled with angry demonstrators against Mubarak, the Department of State decided to undercut him by proscribing to the embattled statesman any violent response and demanding release of political prisoners. (By the way, one of the released "victims of the repressive regime of Mubarak" was an individual currently detained for his participation in the Benghazi murders.)
Events now enveloping Tahrir Square represent a huge dilemma to the Obama administration. The problem is that the anti-Morsi demonstrations are of such a magnitude that at one point the new dictator was chased out of his palace, which upon his return he transformed into a fortress surrounded with barbed wire and tanks.
Unlike Mubarak, however, Morsi is not about to resign. Knowing full well the vulnerability and the weakness of Obama, he is contemplating all possible means to preserve his dictatorial powers. The delicate spot Obama has placed himself in by not supporting the Egyptian enemies of radical Islam is a dangerous one because it evokes an important question: Is the president about to let down the anti-Morsi demonstrators the way he let down the young Iranians whose blood was shed on the streets of Teheran back in 2009?
Georgy Gounev teaches and lectures on the ideology and strategy of radical Islam in Southern California. He is author of the book entitled "The Dark Side of the Crescent Moon" that explores the international impact of the Islamization of Europe. In addition, other articles by Gounev can be found in the American Thinker, Gatestone and "foraff.org."