LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 09/2013

Bible Quotation for today/Faithfulness to God
Sirach 02/My child, if you are going to serve the Lord, be prepared for times when you will be put to the test.  Be sincere and determined. Keep calm when trouble comes.  Stay with the Lord; never abandon him, and you will be prosperous at the end of your days.  Accept whatever happens to you. Even if you suffer humiliation, be patient.  Gold is tested by fire, and human character is tested in the furnace of humiliation.  Trust the Lord, and he will help you. Walk straight in his ways, and put your hope in him. All you that fear the Lord, wait for him to show you his mercy. Do not turn away from him, or you will fall.  All you that fear the Lord, trust him, and you will certainly be rewarded.  All you that fear the Lord, look forward to his blessings of mercy and eternal happiness. Think back to the ancient generations and consider this: has the Lord ever disappointed anyone who put his hope in him? Has the Lord ever abandoned anyone who held him in constant reverence? Has the Lord ever ignored anyone who prayed to him?  The Lord is kind and merciful; he forgives our sins and keeps us safe in time of trouble.  But those who lose their nerve are doomed—all those sinners who try to have it both ways!  Doom is sure to come for those who lose their courage; they have no faith, and so they will have no protection.  Doom is sure to come for those who lose their hope. What will they do when the Lord comes to judge them? Those who fear the Lord do not disobey his commands; those who love him will live as he wants them to live.  Those who fear and love the Lord will try to please him and devote themselves to the Law.  Those who fear the Lord are always ready to serve him. They humble themselves before him, and say, We place our destiny in the hands of the Lord, not in human hands, because his mercy is as great as his majesty.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
 Who rules Egypt/By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat/January 09/13
 Al-Assad at the opera/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/January 09/13
The Case against Chuck Hagel/By: Hussain Abdul -Hussain/Now Lebanon/January 09/13
Chuck Hagel: A Bold Choice for the US in the Middle East/Joyce Karam/Now Lebanon/January 09/13
Obama's Big Egypt Test: Sinai/By: Eric Trager/The Atlantic/Washington Institute/January 07/13

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for January 09/13
 Israeli PM, Netanyahu: Iran is greatest world danger, not settlements
Death toll rises as storm batters Lebanon
Ferocious storm cripples Lebanon
Lebanese Lawmakers kick off discussion on electoral law
Rival Christian parties back Orthodox vote plan
15 districts electoral law proposal an alternative to Orthodox, MP Alain Aoun
 Kataeb will accept Orthodox electoral law if its own fails to win support
Saniora: Mustaqbal Maintains Position on Orthodox Law, March 14 Will Reject Proportional Representation
 Grand Mufti Mohammad Rashid Qabbani mostly agrees to Mikati proposal
Jumblat: Factions Hoping to Make Plans Based on Belief Syrian Crisis Will End Soon are Mistaken
 U.S. gives Lebanon 200 armored vehicles
 Man killed, baby missing in Lebanon winter storm
Army contains north Lebanon tension after Assad speech
Lenders see mild growth in 2013
Hezbollah official says tripartite equation, state, resistance and people is firm
 Bahia Hariri lauds Mufti Shaar during Paris meeting
 Leaders in Lebanon look to create centrist political force
 Berri calls for release of Palestinian prisoners
 Jumblatt slams Assad speech as surreal, repetitive
 Arab League to hold talks on refugees
 Cyprus President Due in Lebanon Thursday for Talks on Energy Search
 Pentagon Nominee Hagel Denies Being Anti-Israel
 Chuck Hagel: Not one shred of evidence that I'm anti-Israeli
Obama digs in for a fight on Hagel, Brennan picks
Israel Media Unfazed by Obama's Pentagon Nominee
 Syria opposition, West reject Assad 'peace plan'
 Assad peace proposal rapped, finds no takers
Troops shell Damascus outskirts, clashes in north: NGO
Ban: Assad Plan Will not End Syria's 'Terrible Suffering'

Egypt says foiled car bombing on Gaza border


Saniora: Mustaqbal Maintains Position on Orthodox Law, March 14 Will Reject Proportional Representation
Naharnet /Al-Mustaqbal bloc leader MP Fouad Saniora restated on Monday his rejection of the Orthodox Gathering's electoral law, adding that the bloc's lawmakers do not mind discussing the proposal suggested by the March 14 Christian parties."The bloc's decision is based on the values stated in the Taef accord and on our belief in fair representation and freedom of choice,” Saniora explained during an interview with MTV.
The former PM's comments come after the Christian four-party committee on the elections' law agreed on Sunday to endorse the electoral system proposed by the Orthodox Gathering, under which each sect would elect its own lawmakers. Meanwhile, the March 14 opposition Christians had reached an agreement with al-Mustaqbal on a plan to divide Lebanon into 50 small-sized districts based on a winner-takes-all system and referred it to parliament. Saniora revealed that March 14 forces also lean towards rejecting the proportional representation. "This law is complex and we need more time to convince the Lebanese people of accepting it,” he explained, adding that this proposal was supposed to be discussed in the parliament two and half years before the elections. The lawmaker said: “The biggest challenge for the majority that wins the elections is to act for the interest of all Lebanese and not as a force opposing other parties in the country,” expressing that “the current majority is not taking into consideration the concerns of the March 14 forces”.Saniora also revealed during his interview with MTV that former PM Saad Hariri will return to Lebanon soon and will take part in the parliamentary elections. "I support Hariri's nomination to head Lebanon's next cabinet,” he remarked. The electoral subcommittee is scheduled to convene on Tuesday to discuss the law to be adopted in the upcoming elections. After boycotting the cabinet's work and the national dialogue sessions following the assassination of Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau head Brigadier General Wissam al-Hasan on October 19, the March 14 opposition announced that it will accept Speaker Nabih Berri's proposal of residing in a hotel near the parliament building in downtown Beirut as a safety precaution to participate in the electoral subcommittee's talks.

15 districts electoral law proposal an alternative to Orthodox, MP Alain Aoun
Change and Reform bloc MP Alain Aoun said that the alternative to the Orthodox Gathering electoral law proposal would be the law based on proportionality and 15 electoral districts. “In case the Orthodox Gathering proposal does not receive consensus, [the proposed alternative] is proportionality and 15 districts… as opposed to the [March 14] small districts proposal which failed to get a consensus,” the Free Patriotic Movement official told LBC television on Monday. In another interview with Future television on the same day, the MP voiced his wish that “the Orthodox Gathering proposal would receive the approval of the biggest number of deputies.”Lebanon is set to elect new parliamentary representatives in 2013, but the country's political circles are divided over the electoral law to replace the 1960 version

Kataeb will accept Orthodox electoral law if its own fails to win support
Now Lebanon/Kataeb Party leader Amin Gemayel said that in case the law based on 50 small districts fails to receive universal approval, his party will favor the Orthodox Gathering electoral law proposal. “The [electoral] law based on 50 districts proposed by the Kataeb Party and the Lebanese Forces is our first choice; otherwise, [we will accept] the Orthodox Gathering proposal,” Gemayel said on Monday in his party’s regular meeting in Bekfaya. Lebanon is set to elect new parliamentary representatives in 2013, but the country's political circles are divided over the electoral law to replace the 1960 version despite the cabinet’s approval in September of a draft law based on proportionality and 13 electoral districts.  The Kataeb leader called on Lebanon’s Christians to work together in order to reach a “modern” electoral law that would “ensure just Christian representation [in the parliament].” He went on to urge all parties to “multiply the bilateral and collective deliberations” in order to remove the obstacles that caused the national dialogue to be cancelled. On Saturday, Lebanese President Michel Suleiman called off the national dialogue session that had been scheduled for January 7 after his repeated calls for dialogue had been the center of controversy following the March 14 group’s refusal to attend any meetings that include government representatives as long as the current pro-March 8 cabinet remains in power. Gemayel also reiterated his abidance by the Bkirki agreement as well as the holding of the parliamentary elections on time. Elsewhere, he tackled the Syria refugees issue in Lebanon by calling on the government to revise the measures it has adopted to contain the waves of Syrian and Palestinian refugee. The cabinet approved on Thursday a series of measures aimed at protecting and supporting the displaced fleeing the violence in neighboring Syria. “There has to be a plan that would call for the closing of illegitimate border crossings… and the planning, along with the competent international [organizations], of [camps] that would respect humanitarian standards,” Gemayel added. The Kataeb leader also urged Lebanese citizens to take care in light of the weekend's massive storm, criticizing the government's lack of preventive measures adopted that would have minimized its damage.

Rival Christian parties back Orthodox vote plan
January 08, 2013/By Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: On the eve of a parliamentary subcommittee’s discussions on a new electoral law, the country’s rival Christian parties came out Monday in support of a controversial proposal calling for every sect to elect its own MPs in this year’s parliamentary elections. However, the chances of the Orthodox Gathering’s proposal being adopted as a new electoral law appeared to be slim, given the fierce opposition voiced by major Muslim parties on both sides of the political divide. Muslim politicians in the March 8 and March 14 camps, including the Future Movement, have rejected the Orthodox proposal, arguing that it would create deep sectarian and confessional divisions in the already politically split country. Former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora warned that the Orthodox Gathering’s proposal would encourage extremists from all sects and serve as “a recipe” for a clash among the Lebanese.
Asked to comment on the Orthodox proposal, Siniora, also the head of the parliamentary Future bloc, told MTV Monday night: “We want to foresee the results that might be entailed by this [proposal]. The Taif Accord called for [sectarian] coexistence and approved the adoption of a senate. When we approve that each sect can elect its own representatives, we will be giving a chance to extremists from each group to use their opinions in an attempt to win the people’s sympathy. Therefore, we will be prescribing a fast recipe for a further clash among the Lebanese.”
“We want an electoral law that can ensure a just representation and freedom of choice. The law also should be in conformity with the Taif Accord,” he added.
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea and Metn MP Sami Gemayel from the Kataeb Party voiced support for the draft law that calls for each sect to elect its own MPs under a proportional representation system based on a nationwide district. Geagea and Gemayel also reiterated their rejection of the 1960 law, which adopted the qada as an electoral district and is based on a winner-take-all system. The 1960 law, used in the 2009 elections, has been rejected by officials on both sides of the political divide, as well as by the Maronite Church. Their remarks came a day after representatives of a four-party committee representing the LF, the Kataeb Party, MP Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement and Zghorta MP’s Marada Movement met at the Maronite patriarch’s seat in Bkirki, north of Beirut, to discuss several electoral proposals for the elections scheduled in early June.
No statement was issued after the meeting Sunday night. But statements made by representatives of the four rival parties said that agreement was reached on supporting the Orthodox proposal and totally rejecting the 1960 law. Geagea said the 1960 law did not ensure correct representation. “The law that can ensure in a better way a true representation [for the Christians] is the Orthodox Gathering’s [draft] law,” he said at his residence in Maarab, north of Beirut.
“We were the first to propose this law but when we found a fierce [Muslim] opposition to it, we returned to study what is a better law than this [Orthodox] law.” Geagea said that after Muslim parties opposed the Orthodox proposal, the March 14 Christian parties presented a draft law that would divide Lebanon into 50 small districts under a winner-takes-all system. “The small districts’ law is also one of the best proposals after the Orthodox proposal,” he added. He pointed out that the FPM had agreed to the government’s draft law based on a proportional representation system with 13 medium-sized electoral districts. Geagea said the government’s proportional representation law, which was rejected by the opposition March 14 coalition, did not ensure “a true representation.”“Today, the Orthodox [draft] law is again brought up and we support it provided that the FPM’s allies [Hezbollah and the Amal Movement] also support it,” he said. He added that the Orthodox proposal was floated during Sunday’s meeting in Bkirki on the basis that the FPM had obtained the approval of its allies to the plan.
MPs from the FPM, Hezbollah and the Amal Movement met Monday night at the home of Energy Minister Gebran Bassil in Rabieh to coordinate their stances ahead of the parliamentary subcommittee’s meeting.
Al-Manar TV quoted a source in the parliamentary majority as saying: “Our stance is to support proportional representation, but we will accept what is accepted by the FPM. Therefore, we stand with the FPM even with the Orthodox draft law.” Geagea said agreement was reached in Bkirki on two things: A pledge not to return to the 1960 law and the work of the parliamentary subcommittee.
“We will go to the subcommittee’s meetings with an open spirit. We will use all our efforts in an attempt to reach an understanding with all the parties present on the table,” Geagea said. He added that if the parliamentary subcommittee, which includes MPs from the March 8 and March 14 parties, failed to reach an agreement on a new electoral law, the only solution left was to go to Parliament to vote on a new law. “Even though we are boycotting the government, we will break this boycott in order to approve a new electoral law,” Geagea said.
Referring to the parliamentary subcommittee, which is scheduled to resume talks on a new electoral law in Parliament Tuesday, Gemayel, a member of the subcommittee, said: “The March 14 parties will go to the subcommittee’s meeting with a positive spirit. We will use all energies to reach a new law.”
Gemayel, LF MP George Adwan, and Future MPs Ahmad Fatfat and Serge Torsarkissian checked into the Etoile Hotel near the Parliament building Monday in preparation for Tuesday’s meeting.
The subcommittee’s March 8 MPs are FPM’s Alain Aoun, Hezbollah’s Ali Fayyad, the Amal Movement’s Ali Bazzi and Tashnag Party’s Hagop Pakradounian. It also includes Progressive Socialist Party MP Akram Shehayeb.
Alan Aoun, also a member of the Bkirki committee, said all Christian parties were in agreement on the Orthodox proposal: “This is a positive development.”
Also Monday, Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai urged the subcommittee’s members to agree on a new law to replace the 1960 system, which, he said, marginalizes a large segment of the Lebanese.
“We and the Lebanese want an [electoral] law that ensures the right representation, a law that makes everyone feel there is a real partnership in the country and be assured of their future and the future of their children,” Rai said.
The parliamentary subcommittee, to be chaired by March 14 MP Robert Ghanem, will resume discussions on a new electoral law after a suspension of its meetings for more than two months.
Formed in early October, the subcommittee was tasked with studying the type of electoral system and the distribution of districts in the absence of Cabinet members or representatives. It will also discuss a Cabinet proposal for increasing the number of Parliament members from the current 128 to 134 to allot six seats for Lebanese expatriates.
Meanwhile, President Michel Sleiman has postponed for the second time a National Dialogue session, scheduled for Monday, after the March 14 coalition had refused to attend unless its conditions were met. .
The March 14 coalition has upheld its demand for the government’s resignation and the formation of a neutral salvation Cabinet to oversee the elections as a prerequisite for attending any Dialogue session.

Grand Mufti Mohammad Rashid Qabbani mostly agrees to Mikati proposal
January 08, 2013/By Nafez Kawas/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Grand Mufti Mohammad Rashid Qabbani recommended minor amendments to a proposal to end disputes over elections of the Higher Islamic Council presented to him by Prime Minister Najib Mikati and former prime ministers Monday. Sources told The Daily Star that the solution stipulates that Qabbani hold a meeting for the council attended by members of the council, the former prime ministers and Mikati. After the meeting, Qabbani would announce a date for holding elections.The sources said Qabbani proposed that the meeting would be consultative rather than an official meeting for the Higher Islamic Council, whose term is considered expired by the Mufti. The former prime ministers, particularly Fouad Siniora, have yet to respond to Qabbani’s proposed amendment.
“I informed his eminence of all the details and the solution which they [former prime ministers] proposed. In fact his eminence supports [what was agreed upon],” Mikati told reporters after visiting Qabbani.
Mikati said he would communicate with the former prime ministers and Qabbani to finalize the agreement.
Qabbani is at loggerheads with 21 members of the 32-member council he heads. His call for electing a new council at the end of February was disputed by the 21 members who are close to the Future Movement. The council is the highest Sunni administrative body and organizes the affairs of Dar al-Fatwa.
The 21 members argue that before calling for elections the Mufti should have referred to the council, which in turn would decide whether the situation in the country permits holding polls. The 21 members met under former Minister Omar Miskawi, the deputy head of the council, in December and extended the term of the body for one year, contrary to the mufti’s wish. The council’s term was supposed to expire at the end of last year and Qabbani considers it is to be in a caretaker capacity. Ties between Qabbani and the Future Movement have deteriorated over the past two years.
Earlier Monday, Mikati chaired a meeting with Siniora and former prime ministers Omar Karami and Salim al-Hoss at the Grand Serail.
“I would like to say that no matter how different political stances are between me and the former prime ministers, the meeting was very good and our disputes remained outside the hall,” Mikati told reporters following the meeting. “Because the unity of the [Sunni] sect matters the most and we all agreed on this.”
Mikati telephoned former Prime Minister Rashid al-Solh and informed him about the results of the meeting.
Separately, Qabbani appointed muftis in several districts across Lebanon. Sheikh Mohammad Zayd Bakkar Zakaria was appointed a mufti for the governorate of Akkar, Sheikh Ayman Rifai a mufti for Baalbek-Hermel and Sheikh Midrar Habbal a mufti for Tyre and its environs.
Qabbani appointed Sheikh Khaldoun Oreimet a director general for Dar al-Fatwa’s Public Health Center after he served as the secretary-general of the Higher Islamic Council. Sheikh Youssef Idriss was appointed secretary-general.

Chuck Hagel: Not one shred of evidence that I'm anti-Israeli
By JPOST.COM STAFF 01/07/2013/In first interview since being nominated for top Pentagon post, Chuck Hagel says accurate assessment of his record will demonstrate "unequivocal, total support for Israel," pans critics for "completely distort[ing]" his stance. There is "not one shred of evidence that I'm anti-Israeli," former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel told the Lincoln Journal Star, in an interview published immediately after he was nominated by US President Barack Obama as the next US secretary of defense. In his first statements since Obama's formal announcement, Hagel insisted that an accurate assessment of his record would demonstrate "unequivocal, total support for Israel," and panned critics for "completely distort[ing]" his positions. Hagel has been hammered by fellow Republicans and Jewish groups over the past few weeks due to his previous refusal to sign on to a number of pro-Israel policy pronouncements, especially as regards the Iranian nuclear threat and the Hezbollah and Hamas terror groups. Hagel's commitment to Israel's security has thus been questioned, made worse by the surfacing of disparaging remarks he once made about the "Jewish lobby" in Washington.
Responding to said criticism, Hagel explained to the Lincoln Journal Star that he "didn't sign on to certain resolutions and letters because they were counter-productive and didn't solve a problem."
"What's in Israel's interest," Hagel stressed, "is to help Israel and the Palestinians find some peaceful way to live together.""Israel is in a very, very difficult position," he added, "No border that touches Israel is always secure. We need to work to help protect Israel so it doesn't get isolated." With respect to Iran, Hagel highlighted that "I have said many times that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism," and clarified that he previously did not support unilateral sanctions against Tehran "because when it is us alone they don't work and they just isolate the United States." "United Nations sanctions are working. When we just decree something, that doesn't work."
Regarding widespread speculation that he faces a tough confirmation battle, Hagel conceded that "I fully recognize that confirmation is up to the Senate. All I ask is a fair hearing, and I will get that. I am very much looking forward to having a full, open, transparent hearing about my qualifications and my record." US House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on Monday reiterated opposition to Hagel's nomination, and confirmed the move faces "widespread and bipartisan opposition.""I am profoundly concerned and disappointed by President Obama’s nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense," Cantor said.
"Recent reporting has made clear that Senator Hagel’s views and inflammatory statements about Israel are well outside the mainstream and raise well-founded doubts that he can be trusted to manage the special relationship the United States shares with our greatest Middle East ally."

Chuck Hagel: A Bold Choice for the US in the Middle East
By: JOYCE KARAM /Now Lebanon
The nomination of Chuck Hagel as the next US Secretary of Defense brings a fresh perspective to the Pentagon. The Middle East can benefit from Hagel's ability to challenge the conventional wisdom on Iran, embrace a balanced approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and help restore America's credibility in the region.
Hagel, throughout his political career as a Republican Senator from 1997 to 2009, has been vocal in questioning some of the US' policies in the Middle East. He compared the Iraq War to Vietnam and considered it one of the biggest blunders in American military history. In 2006 he stood alone in the Republican establishment in his criticism of Israel's 34-day war in Lebanon, saying in his book 'America: Our Next Chapter' that while Israel has the 'undeniable right to defend itself against terrorism and aggression... military retaliation—rightful or not—is not a political strategy that can end the threat posed by terrorists groups.' The result 'was a grave wounding of Lebanon's fragile democratic government and deepening hatred of Israel across the Middle East.'
Hagel does not shy away from talking about the grievances of the occupation, and talks in his book about how the Israeli military ripped up acres of olive trees with bulldozers in an old village in the West Bank. He sees it in both Israel and America's interest for the US to be seen as 'trustworthy by all the states in the Middle East,' and 'that can only be effective if we are considered an honest broker of peace.' He laments that 'terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah have appropriated the Palestinian struggle for self-determination as a rationale for violence against Americans and Israelis.'
Hagel's approach might earn him credit on the Arab street but has so far created for him many political adversaries within the Israeli lobby and neoconservative circles in Washington. Groups like AIPAC and the Emergency Committee for Israel have been running ads to dissuade President Obama from nominating Hagel for the position.
The ads have not centered on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but on Israel's bigger challenge today: Iran. Hagel's statement from 2006 contending that 'a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option' if the US is at the same time adopting a policy of engagement toward Tehran, has created an uproar around the Beltway.
The nominee's approach on Tehran, however, is much more nuanced than a few sound bites. He recognizes the magnitude of the Iranian challenge for the US and the region and warns that an 'an Iranian nuclear breakout would have dangerous consequences... and could ignite a Middle East bonfire.' Managing or containing a nuclear Iran is not an option that Hagel embraces, and the 'comparison with North Korea does not really hold.' Instead, he calls for 'urgent and creative diplomacy by the United States, including bilateral talks' with Tehran.
Advocating engagement with Iran is not an exclusive Hagel policy. In fact it has been pursued by many US administrations, including those of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Reagan sent the leaders of Iran a cake and a Bible in 1986, while the second Bush administration included Iran in the talks leading up to the Afghanistan war, and later in the P5+1 negotiations to solve the nuclear stalemate.
The notion of engaging adversaries is at the core of US diplomacy and has transformed American power in the last few decades. It was Reagan's quiet diplomacy with the Soviets that helped end the Cold War, and it was Henry Kissinger's secret talks with China that took Richard Nixon to Beijing in 1972 and normalized relations with America's current second-largest trade partner.
Hagel has no illusions about engaging Iran. He makes it clear that only if Tehran abandons nuclear weaponization, ends support for terrorist groups, recognizes Israel and engages in more constructive policies in Iraq, then lifting sanctions and gaining diplomatic recognition would be on the table. He calls for including US regional allies in such talks.
The decorated war veteran agrees with Obama on ending a 'decade of war' in the region, and sees completing the transition out of Afghanistan and implementing defense cuts as key priorities in the next four years. Americans overwhelmingly support the Afghanistan withdrawal and don't want to get entangled in another war in the Middle East.
The US public holds the Secretary of Defense to a high standard. TIME magazine put former Secretaries of Defense Robert McNamara (1961-1968) and Donald Rumsfeld (2001-2006) on its Top 10 Worst Cabinet Members in US History list for their blunders in Vietnam and Iraq, respectively. Hagel appreciates multilateralism, and understands the limits of US power and the costs of any military intervention in the 21st century. His pragmatism and ability to question conventional policies promise an opportunity for problem-solving and peacemaking in the Middle East. Hussain Abdul-Hussain is the Washington Bureau Chief of Alrai newspaper. He tweets at @hahussain Joyce Karam is the Washington Correspondent for Al-Hayat Newspaper, an International Arabic Daily based in London. Twitter: @Joyce_Karam

The Case against Chuck Hagel
Hussain Abdul -Hussain/Now Lebanon
The cases made for and against Chuck Hagel's appointment as Secretary of Defense have so far focused on his record toward Israel or his past slur against homosexuals. But from an Arab perspective, Hagel is a bad choice too, not because he advocates engaging Iran—which is in and of itself a good policy—but because such talks would probably give Tehran a free hand in Arab affairs, which Hagel seems to approve of.
Hagel is a Vietnam War hero with two Purple Hearts. During his tenure as a Republican senator, he was known for his bipartisanship. But nothing on his resume shows that he would necessarily make a good Secretary of Defense, a position that requires an understanding of world affairs that seems to elude him.
As senator, Hagel visited many world capitals and met with leaders including Syria's Hafez al-Assad. But despite how many senators, including Hagel, perceive themselves, their trips don't make them foreign policy experts. What seems to have shaped Hagel's views of the world, however, is his overseas business. The former senator was among the first generation of American businessmen who tapped into China's market to amass a fortune.
The China experience left its mark on Hagel. If capitalist America, under Republicans Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, could put aside its differences with Communist China during the heyday of the Cold War and talk business, then why can't Washington do the same with the Islamist, oil-rich and business-promising Iran?
In his book, 'America: Our Next Chapter,' Hagel called for initiating talks with Iran. Before his retirement, Hagel also advocated 'engaging Syria' and 'changing the behavior of its regime.' In an op-ed that he co-wrote with Senator John Kerry in the Wall Street Journal, the two senators argued for enlisting Syria's help in Iraq, Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries.
While appealing, Hagel's ideas are dangerously naive. Just as changing the behavior of the Assad regime proved impossible—at least judging by the 60,000 Syrians the conflict has killed so far—'changing the behavior' of Iran's regime might prove an even more daunting task. Hagel also seems to be a novice when it comes to the history of talks between America and Iran. His idea of diplomatic overtures is as old as the Iranian Revolution itself.
In an interview with academics from five American universities in November 1982, former President Jimmy Carter said, 'You have to remember, from March until through October of '79, we had increasingly good relations with Iran, even including [Ruhollah] Khomeini, who was sending emissaries over to talk directly to [former Secretary of State Cy] Vance and say, 'You support the revolution, don't try to overthrow our government,' and we want to increase trade.' Carter added: '[Iranians] were quite friendly; in fact they made some beautiful speeches about the importance of repairing relations with the United States.'
American-Iranian talks have been on and off for a while. Whenever Iran is cornered, such as during the 2003 Iraq war or today, as it feels the heat of UN sanctions, Tehran reaches out to Washington and suggests turning a new page. Overtures are often coupled with Track B negotiations, talks between friends of officials—usually academics—from both sides.
But flirtations between Washington and Tehran often come to an end when the regime feels a domestic pinch, like during the Green Revolution of 2009. To contain domestic anger, Tehran revives its anti-American rhetoric in a bid to deflect attention from local issues and consolidate the regime's radical and conservative core.
Meanwhile, Washington has been divided over the true intentions of Iran. President Barack Obama has endorsed the 'cup half-full' approach. His administration has pointed to the steady stock of 20-percent-enriched uranium to show that Tehran is not willing to make nuclear weapons. But Iran's stock of the substance has increased from 91 to 130 kg between August and November (200 kg is needed to produce weapons-grade uranium).
The administration reasoned that the increase was for 'negotiation' purposes and prepared a package that included easing some restrictions on Tehran as part of 'trust-building' measures in return for Iran sticking to three-percent enrichment. Later, for its cooperation with the IAEA and its ratification of the additional protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Tehran would be further rewarded by being put on the way to reestablishing full ties with the West. But Iran had a different favor in mind.
'What about Syria?' Iranian officials reportedly asked at a Baghdad session in June of Security Council countries, only to hear that the diplomats were not authorized to discuss issues outside of Iran's nuclear program.
US-Iran talks, from Tehran's perspective, should include recognizing Iranian interests in Arab countries to the detriment of the Arabs.
As Hagel perceived it was possible to enlist Assad's help in Arab affairs, he might—as Secretary of Defense—think the same about the Iranian regime, thus throwing America's Arab friends under the bus. For this reason, the Arabs should say no to Hagel's appointment. Chuck Hagel: A Bold Choice for the US in the Middle East JOYCE KARAM The nomination of Chuck Hagel as the next US Secretary of Defense brings a fresh perspective to the Pentagon. The Middle East can benefit from Hagel's ability to challenge the conventional wisdom on Iran, embrace a balanced approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and help restore America's credibility in the region.
Hagel, throughout his political career as a Republican Senator from 1997 to 2009, has been vocal in questioning some of the US' policies in the Middle East. He compared the Iraq War to Vietnam and considered it one of the biggest blunders in American military history. In 2006 he stood alone in the Republican establishment in his criticism of Israel's 34-day war in Lebanon, saying in his book 'America: Our Next Chapter' that while Israel has the 'undeniable right to defend itself against terrorism and aggression... military retaliation—rightful or not—is not a political strategy that can end the threat posed by terrorists groups.' The result 'was a grave wounding of Lebanon's fragile democratic government and deepening hatred of Israel across the Middle East.'
Hagel does not shy away from talking about the grievances of the occupation, and talks in his book about how the Israeli military ripped up acres of olive trees with bulldozers in an old village in the West Bank. He sees it in both Israel and America's interest for the US to be seen as 'trustworthy by all the states in the Middle East,' and 'that can only be effective if we are considered an honest broker of peace.' He laments that 'terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah have appropriated the Palestinian struggle for self-determination as a rationale for violence against Americans and Israelis.'
Hagel's approach might earn him credit on the Arab street but has so far created for him many political adversaries within the Israeli lobby and neoconservative circles in Washington. Groups like AIPAC and the Emergency Committee for Israel have been running ads to dissuade President Obama from nominating Hagel for the position.
The ads have not centered on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but on Israel's bigger challenge today: Iran. Hagel's statement from 2006 contending that 'a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option' if the US is at the same time adopting a policy of engagement toward Tehran, has created an uproar around the Beltway.
The nominee's approach on Tehran, however, is much more nuanced than a few sound bites. He recognizes the magnitude of the Iranian challenge for the US and the region and warns that an 'an Iranian nuclear breakout would have dangerous consequences... and could ignite a Middle East bonfire.' Managing or containing a nuclear Iran is not an option that Hagel embraces, and the 'comparison with North Korea does not really hold.' Instead, he calls for 'urgent and creative diplomacy by the United States, including bilateral talks' with Tehran.
Advocating engagement with Iran is not an exclusive Hagel policy. In fact it has been pursued by many US administrations, including those of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Reagan sent the leaders of Iran a cake and a Bible in 1986, while the second Bush administration included Iran in the talks leading up to the Afghanistan war, and later in the P5+1 negotiations to solve the nuclear stalemate.
The notion of engaging adversaries is at the core of US diplomacy and has transformed American power in the last few decades. It was Reagan's quiet diplomacy with the Soviets that helped end the Cold War, and it was Henry Kissinger's secret talks with China that took Richard Nixon to Beijing in 1972 and normalized relations with America's current second-largest trade partner.
Hagel has no illusions about engaging Iran. He makes it clear that only if Tehran abandons nuclear weaponization, ends support for terrorist groups, recognizes Israel and engages in more constructive policies in Iraq, then lifting sanctions and gaining diplomatic recognition would be on the table. He calls for including US regional allies in such talks.
The decorated war veteran agrees with Obama on ending a 'decade of war' in the region, and sees completing the transition out of Afghanistan and implementing defense cuts as key priorities in the next four years. Americans overwhelmingly support the Afghanistan withdrawal and don't want to get entangled in another war in the Middle East.
The US public holds the Secretary of Defense to a high standard. TIME magazine put former Secretaries of Defense Robert McNamara (1961-1968) and Donald Rumsfeld (2001-2006) on its Top 10 Worst Cabinet Members in US History list for their blunders in Vietnam and Iraq, respectively.
Hagel appreciates multilateralism, and understands the limits of US power and the costs of any military intervention in the 21st century. His pragmatism and ability to question conventional policies promise an opportunity for problem-solving and peacemaking in the Middle East. Hussain Abdul-Hussain is the Washington Bureau Chief of Alrai newspaper. He tweets at @hahussain
Obama's Big Egypt Test: Sinai
Eric Trager/The Atlantic/Washington Institute/January 7, 2013
The lawless desert on Israel's border presents immediate risks -- and possible opportunities -- for American interests in the region.
This piece is part of "Obama and the Middle East: Act Two," a series of policy proposals for the president's second term by Washington Institute fellows. Further installments will be released in the coming days.
Egypt's mounting political and economic woes will cause many policy headaches for the Obama administration during the next four years. But in the short run, the Obama administration will have to confront a more immediate risk: that a major terrorist attack in the Sinai will catalyze a security crisis between Israel and Egypt, which the ruling Muslim Brotherhood may use as a pretext for downgrading Egyptian-Israeli relations and perhaps canceling the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement altogether. To prevent this outcome, Washington should immediately press Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi to establish direct communication channels with the Israeli government to ensure that this kind of crisis will be managed responsibly.
A terrorist attack emanating from the Sinai that would endanger Egyptian-Israeli relations isn't a theoretical proposition, but an inevitability given Sinai's severe instability. The breakdown of Egypt police forces since the January 2011 anti-Mubarak uprising has rendered the 23,000-square-mile desert territory a security vacuum, which jihadi terrorist organizations -- including possibly al-Qaeda -- have rapidly filled. Some of these organizations have cells within both Sinai and Gaza, and northern Sinai has become a safe haven from which they have launched 15 attacks on the gas pipeline to Israel and Jordan in the two years since Mubarak's ouster. Meanwhile, jihadis have repeatedly attempted to use Sinai as a base for launching attacks on Israel, with the dual aim of killing Israelis and catalyzing a diplomatic confrontation between Israel and Egypt.
On August 18, 2011, terrorists nearly achieved both goals. Twelve militants dressed as Egyptian soldiers launched a cross-border attack on a bus near the Israeli city of Eilat that killed eight Israelis and wounded 30 more and, during a counterattack, Israeli forces accidentally killed five Egyptian soldiers. Apparently indifferent to the fact that terrorists operating within its own country had sparked the incident, the proverbial "Egyptian street" responded with demonstrations that demanded closing the Israeli embassy in Cairo and ending the Camp David Accords. The furor culminated with a September 9 attack on the Israeli embassy that brought Egyptian assailants within one locked door of a potentially deadly confrontation with Israeli diplomats. Egypt's then-ruling military junta responded immediately thereafter by dialing down the tensions and signaling their commitment to maintaining relations with Israel.
The threat of this type of terrorist attack repeating itself remains quite high, as demonstrated by the August 5, 2012 attack in which terrorists killed sixteen Egyptian soldiers along the Sinai-Israeli border. But the Muslim Brotherhood's emergence as Egypt's new ruling party will make managing this kind of crisis even more challenging; unlike the former military junta, the Brotherhood refuses to maintain political relations with Israel and has repeatedly signaled its intention to unilaterally amend, if not end, the 1979 peace treaty.
More to the point, the Muslim Brotherhood has twice used Sinai attacks as pretexts for demanding an end to Egyptian-Israeli relations. It participated in the demonstrations against Israel's diplomatic presence within Egypt following the August 2011 incident, and blamed the August 2012 attacks on the Mossad, which the Brotherhood claimed was part of a plot intended to undermine Morsi's government. Add to this the Brotherhood's hostile recent statements, including Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie's calls for "jihad" to "recover Jerusalem" and Brotherhood official Essam El-Erian's declaration that Israel will be destroyed within ten years, and it becomes hard to imagine the Brotherhood working to contain the furor following another Sinai terrorist incident in which Israel becomes directly engaged.
Reducing the likelihood of such an incident requires a new security strategy for confronting Sinai's terrorist groups, as well as an economic strategy for developing the Sinai and providing its inhabitants with legitimate opportunities. But given Egypt's mounting political and financial woes, this strategy may take years to formulate, and the imperative is thus establishing channels through which the next Egyptian-Israel crisis -- which might happen at any moment -- can be managed.
Specifically, the Obama administration should focus on ensuring that President Morsi opens direct communications with the Israeli government. It should tell Morsi that the absence of these channels will complicate efforts to contain future Egyptian-Israeli crises emanating from the Sinai, which will threaten regional stability and further damage his government's ability to attract much-needed foreign investment. The administration should also tell Morsi bluntly that American economic and military aid is an investment in an Egypt that maintains peaceful relations with its neighbors, and that the status quo -- in which any spark in Sinai risks a rupture in Egyptian-Israeli diplomatic relations -- is untenable. Finally, the administration should propose that Israeli-Egyptian cooperation in stopping the flow of weapons between Sinai and Gaza could represent a starting point for direct contact between Morsi and Israel, and Washington should tell Morsi that his participation in this effort will be an important test of whether he puts national interests or ideological pursuits first.
To be sure, insisting that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president maintain open channels with the Israeli government isn't likely to moderate his anti-Israel ideology, much as U.S. "engagement" with the Muslim Brotherhood hasn't altered its fundamentally anti-Western outlook. But by emphasizing the risks associated with its current policy and applying the right carrots and sticks, the administration might be able to alter the Brotherhood's behavior. In fact, doing so is a necessity if the administration hopes to protect regional peace in the post-Mubarak era.
**Eric Trager is a Next Generation fellow at The Washington Institute.

Israeli PM, Netanyahu: Iran is greatest world danger, not settlements
By JPOST.COM STAFF 01/08/2013/Speaking at a Birthright event, Netanyahu says world must "wake up" to real challenges of Iran, Syria, not focus on building in J'lem. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday evening said Israel is "prepared to make compromises for peace," but the rest of the world must "wake up" to the great challenges from Iran and Syria.Addressing the Taglit-Birthright Israel "Mega Event" crowd, where Birthright was celebrating its 13th year, Netanyahu said: "I believe that it’s time for the rest of the world to In an apparent dig at the US and European condemnation of recent plans to build in the E1 corridor, the prime minister said the greatest danger to the world is "not from Jews building in our ancestral capital in Jerusalem." Continuing, he said: "It’s from nuclear weapons in Iran, those weapons that are built in Iran. It’s chemical weapons in Syria falling into the wrong hands. That’s the danger we have to focus on," the prime minister said. Netanyahu stated that Israel understands and deals with the dangers, but called on "responsible leaders" of the international community to address the "real challenges to all of mankind. The prime minister reiterated Israel's desire for peace, saying the country is "prepared to make compromises for peace."He also addressed the issue of gender equality, saying that "men, women and minorities are free to pursue any dream they have." In an exclamatory tone, the prime minister said: "We have new pilots in the Israeli Air Force. Five women pilots! That’s the real Israel."

Who rules Egypt?
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat
Neither imams nor members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist movements will be able to protect the Egyptian presidency from the anger of the people when the banks decrease Egypt’s currency exchange rate compared to the dollar. Every single citizen will pay a dear price for this, not just the protesters in Tahrir Square, the Nasserites or the Copts. At this point, neither the International Monetary Fund [IMF] loan nor aid from Saudi Arabia and Qatar would be of any use. The only solution is for the regime to restore relations with its opposition and try to reach a broad-ranging reconciliation that includes all factions. Following this, they will be able to confront future crises together. However before this can be achieved we must recognize that the Egyptian political scene has become extremely puzzling. President Mursi slams the opposition in every possible manner then appears on CNN to say that he believes in democracy. Following this, Egyptian Defense Minister, General Abdul Fatah Khalil Al-Sisi, headed to Sinai to meet with the Bedouins there wearing a traditional cloak over his khaki uniform.
Prime Minister Hisham Qandil received an IMF official, attempting to talk him into approving a five-billion-dollar loan to Egypt after imposing a set of socialist laws that ban Egyptians from travelling abroad with more than $10,000 and tourists from entering the country with the same amount.
The Egyptian intelligence chief visited the UAE in an attempt to resolve the problems that have arisen following the arrest of an “Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood cell”, with fears growing that the Brotherhood want to export its movement into the Gulf region in precisely the same manner that Iran sought to export its Islamic revolution.
As for Essam el-Erian, the Muslim Brotherhood’s most famous media figure, he dropped a bomb that distracted the people from both the constitution and the referendum, calling for the return of Egypt’s Jewish community “who were unjustly expelled by late President Gamal Abdel Nasser.” Whilst at the same time that he is calling for the return of 250,000 Jews to Egypt, the Egyptian armed forces arrested a single Israeli who had sneaked across the border!Who is ruling Egypt? In the past, they said that Mubarak’s wife and son were interfering in the presidency’s decisions. Now, they are saying that the Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide and his deputy decide what happens and even have the power to cancel the president’s decrees. This was reportedly demonstrated when Mursi’s statement greeting Egypt’s Coptic community was withdrawn from the official news agency just one hour following its publication. Rumours claim that Egypt is ruled by a triumvirate, namely the President, the Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide and “the investor”. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Mohamed Badie, is similar to his Iranian counterpart in the sense that he has the final say and issues weekly statements that are no different than those issued in Tehran, namely putting forward his view and attacking those who oppose the government. As for the second member of this partnership, it is claimed that this is none other than well-known Egyptian businessman and deputy Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Khairat el-Shater. Many people believe that el-Shater is the real ruler, and that he was responsible for selecting both Egypt’s cabinets. Whilst we all know that he was the Muslim Brotherhood’s original presidential candidate but the courts banned him from taking part in the elections due to his criminal record. Some have even accused him of running the Brotherhood’s cells abroad including those in the Gulf. Since the Brotherhood, the ruling party and indeed the presidency are working in secret it is difficult to tell truth from fiction. The long silence of the Egyptian Armed Forces have given the impression that they have either been hibernating or been hampered by the Muslim Brotherhood. However, the recent public dispute that took place between the military and the Supreme Guide a few weeks ago, not to mention the Defense Minister’s visit to the Sinai Peninsula, have given the impression that the army is like a tiger that sleeps with one eye open.
It is clear that Egypt is now witnessing a fierce battle between different powers, both within and outside of government. This is what happened after the 1952 revolution in addition to when Sadat came to power following Nasser’s death. However the situation is very different now because this power struggle is no longer confined to the presidential palace. Some argue that diversity in the country's centers of power represents one of the key features of democracy. This is true, however the problem is that many of these struggles are now taking place outside a democratic framework, whether we are talking about the presidency, the legislature, the judiciary or even the media. Members of the elite are not the only ones who are worried, and this anxiety has extended to average Egyptians who can see the impact of a weakening currency and a crippled economy on their daily lives. The average citizen is an influential power in Egypt, whilst money sent back to the country by Egyptians abroad constitutes one third of the country’s revenue, exceeding the revenues generated by industry, agriculture, and the Suez Canal. When these Egyptians who left their families to work day and night in foreign countries see their earnings losing value, they will either stop transferring money back to Egypt or stop dealing in the Egyptian pound. At this point, attempts by the Muslim Brotherhood to reassure the people would be completely futile, as would their attempts at following the Iranian example and excluding their opponents. There may come a difficult time when the Brotherhood find themselves being pursued by the Egyptian general public.

Al-Assad at the opera!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat. Mr
For nearly an hour Bashar al-Assad spoke at the Syrian Opera House in Damascus, presenting his discordant speech full of pride and arrogance. He showed that he is a man out of touch with reality, with whom one cannot expect to reach any sort of agreement or settlement, even if al-Assad himself has become convinced that matters in Syria are not going in his favor.Al-Assad’s speech was an arrogant one and it came in direct response to the Russians and others, telling them that he refuses to settle, or if there is to be a settlement al-Assad would be laying down the terms and conditions. It was as if al-Assad was saying to the Russians “go to hell”, but al-Assad is aware, as he said in his speech, that the situation in Syria is no longer going in his favor. This was especially apparent when he said: “We meet today and suffering is overwhelming Syrian land. There is no place for joy while security and stability are absent on the streets of our country”. These were the only true words in the whole speech, but it does not mean that al-Assad will learn from the experiences of others, rather it means that he will commit more crimes. What al-Assad proposed in his initiative was nothing but a clear game, which the foreign ministers of both Britain and Turkey were quick to pick up on, as was the EU, when they called for al-Assad to step down and described his speech as hypocrisy. Al-Assad was trying to convince what remains of his supporters that what is happening in Syria is the work of terrorists, and Islamists seeking to return Syria to the middle ages, but the truth is that anyone who has visited Syria in recent years is aware that the country, under the shadow of the father al-Assad and the son, has lived through centuries of underdevelopment, and far from being a civil state it is a backwards police state used to ensure the rule of al-Assad and nothing more. Therefore, everything proposed by al-Assad is nothing but the age-old game that has already been used in Lebanon and Iraq, and Syria throughout his reign, and throughout the Syrian revolution.
What al-Assad said shows there is no hope of reaching a peaceful agreement; for he is fundamentally incapable of absorbing the gravity of what is going on around him. In his latest speech he was like Gaddafi, without the comedic element but with the clear arrogance and the desperate attempt to outsmart everyone, including those who support him such as the Russians, whom it is clear al-Assad embarrassed in his latest speech.
Today, after al-Assad’s speech, it is inevitable that we must return to advocating the need for foreign intervention, in a variety of forms, the simplest of which being to act now to support the rebels with quality weaponry, specifically weapons capable of disabling the tyrant of Damascus’ aircraft. This would accelerate the fall of al-Assad, especially as the revolutionaries are now surrounding him from everywhere, yet the aircraft remain the decisive factor. Supporting the rebels with quality weaponry would enable them to impose their control over military airports and clear the Syrian skies from the tyrant’s aircraft.
Al-Assad’s speech at the opera was discordant, but it was a message to the international community that now is the time to intervene in Syria, for there is no hope of reaching a peaceful solution with this tyrant in any way.