Bible Quotation for today/False Teachers
02 Peter 02/21-22: "It would have been much better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than to know it and then turn away from the sacred command that was given them. What happened to them shows that the proverbs are true: “A dog goes back to what it has vomited” and “A pig that has been washed".

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources For November 29/13

Is Iran borrowing North Korea's nuclear playbook/By Giles Hewitt/AFP/November 29/13
Lebanon: Muzzled media/The Daily Star/November 29/13

We Are Not at the Table, but on It: Arabs React to the Iran Deal/By: David Pollock /Washington Institute/November 29/13

Why Some U.S. Allies Disapprove of the Iran Agreement/By: James F. Jeffrey/Washington Institute/November 29/13  

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources For November 29/13
Lebanese Related News
Europe using Iran deal to repair Hezbollah ties
Fresh tension prompts closure of USJ campus
Hezbollah deploys in Lebanon's Hermel over fears of car bombs
Hezbollah minister’s nephew killed in Syria: sources
Iranian MP: Nasrallah believed Assad would fall
Lebanon debriefs diplomats about Israeli 'cyber war'
Three Alawites shot, wounded in north Lebanon
Fire doused at Beirut exhibition hall
Miscellaneous Reports And News

Israel minister meets British official on Iran deal
Iran hard-liners criticize Geneva deal

Syrian opposition to attend Geneva peace conference
 Report: Obama asks Netanyahu to 'take a breather' from vocal criticism of Geneva deal
Herzog criticizes Netanyahu for sparring with the White House on Iran
Democratic senator says Obama administration 'fear-mongering' on Iran
The 'eye sniper' and the girl protesters: Egypt's tale of two trials
Syria's Assad hails Iran 'resilience' on nuclear deal
Syrian army takes town, and upper hand
One killed in shelling of Russian Embassy in Damascus
AP sources: Plan calls for ship to destroy weapons
Church of England proposes 'blessings' for gay marriage
Student killed in Islamist demo at Cairo University: officials
First Sinai-based Al Qaeda cell to infiltrate the West Bank eliminated in Hebron hills
Egypt: Heavy prison sentence for Islamist women
Vatican advance team to arrive to plan Pope's visit to Israel
Pope finds a new enemy-capitalism

Iranian MP: Nasrallah believed Assad would fall

November 28, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah told Iran’s supreme leader in 2011 that he believed Bashar Assad’s government would fall, a former Revolutionary Guard general and MP has said.Recounting his meeting with Nasrallah in Beirut six months ago, MP Mohammad Esmail Kowsari, a member of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission and retired Revolutionary Guard general, told a gathering of Basij members that the Hezbollah leader visited Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei eight months after the outbreak of the Syrian crisis in 2011. The Basij is a paramilitary force made up of civilian volunteers that operates under the command of the Revolutionary Guard. “Nasrallah told me, ‘We went to the sayyed [Khamenei] and we reported to him that it seems that Bashar Assad and his government in Syria is finished. But the sayyed said, ‘No it’s not true. We must just do our duties. If we do our duties, Assad and Syria will be stable,’” Kowsari told the Basij gathering, according to his personal website. “After more than two years, we see that the Syrian government and Bashar Assad remain and are stable.” Kowsari also defended the Revolutionary Guard against accusations that its forces were playing a major role in combat operations in the war-torn country and referred to videos of Iranian soldiers in Syria that had been posted on Syrian opposition websites. The rebel Dawud Brigade obtained the videos, which were recorded by Iranian national Hadi Baghbani, after an Aug. 19 ambush in Aleppo that killed the filmmaker as well as Revolutionary Guard commander Esmail Heydari. The brigade has since then been releasing the footage to opposition websites and news outlets.  “It’s natural that a few men be there [in Syria] to understand what’s going on and transfer technology,” Kowsari said. “But why doesn’t anyone ask why the British or Americans are in Middle Eastern countries?  “If really we want to do a military operation, it needs just two days to get these terrorists [opposition forces] out. But as our strategy, each nation has to rely on itself.”

Lebanon: Muzzled media

The Daily Star In the process of attempting to uncover corruption within the Customs authorities, four journalists with Al-Jadeed were detained and beaten Tuesday in a case which the judiciary says it is now investigating. By its nature, investigative journalism is never easy, but in Lebanon, extrajudicial responses from the authorities, as witnessed in this instance, make it even harder. But in dealing with journalists in such a way, authorities will eventually do themselves more harm than good, and make it visible to all citizens that corruption is the name of the game.

Corruption has been endemic as long as the modern state of Lebanon has existed, and can be found in virtually all sectors and institutions. In the latest Transparency International global corruption index, Lebanon ranked 128th out of 176 countries. As this paper has done in the past, most media outlets in the country often attempt to uncover such corruption, and all such attempts must be commended. But as evidenced by Tuesday’s events, the issue of corruption can often be a Catch 22. In an effort to investigate and expose corruption in certain sectors – in this case it was related to corruption at the port and airport – journalists are often met with a different variety of corruption. Having been granted access by the minister involved, the director of Customs then declined an interview. Protesting outside his office, the journalists were then attacked by security officials from the Customs directorate, actions far outside their official line of duty. Customs officials claim the journalists acted untowardly, using foul language, and have lodged their own complaint with the judiciary. But even if this was true, as video evidence filmed at the time has shown, the journalists were met with a violent response. None of this should come as a surprise. Journalists in Lebanon are routinely interrogated, detained and beaten, sometimes even assassinated. Some of the investigative reporting techniques adopted by journalists in the West are a luxury they can’t afford, especially given the political divides. But what should come as a surprise is the laissez-faire response the incident prompted from some senior politicians. While several, including former Interior Minister Ziyad Baroud, condemned the attack on the journalists, others have been nonchalant, with senior politicians seemingly offering cover to the Customs officials, with whom they share political ties.

Aware the journalists were unlikely to be provided fair access to justice, some 100 other media types and activists gathered Tuesday evening outside where the four were being questioned, demanding their release. The right to transparency doesn’t come cheap. In trying to uncover one form of corruption, these journalists exposed by accident another, equally endemic, form. Lebanese have been shown, once again, that without sufficient political cover, or the right wasta, their rights are not equal to those of others. In today’s political vacuum, a free press is yet another mirage of this mythical democracy the country calls itself.

Hezbollah deploys in Lebanon's Hermel over fears of car bombs

November 28, 2013ظBy Rakan al-Fakih The Daily Star /HERMEL, Lebanon: Hezbollah along with the security forces heavily deployed members in Hermel, east Lebanon, and erected checkpoints Thursday after explosives-rigged vehicles reportedly entered the Bekaa Valley region from Syria. A security source told The Daily Star that three explosives-laden vehicles entered Lebanon near the border town of Arsal and made their way into Bekaa Valley. Hermel, a stronghold of Hezbollah, is suspected to be the target, the source added. Hezbollah members set up checkpoints at the entrances of Hermel and several neighborhoods while the Lebanese Army personnel and members of the Internal Security Forces were seen stationed in the town. Hermel is home of a number of Hezbollah's social and military centers. The source also said that fears of rigged vehicles entering Hermel and its surrounding areas have risen as a result of the ongoing battles in Syria's Qalamoun between Hezbollah-backed regime forces and rebel groups. The fighting is forcing many rebels to flee into neighboring Lebanon. Meanwhile, a high-ranking security source denied Thursday media reports that members of the Internal Security Forces handed over their checkpoints to Hezbollah in the southern town of Nabatieh following false reports of a car bomb. The ISF also denied the reports, saying security forces were carrying out their duties in a normal fashion in the southern town.

Iranian MP: Nasrallah believed Assad would fall

November 28, 2013 /The Daily Star /The Daily Star/Hasan Shaaban) BEIRUT: Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah told Iran’s supreme leader in 2011 that he believed Bashar Assad’s government would fall, a former Revolutionary Guard general and MP has said. Recounting his meeting with Nasrallah in Beirut six months ago, MP Mohammad Esmail Kowsari, a member of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission and retired Revolutionary Guard general, told a gathering of Basij members that the Hezbollah leader visited Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei eight months after the outbreak of the Syrian crisis in 2011. The Basij is a paramilitary force made up of civilian volunteers that operates under the command of the Revolutionary Guard. “Nasrallah told me, ‘We went to the sayyed [Khamenei] and we reported to him that it seems that Bashar Assad and his government in Syria is finished. But the sayyed said, ‘No it’s not true. We must just do our duties. If we do our duties, Assad and Syria will be stable,’” Kowsari told the Basij gathering, according to his personal website.

“After more than two years, we see that the Syrian government and Bashar Assad remain and are stable.” Kowsari also defended the Revolutionary Guard against accusations that its forces were playing a major role in combat operations in the war-torn country and referred to videos of Iranian soldiers in Syria that had been posted on Syrian opposition websites. The rebel Dawud Brigade obtained the videos, which were recorded by Iranian national Hadi Baghbani, after an Aug. 19 ambush in Aleppo that killed the filmmaker as well as Revolutionary Guard commander Esmail Heydari. The brigade has since then been releasing the footage to opposition websites and news outlets. “It’s natural that a few men be there [in Syria] to understand what’s going on and transfer technology,” Kowsari said. “But why doesn’t anyone ask why the British or Americans are in Middle Eastern countries? “If really we want to do a military operation, it needs just two days to get these terrorists [opposition forces] out. But as our strategy, each nation has to rely on itself.”

Quebec court orders extremist haredi sect to place 14 children in foster care

By JTA 11/28/2013/J.Post/200 members of Lev Tahor left Quebec for fear Canadian welfare authorities would take their children. A court in Quebec has ordered 14 children from an extremist haredi Orthodox sect to be placed in foster care and receive psychological support. The children’s parents also were ordered to turn over their passports, the Canadian Broadcast Corporation reported. Related: Ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionist community flees Quebec for IranIran-bound extremist haredi cult settles in Ontario instead The parents, members of the Lev Tahor, or Pure Heart, were not present in the courtroom in St. Jerome during Wednesday’s hearing. Instead, an attorney was sent by the parents, according to the CBC.  The judge had ruled on a request by Quebec’s youth protection services to remove the 14 children from two families from their homes and place them in foster care. The members of Lev Tahor left their homes in Quebec early last week out of fear that Canadian welfare authorities would take their children. The group of 200, including more than 130 children, has settled in Chatham-Kent, a southwestern Ontario town of 108,000 several hundred miles from Quebec. Some in the group already have purchased homes in the new location, and the rest are living in a local motel.

Ontario reportedly has liberal requirements for faith-based home schooling. The sect, led by Israeli Rabbi Shlomo Helbrans, reportedly uses extreme violence and mind control. Most of its members are Israeli-born with Canadian-born children. Quebec youth protection services told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. earlier this week that there are concerns that the children were neglected. The children reportedly were forced to live in the homes of families other than their own for punishments.

First Sinai-based Al Qaeda cell to infiltrate the West Bank eliminated in Hebron hills

DEBKAfile Special Report November 28, 2013/The three terrorists killed by Israeli forces in the southern Hebron village of Yata Tuesday, Nov. 26, were depicted officially as a band of “Salafi jihadists,” a vague term meant to cloak their real identity. debkafile’s counterterrorism sources disclose that the trio represented the first al Qaeda cell to infiltrate the West Bank from Sinai, either through Jordan to the east or the Gaza Strip to the south. Hence the combined army, Shin Bet and special anti-terror forces deployed to expeditiously deal with the menace.

The Sinai-based cell is believed to have landed in the Hebron area of Judea and Samaria in the past month as the precursors of a major network. Their job was to build infrastructure to accommodate an al Qaeda offshoot of the Sinai organization fighting the Egyptian army. The trio’s first step was to recruit operatives for the launch of a big terrorist campaign against Israel as well as the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. Those plans included a coordinated attack launched synchronously by the new cell on central Israel and non-al Qaeda allies from the Gaza Strip and Sinai. In Ramallah, they planned to blow up PA offices and attack Palestinian security officers. Israelis and Palestinians were to be snatched as hostages.

The three terrorists, whose identities have not been released by Israeli authorities - unlike their usual practice - brought with them bags of money for the purchase of weapons, explosives, vehicles and radio equipment. They rented buildings in Palestinian villages in the Hebron area for use as command centers and safe houses. Before they were killed, Israeli forces rounded up a number of local Palestinian collaborators. The discovery of the first Sinai-based Al Qaeda network on the West Bank for operations against Israel, has spurred an urgent Israeli investigation to find out how its vanguard reached Judea and Samaria, whether though the Gaza Strip or by means of a new route out of Sinai via Jordan. Since Israel completed its security fence along its border with Egyptian Sinai, smugglers and other infiltrators have been using an alternative gateway into Israel. Using Bedouin smuggling boats to cross the Gulf of Aqaba by night, they steal into southern Jordan, lay up there for a day or two and then cross into Israeli at some point in the desert Arava region between Eilat and Yotvata. From there, the terrorists cross from Israel into the Hebron hills at the southern end of the West Bank, where sympathizers are waiting with cars to pick them up. Prime Minister Binyain Netanyahu has given orders for another security fence to be set up along the 168 kilometers of the southern section of the Israeli-Jordanian border between Eilat and the Dead Sea. Meanwhile, the IDF is on the lookout to block the wide-open infiltration route used by the three jihadists. The Israeli security authorities now suspect that Al Qaeda elements in Sinai, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are working hand in glove to plant more cells in the West Bank for attacking Israel. In consequence of Middle East unrest and the Syrian war, Al Qaeda forces are currently embedded around Israel’s borders at jumping-off points in Sinai, the Gaza Strip, Syria  Lebanon.

'We Are Not at the Table, but on It': Arabs React to the Iran Deal

David Pollock /Washington Institute

Arab responses to the nuclear agreement with Iran suggest that the United States must work harder to allay the fears of allies and friends -- and be especially mindful of the deal's nonnuclear implications.

Official Arab reactions to the Iran nuclear deal have so far been relatively cautious and low-key, in a generally positive yet in some cases explicitly tentative vein. Of particular interest, right across the Gulf, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) monarchies issued brief, vague, and qualified statements welcoming the accord, labeling it a "step" toward or a "hope" for further denuclearization and regional stability. The Saudi statement added the pointed proviso "as long as there are good intentions." These reactions signal a skeptical, wait-and-see attitude, reserving judgment both about implementation of the deal and about its wider policy implications -- with Saudi Arabia standing out as having the most reserved official position.

Other Arab governments more friendly to or dependent upon Tehran were noticeably more effusive. Syria's Foreign Ministry called the Iran deal "an historic accord which guarantees the interests of the brotherly Iranian people and acknowledges their right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy." Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki termed the agreement "a major step in the security and stability of the region."

POLARIZED MEDIA AND EXPERT VIEWS: PRO- AND ANTI-IRAN

More diverse and more revealing than the terse official statements, however, are the initial media comments across the Arab region. The day after the Iran nuclear deal went public, Arab TV talk shows and websites were awash with news, speculation, and commentary about the agreement. Reactions varied with political orientation. On Hezbollah's al-Manar or Hamas's al-Aqsa channel, for example, the predictable emphasis was on gloating over Israel's "defeat" or "isolation" as a result of Iran's new international accord.

In the Gulf, however, a typical view was that of a leading Kuwaiti analyst, Sami al-Faraj, on Sky News Arabia: "When it comes to negotiations with Iran," he said sardonically, "we are not at the table, but on it." Kuwait and its GCC neighbors have more at stake in Iran's behavior than anyone else, Faraj explained, but they were neither invited to nor even seriously consulted about these talks -- as a result of which, in their view, some of their vital assets or interests could be carved up and devoured.

AN ARAB COMMON DENOMINATOR: FOCUS ON NONNUCLEAR IMPLICATIONS

Behind the striking contrast in Arab views lies an even more striking similarity -- at least on one aspect of the new agreement often overlooked elsewhere. Much of the Arab commentary focuses not on the nuclear issue per se, but instead on Iran's other activities: support for Shiite groups and militias like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, or the opposition in Bahrain; interventions in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere; and the general quest for military power, economic leverage, and regional influence or even hegemony. None of these Iranian activities, as diverse Arab analysts point out, are directly covered in the new nuclear agreement. So Iran's Arab allies trumpet, and its Arab adversaries lament, the ways in which the agreement could indirectly affect Tehran's nonnuclear ambitions.

Thus, for example, Faraj worried aloud about the sanctions relief that would enable Iran to purchase or develop more advanced conventional weapons, and to intensify the provision of funding and equipment for Hezbollah, the Assad regime, and other GCC foes. Further, he argued, just by sitting at the table as an equal with, and obtaining new recognition from, the P5+1 group of Great Powers, Iran must now feel enhanced freedom to pursue its overarching goal of dominance in the entire Gulf region and beyond. Such sentiments were closely echoed in the past few days by unofficial yet significant Saudi commentators: billionaire businessman and prince Alwaleed bin Talal, author and policy advisor Nawaf Obaid, Shura Council chairman Abdullah al-Askar, and leading media directors and pundits Tariq al-Homayed and Jamal Khashoggi.

CRITICAL GCC COMMENTARY OFFERS NO CLEAR ALTERNATIVE

Less clear were statements from these quarters about how the GCC would confront the challenge posed by a newly emboldened Iran. Bin Talal noted the "incredible" convergence of interests with Israel against Iran, and Faraj referred obliquely to the "unprecedented consensus of various countries in the region" regarding this common threat, but neither they nor others specified how this consensus could be translated into effective action. A few GCC commentators speculated publicly about other measures: increased weapons purchases, closer collaboration with France than with the United States, or future nuclear technology options to match Iran's advances.

Significantly, little Gulf Arab media commentary has appeared to date about any direct legal, business, or economic effects of the Iran sanctions relief package on GCC trade, investment, or oil and gas interests. Interest in these very tangible consequences of the nuclear deal is probably substantial, but so far it seems largely relegated to the private rather than the public sphere. Given their reservations about the deal, these countries appear reticent about any such practical benefits that might accrue from it.

SYRIAN, LEBANESE, AND PALESTINIAN REACTIONS

At the other end of the spectrum, former Syrian cabinet minister Mahdi Dakhlallah, speaking from Damascus on Iran's Arabic-language channel al-Alam, likewise concentrated on the deal's nonnuclear implications -- but in exactly the opposite political direction. He maintained that the "Iran nuclear Geneva" is a good omen for "the Syrian Geneva II conference," because it "codifies the supreme rights of states" and signifies a "more pragmatic" U.S. attitude. Now, he continued, the United States should follow up by inviting Iran to the Geneva II conference, newly rescheduled to convene January 22, 2014. Moreover, Washington should press Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and even France to "stop exporting and arming jihadis in Syria."

Heavily influenced by Hezbollah, Lebanon's official reaction, and some of its media commentary, is similarly favorable to Iran's achievements in the nuclear accord. Parliament speaker Nabih Berri, visiting Tehran, called it "the deal of the century." Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour termed it "an advanced step forward," adding a "call upon the Arab nations and the world to pay attention to Israel's nuclear program, comprising a huge arsenal threatening the whole region." Hezbollah itself touted the deal as "a lesson to the rest of the countries, governments and people who seek pride and independence without bowing to foreign dictates." And political analyst Habib Fayyad, appearing on Sky News Arabia, argued that "for sure" the nuclear agreement will encourage Iran to intensify support for its allies in both Lebanon and Syria.

That is precisely why, in private, according to a veteran journalist from Lebanon, the Sunni community there generally sees the deal with Iran as a distinctly mixed blessing. It lowers the odds of American or Israeli military action against Iran, which might well drag Lebanon into another war. But it also helps consolidate the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis, in their view, leaving Lebanon's Sunnis in the lurch.

A final, special case concerns Palestinian Authority (PA) responses to the Iran deal. Coverage and commentary in official PA print and broadcast media has been mostly muted. But PA presidential senior advisor Nabil Abu Rudeineh publicly noted that in this case, Washington went ahead despite Israeli objections. Thus, he contended, the Iran nuclear deal sends "an important message to Israel, to realize that peace is the only choice in the Middle East." The accord with Iran should inspire world powers, argues Abu Rudeineh, to press harder for a Palestinian-Israeli accord as well.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Given these diverse Arab reactions, three lessons stand out for U.S. policy. First, officials should understand that many Arabs are interested less in the nuclear than in the other regional implications they see in the new deal with Iran. Second, the United States must work harder to allay the anxieties of allied or friendly Arab states, especially in the GCC, in this regard -- including through much closer consultation and coordination on the continuing Syrian crisis. Third, Washington should find ways to deflate the exaggerated expectations of the Assad regime, Hezbollah and its partners, and perhaps also the Palestinians regarding perceived U.S. resignation to their ascendance, and a possible resulting rift with Israel.

**David Pollock is the Kaufman Fellow at The Washington Institute and director of Fikra Forum.

Why Some U.S. Allies Disapprove of the Iran Agreement

James F. Jeffrey/Washington Institute

The problem lies not in the accord's substance, but rather in the lack of trust that the Obama administration is willing and able to run a regional security system requiring potential use of force.

Many of Washington's Middle East partners have reacted negatively to the new "first-step" agreement with Iran. Given their complaints in recent months about making most any deal with Tehran, their response -- in some cases muted, in others more vocal -- is not surprising. Nor is it necessarily wrong or unworthy of attention. The negativity continues not because the deal is particularly one-sided, but rather because U.S. regional partners are understandably concerned about the risky strategic environment in which this agreement -- like any diplomatic or strategic chess move -- must be embedded.

At first glance, the "Joint Plan of Action" signed in Geneva is a standard first step to build confidence, common in negotiations of this type. The P5+1 (i.e., Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States, and Germany) have agreed to suspend the most peripheral of economic sanctions, on precious metals, refined products, and the like. They will also temporarily freeze U.S. provisions that had steadily decreased the regime's oil exports, allowing Iran to export at its current level (i.e., about 60 percent of its 2011 level) for the duration of the agreement. They will not touch the core U.S., EU, and UN Security Council sanctions, however. In return, Iran will roll back one element of the nuclear program -- its stocks of 20 percent enriched uranium -- while freezing other problematic activities and allowing enhanced international inspections.

Although the accord is obviously not a grand breakthrough, it can help build confidence and establish new precedents, with both sides ratcheting back minor elements of programs that they hope will be substantially reduced down the road -- again, a standard negotiating tactic for complex, low-trust issues. So why are so many of America's regional allies nervous?

Some of their concerns may reflect disappointment that the United States is not going to attack Iran and topple the regime. Although that scenario was never in the cards, other concerns are more grounded, stemming from various Obama administration policies that certain allies have found disconcerting, debatable, or downright incomprehensible. These include hastily withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, openly leading from behind on Libya, rooting for the ouster of a thirty-year ruler in Egypt, and backing down at the last minute from bombing Syria, all against a backdrop of frequently vacillating rhetoric and shifting positions in Washington. Faced with this barrage of indecision and seeming antipathy about how to confront certain regional threats, Middle Eastern allies -- whose decision to partner with Washington is an existential one -- are increasingly questioning whether America is serious about running an international security system from which it benefits and by which they literally survive.

Once this type of questioning begins, the trust that is essential to any close relationship is replaced by suspicion. Once-cooperative allies begin to adopt a "nose of the camel" mindset in which even the most limited and understandable compromises with foes are viewed as a slippery slope to complete capitulation. This seems to be what is happening with the Iran agreement. Ignoring the specifics of the accord, some regional allies perceive it as further "proof" that the United States is not reliable. In their view, if they do not criticize Washington for taking this initial and relatively minor step, the administration will be encouraged to take further and much more damaging steps on the road to alleged appeasement.

Of course, Washington cannot run a global security system without making tactical agreements with foes, at times nourished with compromises -- the U.S. democratic system demands it, particularly at a time when numerous polls show that many Americans oppose new military action in the region, including in Syria. But such agreements and their attendant compromises are only acceptable to our regional partners if Washington simultaneously demonstrates resolve, toughness, and, if necessary, a willingness to fight.

Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger knew this when they made extensive, historic pacts with China, North Vietnam, and the USSR. Although many allies were disconcerted at the time, they did not cry out publicly or hamstring U.S. diplomacy. Why? Because from the skies above Hanoi, to an island off Cambodia, to the sands of the Sinai, they saw proof after proof of American readiness to stand by allies, threaten and punish enemies, and throw Americans into combat.

Allies in the Middle East do not see that proof today. One could say, "Well, America is a democracy, and many Americans don't want to do that these days." That is true, of course, but another truth is that Americans almost never really want to go to war, whether "these days" or in the past. Therefore, presidential leadership is needed to persuade citizens that tough measures, even military steps, are sometimes necessary to maintain the global security system they benefit from, and to convince allies that Washington means what it says. This is not happening today.

A fix is feasible, but it has to involve more than talk. President Obama has used clear and tough language of late, from the four Middle Eastern strategic priorities he laid out in his September 24 UN speech to his remark that America has been the enforcing "anchor" of global security for many decades in his September 10 Syria speech. The administration could back up this talk with concrete measures such as:

Finding ways to save defense dollars other than high-visibility naval reductions in the Middle East

Finding a way to get military equipment fully flowing to Egypt, an ally that Washington needs badly

Expediting the slow bureaucratic processes that can impede weapons sales and on-the-ground counterterrorism assistance to key regional partners

Engaging the president personally and intensively in reaching a troop presence agreement with Afghanistan and reversing Turkey's decision to purchase Chinese air-defense systems

Increasing highest-level exchanges with the most important regional allies

Finding a credible means of pressuring Russia and Iran on Syria

Above all, the next time a crisis looms, the administration should not give the impression that job one is avoiding any military response, however limited, justified, and minimally risky.

**Ambassador James F. Jeffrey is the Philip Solondz Distinguished Visiting Fellow at The Washington Institute.

Is Iran borrowing North Korea's nuclear playbook?
By Giles Hewitt | AFP – Seoul (AFP) - Critics of the deal to cap Iran's nuclear programme say it repeats mistakes made with North Korea, but analysts say there is little to suggest Tehran will follow Pyongyang's path of broken promises to a nuclear bomb.Under the agreement sealed in Geneva on Sunday, Iran undertook to brake its nuclear drive for the next six months in exchange for limited sanctions relief.
Republican dissenters in the US Congress warned that Tehran was borrowing from Pyongyang's well-worn playbook, buying time and financial largesse with false promises that ultimately led to North Korea's first nuclear test in 2006. On the surface there are similarities that go beyond Iran and North Korea's joint billing with Iraq in former US president George W. Bush's "axis of evil".
Albeit to varying degrees, both are autocratic, diplomatically isolated, sanctions-laden nations with a shared history of long-term enmity with the United States and a desire for nuclear leverage.
In North Korea's case, a series of aid-for-denuclearisation agreements over the past 20 years have fallen apart, and Pyongyang is openly developing weapons on all fronts following its third and largest nuclear test in February this year. But many analysts believe suggestions that Iran will inevitably follow the same path ignore key social, structural and geopolitical differences.
The core difference for Stephan Haggard, a North Korea expert at the University of California, is the "observable shift" in Iran's government with the election in June of Hassan Rouhani as president.
Rouhani's reputation as a moderate, and his desire to move from confrontation to engagement, made the negotiated deal with Tehran worth risking, said Haggard. "Nothing similar is visible in North Korea" he added. Since the young Kim Jong-Un came to power in December 2011 -- the third generation of the Kim dynasty that has ruled the country with an iron fist since the 1950s -- North Korea has enshrined its nuclear statehood in its constitution and vowed it will never negotiate its atomic weapons away.
Iran's economic stake is also far greater than any taken by North Korea in its nuclear agreements -- a fact that experts say should help bind Tehran to the terms of the Geneva deal.
Sanctions have ravaged an Iranian economy that was previously relatively well-integrated with the international trading system, in a country that has a well-educated middle class and memories of far better times in the recent past. The North Korean economy has been isolated and moribund for decades and the Kim regime has shown it can maintain its grip on power while imposing enormous economic hardship on its harshly controlled people. "The cost and benefit decision presented to Tehran was and is very clear," said Paul Carroll, programme director at the Ploughshares Fund, a US-based global security foundation. "The North Korea security calculus is tilted the other way -- it's worth the pain to get a weapon," Carroll said."And also Iran lacks the kind of support the North has traditionally got from China, that allowed Pyongyang to feel 'this hurts, but Beijing has our back'," he added. Critics of the Geneva deal point to the 1994 "Agreed Framework" that Bill Clinton's US administration signed with North Korea.
At that time, the similarities with Iran were more striking. North Korea, like Iran now, had yet to conduct a nuclear test and was still a member of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
The 1994 agreement eventually broke down amid mutual accusations of non-compliance, but non-proliferation experts say the Geneva accord -- even as an interim deal -- is stronger for its tough inspection regime. Iran agreed to daily site inspections by experts from the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA, which will also monitor implementation of the agreement.
"In the case of North Korea, the IAEA had limited access to just one facility," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
"Iran, by contrast, has committed to very intrusive inspections at a wider range of facilities across its entire nuclear landscape," Kimball said.
If there is no reason for Iran to follow North Korea's nuclear path, most experts also believe it is unlikely that the Geneva deal might trigger a similar agreement with Pyongyang. Unlike Iran, North Korea has a nuclear bomb, and the Kim regime sees a nuclear deterrent as the guarantor of its survival.
"North Korea is well aware of the difference between its own case and the Iranian case and will not give up its nuclear programme," said Paik Hak-Soon of the Sejong Institute think tank in Seoul.

Israel minister meets British official on Iran deal
Jerusalem (AFP) - Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz met Wednesday with Britain's negotiator at the Iranian nuclear talks as part of efforts to influence the shape of a final deal, his office said.
Israel has decried as a "historic mistake" the breakthrough deal reached by world powers and Iran in Geneva on Sunday -- under which Tehran agreed to curb parts of its nuclear programme in return for an easing of sanctions.
During the meeting in Jerusalem, Britain's chief negotiator Simon Gass and the Israeli officials led by Steinitz "hashed out the existent differences and discussed in great detail" the agreement and the meaning of its clauses, a statement read. "An initial discussion on the character of the final agreement also commenced during the meeting," it said. "Despite the differences of opinion, the talks took place in an open and friendly atmosphere."
A spokeswoman for Steinitz said he had also met on Tuesday with France's chief negotiator Jacques Audibert in Jerusalem to discuss the interim deal and the final agreement.
She said the British and French officials arrived in Israel after Steinitz had requested an update on the talks from London and Paris. Britain and France, along with the United States, Russia, China and Germany, make up the P5+1 group of world powers which negotiated the deal, which they have said is a key step towards reducing the threat of military escalation in the Middle East. Under the agreement, which is in place for six months while a more long-lasting solution is negotiated, Tehran is committed to limiting uranium enrichment to low levels used only for civilian energy purposes. In return, it will obtain some $7 billion in sanctions relief in the form of access to frozen funds and to its petrochemical, gold and precious metals and auto sectors. Tehran has a long history of belligerent statements towards the Jewish state, and Israel -- the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power -- has repeatedly warned that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday he would send his national security adviser to Washington for talks on Iran after warning the deal would give Tehran a free hand to achieve a breakout nuclear capability.
 

Syria's Assad hails Iran 'resilience' on nuclear deal
AFP – Damascus (AFP) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad hailed the "resilience" of Iran in striking a landmark nuclear deal with world powers, according to his Facebook page on Wednesday.
"In a telephone call to President Hassan Rouhani of the Islamic Republic of Iran, President Assad reaffirmed the Iranian diplomatic success... leading to the deal with the P5+1 countries."
The posting on Assad's page said the deal was "the result of the Iranian people's resilience, who held onto their rights, and of the Iranian leadership's commitment to the principles of Iran's sovereignty."
The agreement reached on Sunday in Geneva rolls back part of Iran's nuclear work and freezes further advances in exchange for limited relief from sanctions which have choked Iran's economy.
Western nations and Israel have long accused Iran of seeking a nuclear weapons capability alongside its civilian programme, charges denied by Tehran, which insists its uranium enrichment is purely for energy and medical research. The deal followed a decade of deadlock and was finally struck between Iran and the so-called P5+1 group of the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia plus Germany.
Along with Russia and China, Iran is a key supporter of Assad, while the United States, Britain and France back the opposition and have led international calls for the embattled Syrian leader to step down.

..