Israel and Saudi Arabia are coordinating policies to counter US détente with Iran

http://www.debka.com/article/23323/Israel-and-Saudi-Arabia-are-coordinating-policies-to-counter-US-détente-with-Iran-

DEBKAfile Special Report October 2, 2013/Associates of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Wednesday, Oct. 2, leaked word to the media that high-ranking Gulf emirate officials had recently visited Israel, signaling a further widening in the rift between Israel and President Barack Obama over his outreach to Tehran. These visits were in line with the ongoing exchanges Israel was holding with Saudi and Gulf representatives to align their actions for offsetting any potential American easing-up on Iran’s nuclear program. debkafile reports that this is the first time Israel official sources have publicly aired diplomatic contacts of this kind in the region. They also reveal that Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates have agreed to synchronize their lobbying efforts in the US Congress to vote down the Obama administration’s moves on Iran.
debkafile reported earlier Wednesday: After Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met with President Barack Obama at the White House Monday, Sept. 30, Secretary of State John Kerry carried a message requesting moderation in the speech he was to deliver next day to the United Nations.On the other hand, at least two European diplomats, German and French, made the opposite request: they asked for a hard-hitting Israeli peroration for setting boundaries - not so much for Iran’s nuclear program as for attempt to slow down President Obama’s dash for détente with Tehran. It is feared in European capitals that the US is running too fast and too far in his bid for reconciliation with the Islamic Republic, to the detriment by association of their own standing I the Persian Gulf. They are moreover miffed by the way Washington used Europe as a tool in the long nuclear negotiations between the Six World Powers with Iran and is now dumping them in favor of direct dealings with Iranian leaders. Netanyahu decided not to accede to either request. Instead he laid out his credo: Iran must discontinue nuclear development and dismantle its program or face up to the risk of a lone Israeli military attack. The look on the face of US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, sitting at the US delegation’s table in the UN hall, showed he had realized that the prime minister’s words were not just addressed to Tehran; they were an unforeseen broadside against the Obama administration’s Iranian strategy.
The dissonance between Jerusalem and Washington on Iran and its nuclear aspirations, played down after the Obama-Netanyahu meeting at the White House, emerged at full blast in the UN speech. The consequences are likely to be reflected in American media, as they were at the low point in relations in 2010, when administration officials day by day planted negative assessments of Israel’s military inadequacies for damaging Iran’s nuclear facilities.
After the UN speech, the Israeli Home Defense Minister Gilead Erdan tried to pour oil on troubled waters by commenting that the prime minister’s speech had strengthened Obama’s hand against Tehran. However, Netanyahu had a different object. It was to paint Washington’s new partner in détente in the blackest colors, even though he knows there is no chance of swaying the US President from his pursuit of Tehran and the sanctions, which he believes to be the only effective deterrent for giving the Iranians pause, will soon start unraveling. Binyamin Netanyahu now faces the uphill job of repairing his own credibility. For five years has had declared again and again that Israel’s military option is on track in certain circumstances, but has never lived up to the threat. He has followed a path of almost total military passivity. President Obama knows that Israel’s military capacity is up to a solo operation against Iran. Tehran, however, though conscious of the IDF’s high military, technological and cyber warfare capabilities, is convinced that Israel like the United States has lost the appetite for a military initiative. Netanyahu must now revive Israel’s deterrence and convince Iran that his challenge at the UN had ended an era of military passivity and should be taken seriously. In the coming weeks, therefore, the Iranians will react with steps to upset US-Israeli relations, possibly by raising military tensions in the region directly or through their proxies. Until now Tehran operated from outside Washington and its inner councils. Now, smart Iranian diplomats will be sitting down with the US president close to his ear for friendly discussions on ways to further their rapprochement.

Netanyahu has tough task of rebuilding a credible Israeli military option against Iran

http://www.debka.com/article/23323/Netanyahu-has-tough-task-of-rebuilding-a-credible-Israeli-military-option-against-Iran
DEBKAfile Special Report October 2, 2013/After Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met with President Barack Obama at the White House Monday, Sept. 30, Secretary of State John Kerry carried a message requesting moderation in the speech he was to deliver next day to the United Nations. On the other hand, at least two European diplomats, German and French, made the opposite request: they asked for a hard-hitting Israeli peroration for setting boundaries - not so much for Iran’s nuclear program as for attempt to slow down President Obama’s dash for détente with Tehran. It is feared in European capitals that the US is running too fast and too far in his bid for reconciliation with the Islamic Republic, to the detriment by association of their own standing I the Persian Gulf. They are moreover miffed by the way Washington used Europe as a tool in the long nuclear negotiations between the Six World Powers with Iran and is now dumping them in favor of direct dealings with Iranian leaders. Netanyahu decided not to accede to either request. Instead he laid out his credo: Iran must discontinue nuclear development and dismantle its program or face up to the risk of a lone Israeli military attack. The look on the face of US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, sitting at the US delegation’s table in the UN hall, showed he had realized that the prime minister’s words were not just addressed to Tehran; they were an unforeseen broadside against the Obama administration’s Iranian strategy.
The dissonance between Jerusalem and Washington on Iran and its nuclear aspirations, played down after the Obama-Netanyahu meeting at the White House, emerged at full blast in the UN speech. The consequences are likely to be reflected in American media, as they were at the low point in relations in 2010, when administration officials day by day planted negative assessments of Israel’s military inadequacies for damaging Iran’s nuclear facilities.
After the UN speech, the Israeli Home Defense Minister Gilead Erdan tried to pour oil on troubled waters by commenting that the prime minister’s speech had strengthened Obama’s hand against Tehran. However, Netanyahu had a different object. It was to paint Washington’s new partner in détente in the blackest colors, even though he knows there is no chance of swaying the US President from his pursuit of Tehran and the sanctions, which he believes to be the only effective deterrent for giving the Iranians pause, will soon start unraveling. Binyamin Netanyahu now faces the uphill job of repairing his own credibility. For five years has had declared again and again that Israel’s military option is on track in certain circumstances, but has never lived up to the threat. He has followed a path of almost total military passivity. President Obama knows that Israel’s military capacity is up to a solo operation against Iran. Tehran, however, though conscious of the IDF’s high military, technological and cyber warfare capabilities, is convinced that Israel like the United States has lost the appetite for a military initiative.
Netanyahu must now revive Israel’s deterrence and convince Iran that his challenge at the UN had ended an era of military passivity and should be taken seriously. In the coming weeks, therefore, the Iranians will react with steps to upset US-Israeli relations, possibly by raising military tensions in the region directly or through their proxies. Until now Tehran operated from outside Washington and its inner councils. Now, smart Iranian diplomats will be sitting down with the US president close to his ear for friendly discussions on ways to further their rapprochement.

Israeli Defense minister, UYa'alon backs His PM's : West engaged in wishful thinking
Defense minister backs PM's UN speech, says 'some in the West prefer not to come face to face with reality'
Maor Buchnik Published: 10.02.13, 10:13 / Ynetnews
Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon is backing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hinted criticism of a rapprochement between the US and Iran hours after the latter's General Assembly address. Speaking at an IDF drill at the Golan Heights, Ya'alon noted that the West "is engaged in wishful thinking." "The prime minister outlined an accurate picture of how we view the Iranian threat, and some in the West prefer not to come face to face with reality. Iran is actively engaged in terror in Afghanistan, arms and trains Hezbollah, tries to smuggle weapons into Gaza, funds a terrorist infrastructure in South America and Asia, while the centrifuges keep spinning. That is why we're saying that the Iranian nuclear program must be stopped, whatever the way." Addressing the General Assembly on Tuesday, Netanyahu countered Rohani's "charm offensive" by calling him a "wolf in sheep's clothing" and urged the international community not to ease sanctions on Iran until it dismantles its nuclear program. Netanyahu was satisfied with the positive response to his speech. Speaking to associates following the address he said, "I don’t remember ever speaking at the UN and having dozens of ambassadors coming to shake my hand and show their appreciation." A state official addressed criticism that Netanyahu's speech could be seen as a challenge on President Obama's efforts to reengage with Iran. "Obama has not finalized anything yet but it's definitely feasible to form a joint policy. The pressure we're putting only helps the US in negotiations, it's crystal clear."
 

UN's Ban to Netanyahu: Iran has narrow window to prove nuke program is peaceful

By JPOST.COM STAFF/10/02/2013/Iran has opened a narrow window of opportunity to prove its nuclear program is operating for peaceful purposes, Israel Radio reported UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as telling Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Tuesday. The two met following the premier's address to the UN General Assembly to discuss regional issues. During the meeting, held under a heavy media black-out, Ban and Netanyahu discussed Iran, Syria and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, a statement from the UN chief's office said. According to the statement, Ban briefed Netanyahu on developments relating to Syria's chemical weapons stockpile and plans to convene an international peace conference on Syria in Geneva by mid-November. The UN chief also lauded Netanyahu for his leadership in renewed peace talks with the Palestinians.
The prime minister was set to begin a media blitz following the meeting to explain Israel’s position on Iran to the American public. Netanyahu focused the majority of his address to the UN assembly discussing Iran and Israel's preparedness to take unilateral action to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining atomic weapons. Meanwhile, Iran's ambassador to the UN accused Netanyahu as "misleading" the assembly on the purpose of Iran's nuclear program. "Iran has an inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy," said Mohammed Khazaee. Khazaee also echoed his president's words, saying "There is no single acceptable reason to possess a nuclear weapon, but agreeable reasons to abolish them all. Nuclear weapons have no place in the defense structuring of my country." Maya Shwayder contributed to this report.

Iran: Netanyahu should not even think about attack
By JPOST.COM STAFF/10/02/2013/ Iran on Tuesday blasted Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for "saber rattling" after he threatened unilateral action to prevent the Islamic Republic from gaining nuclear weapons, AFP reported. Iran's Deputy Ambassador to the UN warned that “the Israeli prime minister had better not even think about attacking Iran, let alone planning for that,” The New York Times quoted Khodadad Seifi as saying in immediate response to Netanyahu's speech at the UN General Assembly.Netanyahu, in his address said Israel would "stand alone," if it deems diplomacy has reached a dead end, to thwart Tehran from developing a nuclear arsenal. Seifi told the assembly that Netanahu's remarks had been "inflammatory". “Iran’s centuries-old policy of nonaggression must not be interpreted as its inability to defend itself,” the Times quoted the Iranian diplomat as stating. Meanwhile, Iran's ambassador to the UN accused Netanyahu as "misleading" the assembly on the purpose of Iran's nuclear program. "Iran has an inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy," said Mohammed Khazaee. Khazaee also echoed his president's words, saying "There is no single acceptable reason to possess a nuclear weapon, but agreeable reasons to abolish them all. Nuclear weapons have no place in the defense structuring of my country." Without ever referring to Netanyahu by name, he further poked fun at the Israeli Prime Minister, saying he was "trying to be more royal than than the king," and was still trying misleading the UN about the Iranian nuclear program, "but unlike last year, he did not bring the cartoon drawings."*Maya Shwayder contributed to this report.

Defected Syrian general: Assad will never cede chemical arsenal

By JPOST.COM STAFF/10/02/2013/Syrian President Bashar Assad will never cede his chemical arsenal, a defected Syrian general said on Tuesday. “The locations of most of the scientific research centers in Syria and the storage facilities are known and under surveillance, thus, he will give up those centers and facilities for sure without lying," Syrian Brig.-Gen. Zaher al-Sakat told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "That said however, Bashar al-Assad will not give up the chemical stockpile”.Al-Sakat has said he defected from the Syrian army after he was ordered to use "lethal chemical agents" and replaced them with non-toxic substances. According to al-Sakat, the Syrian regime has four secret storage locations in the country for its chemical weapons and has also been transferring chemical arms to Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Crisis in Syria - full JPost.com coverage. In September, the head of the Free Syrian Army relayed the same claim to CNN that opposition intelligence indicated Assad was moving chemical arms out of the country. "Today, we have information that the regime began to move chemical materials and chemical weapons to Lebanon and to Iraq," General Salim Idriss said. *Ariel Ben Solomon contributed to this report.

March 14 Calls for Forming a Cabinet Free of Hizbullah Restraints
Naharnet/The March 14 General Secretariat stressed in a statement on Wednesday that forming a cabinet is a national and constitutional responsibility, and called on President Michel Suleiman and PM designate Tammam Salam to line up one that is free from the restraints of Hizbullah and based on the Baabda declaration. After their weekly meeting, the secretariat stressed that Hizbullah's involvement in the Syrian crisis have “burdened the Lebanese and linked their destiny to the turmoil in Syria following the party's inclusion on the list of terrorism in Europe, the Gulf, and the U.S.”On the latest deadly clashes that erupted on Saturday between Hizbullah and the Shiyyah clan in Baalbek, March 14' statement said that the incident calls for a full state control and authority in order to limit illegitimate arms and restrict their possession to the state. Moreover, March 14 hailed Suleiman's initiative where he voiced hope on Friday that Hizbullah would withdraw its fighters from Syria immediately as per the Baabda declaration that calls for disassociating Lebanon from regional conflicts, and to maintain Lebanon's best interest. “Hizbullah's withdrawal from Syria will have a positive impact on the economic and political sectors,” the statement added. March 14 also pointed to the file of Syrian refugees in Lebanon and the burden they inflict on the whole community, and has therefore demanded the Lebanese government to shoulder responsibility and find the proper solutions.
“Lebanon's position in the General Assembly in New York is necessary for the international community to bear its responsibilities and help secure the needs of the Syrians displaced in Lebanon,” the statement said.
Moreover, March 14 extended condolences to the relatives of the victims of the Australia-bound ship that sank off the coast of Indonesia carrying migrants from Lebanon, Yemen and Jordan.
They demanded the government to shoulder responsibility and transfer back to Lebanon the remains of the deceased and survivors, and to punish everyone found involved in the catastrophe. Some 120 asylum-seekers from Lebanon, Jordan and Yemen were believed to be on the boat that broke into pieces and sank off Indonesia on Friday in rough seas, with 28 plucked to safety and around 36 killed and others still unaccounted for, reports said.

Maronite Bishops: Any Govt. Not Formed by Lebanese Powers is Aimed at Dividing Country
Naharnet /The Maronite Bishops Council lamented on Wednesday the Lebanese powers' failure to form a new government, criticizing their reliance on foreign powers and developments. It said in a statement after its monthly meeting chaired by Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi: “Any government that is not strictly formed by Lebanese forced is aimed at dividing the country.” The Lebanese factions should place Lebanese interests above all else and they should all abandon the preconditions they have placed on forming a cabinet, demanded the bishops. In addition, they welcomed the security forces' deployment in Beirut's southern suburbs of Dahieh last week, saying that it helped in curbing the phenomenon of autonomous security in Lebanon. Addressing the ongoing flow of Syrian refugees into Lebanon and their impact on Lebanon, it said: “A national stand is needed to tackle this issue.”
“We call on all Lebanese sides to remain neutral from the Syrian crisis and instead work for a political solution to the unrest,” it demanded. “We welcome international efforts to steer Lebanon away from regional developments, especially the unrest in Syria,” it continued. The bishops also hailed President Michel Suleiman's efforts to keep Lebanon away from the crisis in Syria. The United Nations warned last week that Lebanon faces an explosion of social tensions unless the international community helps to handle hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. While in New York to attend the U.N. General Assembly last week, Suleiman told foreign ministers from the world's leading nations that his country faces an "existential crisis" because of the influx fleeing the war between President Bashar Assad and opposition rebels. He told the International Support Group for Lebanon that major financing was needed to pay for the refugees, reinforce public services because of the burden and bolster the army. The Syria conflict will cost Lebanon $7.5 billion from 2012 to 2014, according to an estimate given by World Bank President Jim Yong Kim to the meeting held on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.

Yemeni FM Says Ali Salem al-Baid Living in Beirut under Hizbullah Protection
Naharnet/Yemeni Foreign Minister Abubaker al-Qirbi said on Wednesday that the exiled former South Yemeni president is living in Beirut under the protection of Hizbullah. Qirbi's comments came as he was criticizing Ali Salem al-Baid in an interview in pan-Arab Al-Hayat newspaper. “Al-Baid receives backing from Iran and Hizbullah,” Qirbi said. He added: “He lives in Beirut under Hizbullah protection.” U.S. envoy to Sanaa Gerald Feierstein had told Al-Hayat in March 2012 that the United States believes Hizbullah and Hamas are helping Iran to expand its influence in Yemen at the expense of the country's Gulf neighbors. Baid, the last president of the region before union and a member of the Southern Movement is opposed to national talks that began in Sanaa on March 18 and still campaigns for southern independence. Hardliners led by Baid are demanding negotiations between two independent states in the north and south.Supporters of southern independence often stage demonstrations against the national dialogue, especially in Aden. After the former North and South Yemen united in 1990, the south broke away in 1994, triggering a short-lived civil war that ended with the region being overrun by northern troops.
Source/Agence France Press

Lebanese passport among ‘worst’ in world for travel
October 02, 2013/The Daily Star/BEIRUT: It’s no secret that applying for visas as a Lebanese citizen is a hassle, but according to a new report from a major consulting firm, the cedar-stamped passport may be among the least desirable in the world when it comes to travel. Lebanon was tied for 88th place with Kosovo, Sri Lanka and Sudan in Henley and Partners’ global ranking index for 2013, which ranks countries based on their citizens’ freedom of travel. All four countries received a score of 38, meaning that there are only 38 countries a Lebanese citizen can enter without a visa. Afghanistan came last, in 94th place, with a score of 28.
Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom all tied for first place with a score of 173.
Henley and Partners, which describes itself as “the world’s leading consulting firm for exclusive private residence and citizenship solutions,” ranked Lebanon just ahead of countries such as Palestine, Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and just behind Iran, Myanmar, Libya and Syria. Lebanon’s ranking is actually an improvement from previous years. In 2010, it was ranked 94th with a score of just 32, placing it squarely between Eritrea and Somalia. In addition to formal visa restrictions, many Lebanese have complained in recent years of discrimination at foreign embassies as security has deteriorated. Some citizens who have been living and working in the Gulf for years, for example, have reported an unofficial moratorium on visas for Lebanese, particularly following Hezbollah’s military intervention in Syria.

World Bank Chief Sounds Alarm over Syrian Refugees in Lebanon
Naharnet/World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim warned that Lebanon is heading towards a “disaster” over the alarming influx of Syrian refugees into its territories. He called on the international community to give a greater support to Lebanon, which has allowed more than 760,000 Syrian refugees to settle since fighting broke out in Syria more than two and a half years ago. “We need to do much more or we risk catastrophe in Lebanon,” Kim said in a speech at George Washington University on the eve of the World Bank Group/IMF Annual Meetings. caretaker Minister of Social Affairs Wael Abou Faour said from Geneva that Lebanon counted by Monday evening some 769,000 Syrians registered or in the process of registering as refugees, pointing out that on Monday morning the number had been 763,000. Including all the unregistered Syrians, the actual number is around 1.3 million, he said, or about 30 percent of the Lebanese population. Monday's Geneva conference will form three committees to resolve the Syrian refugee crisis – one that deals with finances, the other works on sending them to other countries and the third to find refuge to them inside Syria.

The Party and the State
Husam Itani/Al Hayat
Hezbollah  Party And The Lebanese State

http://alhayat.com/Details/557721
Hezbollah is acting like an occupying force in the areas under its control. The party’s security concerns are above the people’s interests. All that contradicts with its structure of values and principles has no value and no legitimacy. The raids and arrests carried by members of the party in Baalbek and the torching of some stores owned by people from a specific sect indicate that Hezbollah is proceeding with an ethnic cleansing policy similar to the days of the Lebanese civil war. The practices of the party and its allies during the May 7, 2008 attack, the provocations that pushed the people of the Southern Suburbs to protest some weeks ago, the party’s role in the Abra events, and its incitement to encircle the town of Ersal: all these incidents indicate that Hezbollah has turned into a burden to domestic relations rather than a tool to the regional balance in the hands of Tehran and Damascus. On top of that, Hezbollah is insisting on controlling all the state’s facilities, including the security services and the public and governmental administrations all with the aim of using them to serve the its goals and its present priority of fighting the “takfiris.” These “takfiris” include all the party’s adversaries and they undoubtedly serve Israel and the American plan in the region as per the party’s writers and their jargon. Hezbollah is fighting a sectarian war under a thin cloak, one that can no longer mask the lies. No one believes these lies anymore except for those who want to believe them and those who wish to bury their head in the sand.
The locals and the politicians who oppose the party’s methods describe them as “a show of force” and arrogance in dealing with the people (except for those people who blindly accept and follow the party). On the other hand, the state, which constitutes the people’s last resort, is not playing a deterring part. In fact, the state is suffering from a multiple personality disorder. The state’s services on the ground are biased in the party’s favor. This has been the case for a long time whereby the civil servants of several official institutions are always working on pleasing the strongest armed party. Meanwhile, the state’s official “speech” is nothing but meaningless prose with no hope of ever turning into actions. The civil servants want to be safe and to make a daily living. The party wants to implement the tasks it has been entrusted with by its regional sponsors. Between these two sides, the Lebanese people have no support and no way to protect their lives and families. They are constantly humiliated by the sects’ leaders and constantly being preyed on by poverty, need, and the overwhelming desire to leave the country of mad hostilities. The bitter and ironic part consists of these calls for holding a dialogue and reaching agreements among the Lebanese sectarian powers while none of these powers can actually make its own decisions without reverting back to the external puppet masters. In addition, none of these powers will let go of their shares in security, economy, or society in favor of a weak state with no vision and no plan but to distribute the gains in the process of public looting. Hezbollah is not unique in this sense. We must recall that the Palestinian factions carried out the same violations in the 1970s, the different Lebanese militias walked on this same path between 1975 and 1990, and the Syrian forces and their services played a major part in violating and humiliating the Lebanese community; not to mention the Israeli occupation and its crimes.Therefore, Hezbollah’s actions today are but a mere reflection of the failed state phenomenon in Lebanon where the people are incapable of agreeing on anything except for their constant rivalry and their subsequent quest for emigration visas.

4 Lebanese Held on Suspicion of Facilitating Illegal Travel to Australia
Naharnet/Security services on Tuesday arrested four Lebanese citizens on suspicion of involvement in the case of people smuggling to Australia via Indonesia and Malaysia, state-run National News Agency reported.
“Four Lebanese, some of whom hail from Akkar, have been arrested for interrogation over possible involvement in the activities of people smuggling between Lebanon, Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia,” NNA said.
“Investigations are ongoing and the security authorities that are probing the case are being very tight-lipped,” the agency added.
Separately, NNA said Akkar's forensic doctor Hussein Adawiyeh, accompanied by agents from the Beirut-based Central Investigations Bureau, collected samples from relatives of possible victims of the Indonesia boat incident with the aim of conducting DNA tests and identifying the bodies that are still in Indonesia.
Twenty-eight Lebanese asylum-seekers died as their boat capsized off Indonesia on Friday while seeking to sail to Australia. Many more are still feared missing.
The Lebanese Foreign Ministry said there were 68 Lebanese, including children, on board the ill-fated vessel and that 18 survived the ordeal while at least 29 were still missing.
Most of them hail from the impoverished district of Akkar, where thousands of Syrians have also sought refuge from the 30-month conflict that has wracked their country.
"Illegal migration has increased with the influx of Syrian refugees," a Lebanese security source told Agence France Presse on Sunday on condition of anonymity.
"Criminal networks have started to focus on Syrians but also on Lebanese who want to emigrate," he said of the people smugglers.
According to the source, around 250 people, including Syrians and Lebanese, have since March paid huge sums of money to people smugglers for trips to Australia.
Relatives of Lebanese who have emigrated through such networks in recent months told AFP that a Tripoli-based man organizes the journeys from Lebanon to Australia through Indonesia.
The smugglers' contact in Indonesia is an Iraqi man known only as Abu Saleh who monitors the arrivals, they said.
 

Charbel: Hizbullah No Longer Has Any Checkpoints in Lebanon
Naharnet /Caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel revealed that he received word on Tuesday that Hizbullah decided to remove its security checkpoints in the southern town of Nabatiyeh, paving the way for the army to take over security in the area, reported the daily An Nahar on Wednesday. He told the daily: “Hizbullah no longer has any checkpoints in Lebanon.”The security in the northern city of Tripoli remains to be addressed, he said.
The minister added however that taking action in the city rests in the hands of the Central Security Council meeting scheduled for Wednesday morning. The meeting is aimed at setting in place the guidelines for a security plan in Tripoli, explained Charbel. Moreover, he denied allegations that Hizbullah had set up checkpoints around the Palestinian refugee camp of Bourj al-Barajneh located in its stronghold of Dahieh in Beirut's southern suburbs. “Only the official security forces have set up checkpoints around the camp,” he told the daily. Meanwhile, sources told An Nahar that a Hizbullah delegation that had recently met with Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji had stressed to him the party's “greatest level of cooperation in implementing the security plan in Dahieh and other regions, including the Bekaa area of Baalbek.”On September 23, around 1,000 army troops and security forces deployed in Dahieh where Hizbullah normally keeps a tight grip on security. The security points were established after car bombings in the area killed 27 people on August 15 and wounded more than 50 on July 9.
Following the bombings, Hizbullah turned the southern suburbs into a fortress with guards in civilian clothes policing the streets, stopping and searching cars, and asking motorists for their identity cards.

Selective policing
Lebanon's interior minister agreed with cannabis growers to keep their production, 
October 02, 2013 /The Daily Star
The Lebanese public this week was treated to the latest flagrant challenge to the authority and credibility of their state when a local television station interviewed a drug farmer in the Bekaa Valley. The news item highlighted the casual way in which some people who openly and flagrantly engage in illegal activity are allowed to act freely and flout the government’s lack of attention to their acts, while others, who lack political or other connections, are expected to pay the price and make no trouble for the authorities. The farmer calmly related how the caretaker interior minister agreed with cannabis growers to keep their production, since the government had yet to come up with the long-promised advent of alternative crops. The farmer also noted how current prices for hashish were less than adequate for him and his colleagues to make ends meet. The entire exercise boiled down to one of “I’m connected and I can do pretty much what I want,” even though Lebanese law is quite clear on the topic of drug possession and trafficking. Meanwhile, a number of university students in Lebanon have spent the summer behind bars, on suspicion of involvement in a drug trafficking ring. It was the kind of activity that in some cases saw relatively small amounts of illegal substances changing hands, but nonetheless, the young people have spent a few weeks or months in jail, with little sign that formal charges or a trial will take place anytime soon. The public can easily deduce the following: One shouldn’t necessarily expect a fair, speedy trial for the crime of possessing small amounts of illegal substances, unless one is a big-time operator – in that case, it’s more than likely that a brush with the authorities will result in an agreement to look the other way, in the interest of not stirring up unwanted trouble. One wonders about the reaction by officials from foreign governments whose assistance flows to Lebanon, to boost everything from “law enforcement” to socioeconomic development. In the end, the current authorities have little to show for all these efforts, other than elaborate signing ceremonies and boilerplate speeches. There isn’t much development to go around, while law enforcement remains stuck in “selectivity” mode.
The same disconnect is apparent on the security front, since Lebanon is a country in which people who carry unlicensed firearms might be stopped at a checkpoint and detained, if they don’t have the right contacts to protect them. Meanwhile, leaders of neighborhood militias, armed to the teeth, roam around freely and maintain their informal armies with little fear of ever experiencing a crackdown by the Army or other security bodies.
There is one area of consistency, however. Whenever state officials and politicians in the government are given the opportunity to speak publicly, they urge people to respect the law, without bothering to mention who is responsible for failing to enforce it.

Bassil Says Lebanon to Adopt Israel's “Tactics” over Oil Drilling
Naharnet /Caretaker Energy Minister Jebran Bassil lashed out on Wednesday at Israel, considering that it can't prevent Lebanon from protecting its oil reserves as he accused it of digging a well 5 kilometers from Lebanese offshore reserves. “We will treat Israel as it is treating us. The Jewish state can't oblige us to commit to stances that it fails to keep,” Bassil said in comments published in As Safir newspaper.
He stressed the Lebanon “isn't looking for any trouble as it's discussing with the Americans the possibility of resolving the dispute with Israel.”Lebanon and Israel are bickering over a zone that consists of about 854 square kilometers and suspected energy reserves there could generate billions of dollars. Bassil had previously warned in July that Israel’s discovery of a new offshore gas field near Lebanese territorial waters means the Jewish state could siphon some of Lebanon’s crude oil. “We are working within the international laws and norms and we will not breach (Israel's) maritime border,” Bassil said, adding that Lebanon “will hold onto its rights.”
He noted that the “Lebanese state is trying to guarantee its right to exploit its oil wealth.”Bassil also lashed out at Lebanese officials who “paralyzed” the petroleum file. Lebanon has been slow to exploit its maritime resources compared with other eastern Mediterranean countries. Israel, Cyprus and Turkey are all much more advanced in drilling for oil and gas. In March 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated a mean of 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and a mean of 34.5 trillion cubic meters of recoverable gas in the Levant Basin in the eastern Mediterranean, which includes the territorial waters of Lebanon, Israel, Syria and Cyprus.
The formation of the Petroleum Authority in November was the first major step in future oil exploration since parliament passed a law in 2011 setting the country's maritime boundary and Exclusive Economic Zone.
The country will witness the first oil exploration process in 2015 and it will take a year to enter the production stage.

Report: Investigations underway in Malaysian People-Smuggling Network
Naharnet/Investigations are underway in a Malaysian people-smuggling network similar to the one that led to the asylum-seekers' ferry sinking disaster last week, reported the daily An Nahar on Wednesday.
It said that the network is headed by Elie A. who owns a fake travel agency in Dekwaneh on the outskirts of Beirut and cooperates with Mohammed T., in the town of Mishmish in the northern region of Akkar, and Ahmed H., who works in the southern city of Sidon. An Nahar revealed that some 82 Lebanese citizens, including a number of families from Akkar, had traveled with the fake travel agency to Malaysia under the illusion that they will legally head to Australia via airplane. After paying a fee of up to $10,000 per person, the travelers soon lost contact with the travel agency, leaving some to return to Lebanon and others to remain in Malaysia in a hope that their situation will be resolved. The head of the agency has disappeared since news of the Indonesia ferry boat disaster broke out last week. Security services on Tuesday arrested four Lebanese citizens on suspicion of involvement in the case of people smuggling to Australia via Indonesia and Malaysia, state-run National News Agency reported. Three of them have since been released however. Twenty-eight Lebanese asylum-seekers died as their boat capsized off Indonesia on Friday while seeking to sail to Australia. Many more are still feared missing. The Lebanese Foreign Ministry said there were 68 Lebanese, including children, on board the ill-fated vessel and that 18 survived the ordeal while at least 29 were still missing. Most of them hail from the impoverished district of Akkar, where thousands of Syrians have also sought refuge from the 30-month conflict that has wracked their country.
"Illegal migration has increased with the influx of Syrian refugees," a Lebanese security source told Agence France Presse on Sunday on condition of anonymity. "Criminal networks have started to focus on Syrians but also on Lebanese who want to emigrate," he said of the people smugglers.

President Michel Sleiman's extension ‘better than vacuum’
October 02, 2013 /By Hasan Lakkis/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: If it comes down to a choice between renewing the term of President Michel Sleiman and confronting a presidential vacuum, then the former is preferable, contends Mohammad Shatah, adviser to former Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Speaking during an interview with The Daily Star, Shatah said: “If the choice is between no elections of a [new] president and President Sleiman, then of course renewing the president’s term after amending the Constitution will be better.” Sleiman’s six-year term as president expires in May next year. The Lebanese Constitution stipulates that a president may only serve a single, nonrenewable term in office.
However, constitutional amendments voted for by a majority in Parliament have twice previously enabled presidents to remain in office beyond the expiration of their six-year mandate. A parliamentary majority agreed to a three-year extension for then-Presidint Elias Hrawi in 1995 and again for Emile Lahoud in 2004. Yet although Shatah described the possibility of a presidential vacuum as “very bad,” he also pointed out that at present the presidency is “frankly the only element of the state left standing.”“Of course, the Army is an institution that has done a great job, but in terms of the constitutional system, with an extended Parliament and no sitting Cabinet, the president is the only ... constitutional authority still standing, and not having that will be very dangerous,” he said. Lebanon’s Cabinet acquired caretaker status after the resignation of Prime Minister Najib Mikati last March. In the absence of a new Cabinet and in the face of disagreement over a new electoral law, parliamentary polls scheduled for June were suspended as the Parliament voted in favor of a 14-month extension of its term.
Despite the prompt naming of Tamman Salam as prime minister-designate, lack of consensus among the country’s rival political parties means Lebanon remains without a fully functional Cabinet, something Shatah believes Salam and Sleiman should move independently to rectify. “If Hezbollah is not going to move at all, the other option would be, in my opinion, that the prime minister-designate and the president having consulted with everyone for several months, should form the best government they think should be there, and hope that they can convince the Lebanese people and the majority in Parliament [of the need for such a government].”
Hezbollah opposes any Cabinet in which political parties are not represented in proportion to their size in Parliament, effectively meaning they oppose any Cabinet in which they don’t have veto power.“You want to have a sitting government in case a president is not elected,” Shatah went on to say, noting that even with a government in place there remained the possibility that no presidential candidate would secure the two-thirds majority needed to secure the office. Shatah also expressed a preference for a Cabinet that is “not partisan.” He described the present caretaker Cabinet as “partisan.”Looking to Lebanon’s conflict-wracked neighbor, Shatah made two assertions. The regime of President Bashar Assad will not be restored “either in the Syria we know today or the Syria we used to know before two-and-a-half-years,” he said. Equally, however, the adviser believes that the prospect of a “democratic regime” in the country is “more distant today than it was two years ago.”On the basis of these two assertions, Shatah argued that Syria is not set to be “a strategic ally of Iran.” “What is the second best [outcome] for Iran is to continue the war in Syria,” he said. Ongoing violence will enable Iran to retain some influence over Syria while using the conflict to reconcile its long-term hostile relationship with the United States, Shatah argued. “Iran wants Syria to be the same way that Lebanon was to Syria in the past. And with the extremists being part of the war in Syria, then Iran and the U.S. will soon not be enemies regarding the war in Syria because it is being labeled a war on terrorism.” Lebanon was under Syrian tutelage from the end of its Civil War in 1990 until Syria’s withdrawal from the country following popular protests in 2005.“The scenario I see is a continued war in Syria for a protracted period until other variables emerge,” Shatah said. Meanwhile, he added that Hezbollah’s involvement on the side of the regime in Syria was making reconciliation with the Shiite party even more difficult at home.
“Hezbollah is involved in the fighting in Syria, and it is also involved in the assassination of Lebanese figures. This is making it even harder to reconcile with Hezbollah,” he said, adding that the party was also “protecting indicted persons in these assassinations.” The Special Tribunal for Lebanon investigating the 2005 assassination of Saad Hariri’s father, former Prime Minister Rafik Hairi, and 22 others has indicted four men, all of them known members of Hezbollah. The accused, due to be tried in absentia next year, remain at large. “It is not easy to imagine normal relations with Hezbollah,” Shatah continued. “I say this with regret. I don’t like to see no government here, but [for] the last seven months ... that [has been] the case ... It would be miraculous for Lebanon to manage to have a normal running of government [with things being the way they are].”
“Even if a government is formed, it is likely to be paralyzed or to implode as the previous government [did],” Shatah added. Imperative to finding “broader solutions” to this problem is the country’s abandonment of the Syria conflict, he said.“The first thing we can do, and the Lebanese should do, is to abandon the conflict in Syria,” he said, adding: “Hezbollah is involved directly in Syria, so is Hezbollah now a critical part of the war? I don’t believe so. If I were Hezbollah I would do this now; coming back from Syria will not eliminate the problem but at least it will show that it’s ready to respond.”
 

S. Korea-U.S. Sign Plan to Deter N. Korea Nuclear Strike
Naharnet /South Korea and the United States signed a new strategic pact Wednesday that provides a "tailored" deterrence against the specific threat of a nuclear attack from North Korea. The operational plan establishes a "strategic framework" within the two countries' military alliance for dealing with "key North Korean nuclear threat scenarios" both now and in the event of war, according to a joint statement. The plan was signed by visiting U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who reiterated U.S. commitment to using all its military capabilities -- conventional and nuclear -- to provide South Korea with an "extended deterrence that is credible, capable and enduring".The joint statement provided no specific details of the measures envisaged by the new strategy, which is certain to be condemned by North Korea as a provocative step.
At a press briefing with his South Korean counterpart Lim Kwan-Jin, Hagel stressed that the plan covered all the North's weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons.
According to South Korean defence officials, North Korea has up to 5,000 tonnes of chemical weapons -- an alleged stockpile that has been highlighted by the use of such weapons in Syria.
"There should be no doubt that North Korean use of chemical weapons would be completely unacceptable," Hagel said. Kim said the bilateral plan would "greatly enhance the efficacy of the alliance's deterrence against North Korea". During his talks with Kim, Hagel said he had listened "very seriously" to South Korea's argument for extending U.S. command of combined US and South Korean forces in the event of war with the North.
South Korea is scheduled to take over wartime operational command in 2015, but has requested the transition be pushed back in light of the growing nuclear threat from North Korea.
Washington has indicated it wants to keep to the original schedule, but Hagel said discussions on the timing would continue, taking into account evolving conditions on the peninsula.
SourceAgence France Presse

U.N. Asks Kuwait to Host Second Donors Meet for Syria
Naharnet/U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has called on the emir of Kuwait to host a second donors' conference to raise aid for Syrian refugees, the official KUNA agency said on Wednesday. Kuwait hosted the first donors' conference in January, when participating nations pledged $1.5 billion (1.1 billion euros) for Syrian refugees. Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, who is on a private visit to the United States, received a phone call late Tuesday from Ban who "expressed hopes... for Kuwait to host the second donors' conference to support the humanitarian situation in Syria," KUNA said. The United Nations launched a record $5.2-billion aid appeal in June to fund operations in Syria and neighboring countries, warning the number of Syrians needing help because of the conflict could rise to over 10 million by the end of 2013. The aid is for food, which accounts for one-fifth of the sum, clean water, medical care and schooling, as well as to build refugee camps. The U.N. appeal aims to raise $3.8 billion for refugees and $1.4 billion for operations in Syria. More than 115,000 people have been killed and over 2.1 million forced to flee to neighboring countries since the war began in March 2011 after a crackdown on protests against strongman President Bashar Assad. The refugee total is expected to swell to 3.5 million by the end of the year, according to the U.N. Within Syria, a total of 6.8 million people are forecast to need aid this year, the majority of them displaced by fighting. Syria's neighbors pleaded for more international support on Monday to tackle the huge influx of refugees from the war-torn country, warning the burden could destabilize the whole region.
Source/Agence France Presse

Trust, but Clarify
Dennis Ross and David Makovsky/Washington Institute
Foreign Policy
Although President Obama should head down the diplomatic road toward a nuclear deal with Iran, he must make exceedingly clear what he will not abide.
In relations between states, symbols can be a sign of change -- but they can sometimes create false impressions. A handshake between President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hasan Rouhani at the U.N. General Assembly would have fallen into the latter category: those who are ready to anoint Rouhani as an Iranian Gorbachev would have seized on it as a sign of Iranian openness and readiness to break down barriers. Meanwhile, those who are convinced that Rouhani is just a savvier opponent than his in-your-face predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would have decried our readiness to be played by the Iranians.
The phone call that eventually occurred between the two leaders is a significant step, but does not offer the visual image of change. Moreover, the call likely emerged from the private discussion between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, and each must have felt there was value in having it. Those wary of the Iranians will undoubtedly worry that the United States is effectively endorsing the symbols of change on the Iranian side without demanding requisite demonstrations of a change in policy. However, rather than trying to read too much into the meaning of a symbolic encounter -- whether a phone call or handshake -- Washington should focus instead on the reality of what Rouhani represents and shape its approach accordingly.
Unlike Gorbachev in the Soviet Union, the Iranian president is not the decision-maker in Iran. However, during his campaign, he ran against Iranian policies that produced the Islamic Republic's international isolation and resulted in severe economic sanctions being imposed on it. Most significantly, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the key decision-maker in Iran, allowed Rouhani to win the election and, at least at this point, appears to be backing his efforts at diplomacy. Now, the Obama administration must clarify for itself and others the concrete policy changes that will be necessary for Rouhani to achieve the detente he apparently seeks -- and what advances in Iran's nuclear program would represent an intolerable threat to the United States.
Rouhani has been clear about the high cost of the international sanctions and the need to get them lifted or relaxed. Upon assuming office, he declared that the economy was in even worse shape than he thought -- a fact that came as no surprise to the Iranian public.
Economic pressures have given Tehran an incentive to resolve the international impasse over its nuclear program. But it cannot gain the economic relief it seeks unless it is willing to take meaningful steps to prove to the international community that its sole aim is the production of civilian nuclear power. Soothing words and smiles will not provide such reassurance; only tangible steps that remove Iran's break-out capability -- a verifiable method that guarantees early detection of any effort to move from reactor-grade to weapons-grade enriched uranium -- can do so. This is almost certainly the position taken by both Obama and Congress.
Rouhani's own speech at the United Nations emphasized Iran's right to enrichment and gave little indication that Iran is prepared to alter its nuclear program. The Iranian president did, however, respond to Obama's remarks by saying that "we can arrive at a framework to manage our differences." There is only one way to know if that is true, of course, and that is to test it.
Once talks get under way -- whether in the P5+1 format or in a bilateral setting -- the United States will be able to probe to see if Iran is prepared for tangible or cosmetic change. The Obama administration should not rule out the possibility that there may be a potential convergence between its interest in stopping the Iranian nuclear program and Tehran's sense of urgency in lifting the most hard-hitting economic sanctions. If so, this argues for an end-game nuclear deal, not a more limited agreement.
Rouhani clearly needs to have the sanctions removed as quickly as possible, and a limited deal won't accomplish that. In his meeting with the P5+1 ministers, Zarif spoke about an agreement that would be fully implemented within one year, meaning he clearly wants the sanctions to be lifted in that time. Only a more comprehensive understanding could lead to major sanctions relief and provide the administration with what it requires -- a roll back of the Iranian nuclear program that provides the United States with a high degree of confidence that the Iranians cannot cheat and produce a break-out capability at a time of their choosing.
To produce such a deal, the United States will need to be clearer with the Iranians about the threshold that it will not let their nuclear program cross. Obama has repeatedly said that an Iranian nuclear weapon threatens vital U.S. interests, as it could spur a regional nuclear arms race in the Middle East and threaten the fabric of the international non-proliferation regime. But he needs to make sure that his repeated public commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb does not lose its meaning. The pace and scope of Iran's nuclear program -- with the installation of a new generation of centrifuges and ever more accumulated enriched uranium -- creates precisely such a risk in the coming months.
It is not enough for the United States to say that this line is an Iranian nuclear weapon, since this would enable Iran to develop a threshold nuclear capability that is just a few turns-of-the-screw away from a weapon. Providing greater clarity of the point at which Iran's nuclear infrastructure would begin to threaten America's ability to fulfill its objective of prevention is important in ensuring that neither Iran nor others misjudge what would trigger an American strike.
Interestingly, Iran has already shown it is not oblivious to thresholds. It has avoided surpassing the threshold of 240 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explicitly drew in his U.N. General Assembly speech last year.
That said, the American threshold does not need to be defined publicly. The United States should not needlessly back the Iranians or itself into a corner. However, the Iranians, the Israelis, and the other members of the P5+1 should know with greater specificity the limits of what the Obama administration will tolerate with Iran's nuclear program. As Obama just said at the United Nations in the context of the Syrian crisis, only the credible threat of force has given diplomacy a chance for success.
Moreover, the Iran issue is being viewed through the lens of the ongoing Syria crisis. Amid doubts that the U.S.-Russian deal will truly lead Damascus to completely turn over its chemical weapon stockpiles, observers in Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East have interpreted the initiative as evidence that the American public is too war-fatigued to be counted on to back a U.S. strike against Iran's nuclear program should diplomacy fail. And as long as confidence in the United States is flagging and Israel feels it is on its own, the chances of an Israeli strike increase.
Clearly, everyone should prefer a diplomatic solution with Iran. Obama's best chance to obtain that diplomatic breakthrough is through clarity -- by demonstrating to Rouhani what he can live with and what he cannot abide. Clarity will also help dispel misconceptions in the Middle East about America's resolve.
The United States should not be afraid to lift the requisite economic sanctions, if Iran comes through with its part of the bargain. The Iranian position in the talks will make it clear soon enough whether it is sincere about reaching a deal, or whether Iran is only willing to make cosmetic adjustments. But in the bid to divine Rouhani's mind, we first have to know our own.
**Ambassador Dennis Ross is counselor at The Washington Institute and former special assistant to President Obama. David Makovsky is the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow and director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Institute.
 

Obama to cut short Asia trip as shutdown lingers
October 02, 2013/By Andy Sullivan, Thomas Ferraro
Reuters /WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama on Wednesday scaled down a long-planned trip to Asia, as a U.S. government shutdown entered a second day with no end in sight to the funding row in Congress that triggered it.
Obama is expected to leave on Saturday for summit meetings in Indonesia and Brunei. Malaysian media quoted Prime Minister Najib Razak as saying he would now skip a subsequent visit to Kuala Lumpur. His last stop, in the Philippines, also now looks in question.
The president would thus be able to return home just days before an even bigger crunch in Congress, which will put the United States at risk of defaulting on its debts if it does not raise the U.S. public debt ceiling.
The fight between Obama's Democrats and the Republicans over the government's borrowing power is rapidly merging with the standoff over everyday funding, which has forced the first government shutdown in 17 years and forced hundreds of thousands of federal employees to take unpaid leave.
The White House announcement followed a fruitless day on Capitol Hill, with Congressional Democrats and Republicans coming no closer to resolving their differences.
Obama accused Republicans of taking the government hostage to sabotage his signature healthcare law, the most ambitious U.S. social program in five decades, passed three years ago.
Republicans in the House of Representatives view the Affordable Care Act as a dangerous extension of government power, and have coupled their efforts to undermine it with continued efforts to block government funding. The Democratic-controlled Senate has repeatedly rejected those efforts. The standoff has raised new concerns about Congress's ability to perform its most basic duties and threatens to hamper a still fragile economic recovery.
"This is a mess. A royal screw-up," said Democratic Representative Louise Slaughter of New York. As police cordoned off landmarks such as the Lincoln Memorial, and government agencies stopped functions ranging from cancer treatments to trade negotiations, Republicans in the House moved to restore funding to national parks, veterans' care and the District of Columbia, the capital.
An effort to pass the three bills fell short on Tuesday evening, but Republicans plan to try again on Wednesday. They are likely to be defeated by the Democratic-controlled Senate.
"That's important - a park? How about the kids who need daycare?" said Democratic Representative Sander Levin of Michigan. "You have to let all the hostages go. Every single one of them."
The shortening of the Asia trip, designed to reinforce U.S. commitment to the region, is the first obvious international consequence of the troubles in Washington. There was no immediate confirmation from the White House that plans had been changed. "They've shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans," Obama said on Tuesday.
Republicans said Obama could not complain about the impact of the shutdown while refusing to negotiate. "The White House position is unsustainably hypocritical," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. A Reuters/Ipsos poll indicated that 24 percent of Americans blamed Republicans, while 19 percent blamed Obama or Democrats. Another 46 percent said everyone was to blame.
Republicans said their latest proposal would help elderly veterans who earlier on Tuesday pushed past barricades at the National World War II Memorial to get into the site.
"They're coming here because they want to visit their memorial, the World War II memorial. But no, the Obama administration has put barricades around it," said Republican Representative Mike Simpson of Idaho.
All three bills won support from a majority of the House, but fell short of the two-thirds vote needed to pass under special rules that allow quick action. Republican leaders plan to bring up the bills for a regular vote on Wednesday. Obama said he would veto the bills if they reached his desk.
The veterans in question had gotten in to the memorial with help from several Republican lawmakers. But they did not seem interested in taking sides.
"It's just like a bunch of little kids fighting over candy," said George Atkinson, an 82-year-old veteran of the Korean War. "The whole group ought to be replaced, top man down."
The selective spending plan appeared to temporarily unite Republicans, heading off a split between Tea Party conservatives who pushed for the government funding confrontation and moderates who appear to be losing stomach for the fight. Representative Peter King, a New York moderate, estimated that more than 100 of the chamber's 232 Republicans would back Obama's demand to restore all government funding without conditions. That would be enough to easily pass the House with the support of the chamber's 200 Democrats.
The shutdown closed landmarks including access to the Grand Canyon and pared the government's spy agencies by 70 percent. In Washington, the National Zoo shut off a popular "panda cam" that allowed visitors to view its newborn panda cub online. In Pennsylvania, white supremacists had to cancel a planned rally at Gettysburg National Military Park.
Stock investors appeared to be taking the news in stride on Tuesday, with investors confident a deal could be reached quickly. The S&P 500 closed up 0.8 percent and the Nasdaq Composite gained 1.2 percent.
But the U.S. Treasury was forced to pay the highest interest rate in about 10 months on its short-term debt as many investors avoided bonds that would be due later this month, when the government is due to exhaust its borrowing capacity. A week-long shutdown would slow U.S. economic growth by about 0.3 percentage points, according to Goldman Sachs, but a longer disruption could weigh on the economy more heavily as furloughed workers scale back personal spending. The last shutdown in 1995 and 1996 cost taxpayers $1.4 billion, according to congressional researchers.
The political crisis has raised fresh concern about whether Congress can meet a mid-October deadline to raise the government's $16.7 trillion debt ceiling. Some Republicans see that vote as another opportunity to undercut Obama's healthcare law. Failure to raise the debt limit would force the United States to default on its obligations, dealing a blow to the economy and sending shockwaves around global markets.
A 2011 standoff over the debt ceiling hammered consumer confidence and prompted a first-ever downgrade of the United States' credit rating.
Analysts say this time it could be worse. Lawmakers back then were fighting over how best to reduce trillion-dollar budget deficits, but this time they are at loggerheads over an issue that does not lend itself to compromise as easily: an expansion of government-supported health benefits to millions of uninsured Americans.
Republicans have voted more than 40 times to repeal or delay "Obamacare", but they failed to block the launch of its online insurance marketplaces on Tuesday. The program had a rocky start as government websites struggled to cope with heavy online traffic. "What I'm hearing from my constituents at home is if this is the only way to stop the runaway train called the federal government, then we're willing to try it," said Texas Senator John Cornyn, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate.

Two Presidents and One Fatwa
By: Shahir Shahid Saless/Asharq Alawsat
President Obama’s speech at this year’s UN General Assembly, as well as Iran’s newly-elected, moderate President Hassan Rouhani’s attendance, captured the world’s attention due to increasing hopes for a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. The media’s far-reaching coverage of Obama’s speech, followed by a flurry of analyses of his statements reflects the gravity of the situation.
In his speech, Obama highlighted the fatwa (a religious decree) issued by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, prohibiting the development of nuclear weapons, as one of the key elements that have raised hopes that the two sides can reach a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear deadlock. In statements delivered after his historical telephone conversation with the Iranian president, the first of its kind since the 1979 Iranian revolution, Obama again emphasized the fatwa as a positive development that is grounds for optimism for a peaceful solution. The significance of this statement can be viewed from different angles.
First, it displays to Tehran that America views the fatwa and its perceived weight in the Iranian theocratic political system as a strict prohibition on the development of nuclear weapons. Additionally, Obama’s citation of the fatwa signifies the recognition and likely importance of it as part of a possible nuclear deal in the future.
But a more prominent angle not to be overlooked by Tehran is the fact that Obama, before the eyes of the world, has acknowledged Iran’s political system and the decisive role that velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist) plays in that system. Complementary to this statement was Obama’s affirmation that the US government is not “seeking regime change” in Iran. It is the first time in twenty years that the US government publicly affirms the acceptance of Iran’s political order.
In March 2000, Madeleine Albright, then Secretary of State, delivered a historic speech for the Iranian New Year. In that speech, she expressed her regret over US involvement in the 1953 coup that toppled Iran’s democratically-elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. She also condemned America’s support of Saddam Hussein during Iraq’s war against Iran, calling those policies “short-sighted.” Albright called on Iran to join the US “in writing a new chapter in the two states’ shared history.”
Even though Albright praised the reformist president of Iran, Mohammad Khatami, she also declared that, “despite the trend towards democracy, control over the military, judiciary, courts and police remains in unelected hands.” This statement was enough to eclipse her rapprochement effort. Following Albright’s speech, Ayatollah Khamenei fiercely rejected her offer of reconciliation, and said “America’s animosity [toward Iran] will not be resolved through discussions.”
President Bush expressed the same view in 2005. Following the election of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, Bush questioned the relevance and credibility of the elections, stating that power in Iran would continue to be held by “an unelected few.”One and a half years after the fatwa was issued, President Obama’s emphasis on it at this juncture might be viewed as a signal to Tehran that the US has abandoned its previous position. Iran may view this as a monumental step on Washington’s part, which could be a starting point for a chain of reconciliatory moves from both sides.
Another reason behind Obama’s emphasis on the fatwa could be to satisfy and pacify hardliners in Iran’s power centers who remained vehemently opposed to the talks between Iran and the US.
In any event, the road to an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program will be rocky. Three factors deserve attention in this respect. First, it is not yet clear whether the US will accept the continuance of uranium enrichment in Iran—which is Iran’s “red line”—even if the 20 percent enrichment at the Fordow facility is halted and the level of enrichment is capped at 5 percent. Iran has made it clear that it will not agree to the complete suspension of its uranium enrichment program.
In his UN speech, President Obama stated that Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program is respected, but, at the same time, he insisted that the Iranian government should “meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council resolutions.” Pointing to the UN resolutions is a code that the US officials use to remind Iran that it should suspend its enrichment program until all concerns about potential military dimensions of its nuclear program are addressed. All four sanction resolutions include this provision.
The second factor is the complexity of the sanction laws. The laws behind the American sanctions on Iran are a network of intertwined pieces of legislation. They are structured so that they cover not only the nuclear issue, but also address issues of human rights and terrorism. In other words, Iran could technically halt its entire nuclear program tomorrow, and the sanctions would remain in effect. Those laws grant authority to America’s president to temporarily suspend the sanctions, but to waive them permanently the president must certify before Congress that it is vital to the national security interests of the Unites States to do so. Of course, certifying this to the satisfaction of Congress would be no easy task.
Since Iran’s primary incentive for showing flexibility would be the removal of sanctions, it remains to be seen how far Obama can go in fulfilling the Iranians’ expectations in exchange for considerable nuclear concessions.
The third factor complicating matters on the road to agreement is the role of spoilers in Iran, the US, and Israel. Peace between Iran and the US would place the interests of some pressure groups in serious jeopardy. Therefore, as a final deal between Iran and the US approaches, attempts to undermine the process are possible in all three countries. Some initial signs of this were already visible when Rouhani returned from the UN.
On September 29, ultra-conservatives organized fierce attacks on Rouhani in their newspapers and internet outlets following his telephone conversation with President Obama. Eggs and a shoe were thrown at him upon his return from the UN.  In reality, the hardline current, represented in the Iranian media by the daily newspaper Kayhan, will lose its relevance in Iranian politics if peace is reached between Iran and the US. Therefore, it is logical to assume that hardliners will fight for their political survival by any means at their disposal, including violence. In the coming days, we should expect the intensification of this struggle of hardliners against a peace process between Iran and the US—and not only in Iran, but also in the United States and Israel.

France pushing for wider participation at Geneva II
By: Michel Abu Najm/
Paris and London, Asharq Al-Awsat—With preparations for the Geneva II peace conference underway, France is seeking to secure wider participation in order to increase the chances of a political solution to the Syrian crisis, Asharq Al-Awsat has learnt. A French diplomatic source, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity, said that Paris is seeking to secure Gulf-Arab participation at the Geneva II conference that is scheduled to take place in mid-November, in addition to the involvement of all 11 members of the Friends of Syria donor group. This comes after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov welcomed the participation of moderate Syrian opposition rebels in the conference during a press conference on Tuesday. “I do not rule out that the armed opposition, if it does not stand for extremism or terrorism views, could very well be represented,” Lavrov told reporters, adding, “By the way, this is something that President Assad has said as well
The French diplomatic source said that this “initial” period leading up to the Geneva II conference requires “meticulous preparation,” adding that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, will be responsible for steering the dialogue at the Geneva II conference. Western sources had earlier informed Asharq Al-Awsat that Tehran may participate in the peace conference on the Syrian civil war after Iran had “returned to the international political arena” thanks to new president Hassan Rouhani’s moderate discourse.
For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that Tehran should be invited to the Geneva II conference on Syria, and is “prepared to participate” in the conference, but only if asked. “We are not begging to be invited,” he told Al-Monitor earlier this week, adding, “If they ask us to go, we will go, without any conditions, and we do not accept any conditions.” As for the Arab states participating, Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi had earlier confirmed that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby, will be invited. In an interview with Al-Arabiya TV, Brahimi added that other Arab states will also be invited, and that it would be beneficial if Tehran also attend.
However he added that with all the uncertainty regarding who should attend, the conference target date of mid-November was “not 100 percent”, particularly citing disunity among the Syrian rebel forces. The French diplomatic source, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity, said that Geneva II continues to face a number of “obstacles,” adding that these can be overcome through “collaborative efforts.”
Lavrov said that Moscow had expected the Western and Arab governments to ensure that representatives of the armed opposition agree to attend Geneva II despite the growing divisions in their ranks; however he questioned whether they could achieve this by November. “Until recently, we expected our Western partners, who committed themselves to bring the opposition to the conference, that they would be able to do this fairly quickly,” Lavrov told reporters.
“But they did not manage to do it quickly. I do not know if they will manage to do it by the middle of November,” he added.
He called on the Geneva II conference to be organized as soon as possible since “radicals and jihadists are strengthening their positions” in Syria. “The task is to not lose any more time, and to bring to the negotiating table with the government those opposition groups that…think not about creating a caliphate in Syria or just seizing power and using it at their will, but about the fate of their country,” he added.
For its part, the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) has said that it will only participate in the conference if there is a guarantee regarding the formation of an interim government.
Munzer Mahos, who serves as the SNC’s foreign relations coordinator in Europe, told the Interfax news agency: “SNC chairman Ahmed Jarba said in New York that the coalition would be ready to take part in the Geneva 2 conference on the condition that leading Arab states that are most actively involved in the settlement of the Syrian conflict, will guarantee that the conference will abide by the Geneva-1 accords to form an interim government with a set of powers, including presidential, that will exercise complete control over the armed forces and security services.”