Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources For October 14/13
Lebanese Related News
Report: Seven Members of Arab Democratic Party behind Tripoli Bombings
New Cabinet, strong president needed: Geagea
Berri aide reiterates need for dialogue
Unconstitutional to exclude Hezbollah from Cabinet: Musawi
Charbel: Second Phase of Tripoli Security Plan Not Enforced yet, Needs Political Solutions
Report: Independence Day Set as Deadline to Form New Government
Aoun: Rule Today is Based on Bypassing Laws, Abusing Powers
Monsignor Labaki's Family Urges Christian Interference with Vatican, Appeal in Sexual Abuse Case
Wadih al-Safi to Be Laid to Rest in His Hometown of Niha
Moussawi: Failure to Represent Resistance at Cabinet is Constitutional Violation
Sabah, Country's Leaders Mourn Wadih al-Safi, Suleiman Says His Death 'National Loss'
Did Lebanese distributor censor book critical of Hezbollah?
Miscellaneous Reports And News 
Key Syria opposition group refuses Geneva peace talks
Iraq Kurd chief ready to hit militants in Syria, Iraq
Ahead of talks, Iran rejects shipping out uranium
1,500 evacuated from besieged Damascus suburb
Bushehr builder Kiriyenko is live wire in Obama-Khamenei backdoor dialogue. Putin gives impetus
Netanyahu: Wave of terrorism disturbs 'quietest year in a decade'
Iran: No speculations on nuclear talks please, we have a plan
Egypt strongman raps Hagel over US decision to cut aid
U.S. citizen found dead in Egyptian prison
Iraq Kurd chief ready to hit militants in Syria, Iraq

Did Lebanese distributor censor book critical of Hezbollah?

By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT/10/13/2013
NOW News claims that Dr. Matthew Levitt's book, Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of the Party of God, was banned by authorities. Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah makes a rare public appearance.
Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah makes a rare public appearance. Photo: REUTERS A new book that documents Hezbollah’s terrorist, political and criminal activities sparked controversy in Lebanon last week. The Lebanese NOW News website produced an investigative report titled “We ban our own books” on the tome, Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of the Party of God, by Dr. Matthew Levitt, on Thursday.
There were conflicting reports about a formal ban of the book. In an email to The Jerusalem Post on Friday, Levitt wrote, “So it appears the book was never formally submitted for review and therefore has not been banned in Lebanon. Levant, the distributor, apparently self-censored to avoid having to deal with a book about what is a sensitive subject in Lebanon. “I do hope that the book will now be distributed in Lebanon, where open and fully informed discussion of Hezbollah is needed now more than ever,” Levitt, director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, added.
According to the NOW report, Levant’s director, Pierre Stephan, said Levant submitted a draft of the book to Lebanon’s General Security office but the office did not issue a decision.
First-Lieutenant Sami Azzam told NOW, however, that Levant furnished a copy of Levitt’s book to General Security “17 days after telling the author it was banned.”
NOW suggested that the publisher capitulated to self-censorship. “A look at Lebanon’s tangled censorship process indicates that this may be a case of self-censorship, an increasingly common practice. Lea Baroudi, from the Lebanese anti-censorship campaign MARCH, explained that book distributors like Levant and Ciel incur costs when they try to bring in publications that are likely to get banned. Instead, they preemptively ‘ban’ the draft themselves and tell the authors that General Security had refused their request to bring the publication to Lebanon,” wrote NOW.
NOW identified a source, Charbel Haddad, whose name was changed because he was not permitted to speak on the record.
NOW wrote that Haddad, who works for “a distributing company familiar with the case of Levitt’s book, confirmed that self-censorship by Levant is exactly what happened to The Global Footprint.”
Haddad said books on “sensitive” topics – such as Levitt’s examination of Hezbollah, whose ministers are an important part of the Lebanese government – are subject to a process by distributors, in which a book is not sent to the General Security. “We see titles with Hezbollah or Israel in them, we read a few pages and look at the pictures, and sometimes we ask our friends in General Security,” Haddad told NOW.
He added the process of sending feelers out to General Security saves the distributor time because the book would have been banned in any case.

Report: Seven Members of Arab Democratic Party behind Tripoli Bombings
Naharnet/Several members of the Arab Democratic Party are behind the twin bombings in the northern city of Tripoli in August, reported al-Mustaqbal daily on Sunday. Informed sources told the daily that seven members of the party carried out the attack that targeted al-Salam and Taqwa Mosques on August 23. Youssef Diab was behind the bombing at al-Salam Mosque, while Ahmed Merhi was behind the attack at the other one.
The sources said that Merhi drove a booby-trapped car to the mosque before detonating it. Moreover, they revealed that Syrian intelligence plotted the attack in cooperation with arrested cleric Sheikh Ahmed al-Gharib. They stressed however that the cleric was not involved in the execution of the attacks because it sought sides that had prior experience in carrying out such operations. Syrian intelligence provided the booby-trapped cars and an arrested suspect Hassan Jaafar allowed their safe passage through the Lebanese city of Hermel to the town of al-Qobeiyyat in the northern region of Akkar. The seven-member Arab Democratic Party group soon received the cars and took them to the Tripoli neighborhood of Jabal Mohsen, a stronghold of the party, on August 21. Later on Sunday, Arab Democratic Party media official Abdul Latif Saleh told LBCI television: “The judiciary did not summon Youssef Diab and we will turn him in if he is.” “We will turn in any culprit to the state because we abide by the law,” he stressed. Sources told LBCI: "Hayan Haidar formed a five-member group in Jabal Mohsen, which included Diab and Merhi, in order to carry out the Tripoli bombings in cooperation with Syrian intelligence."On Friday, armed clashes broke out in Tripoli's areas of Bab al-Tabbaneh, Jabal Mohsen and Syria Street over Diab's arrest, wounding an army soldier and a young man identified as S.M. Forty-five people were killed and over 800 wounded in the twin Tripoli bombings. On Saturday, State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Saqr Saqr ordered the arrest of several suspects over their alleged involvement in the bombings. Saqr charged on August 30 three suspects in the twin bombings of Tripoli in addition to a Syrian army Captain and another Syrian man over the booby-trapped cars. Head of the pro-Syria Islamic Tawhid Movement-Command Council Sheikh Hashem Minkara, Sheikh al-Gharib and informer Mustafa Houri were charged with the formation of an armed gang and undermining the authority of the state. They were also accused of forming a terrorist network and planting explosives and booby-trapped cars.
 

Report: Independence Day Set as Deadline to Form New Government
Naharnet/Efforts to form a new government will not halt during the Eid al-Adha holiday, reported the daily An Nahar on Sunday. It said that the formation of a new cabinet can no longer be delayed, adding that an Independence Day on November 22 has been set as a deadline or “red line” for political powers to overcome all obstacles hindering their efforts to form a government. To that end, concerned sources revealed that new efforts will be exerted to form a new cabinet, meaning that new proposals over the issue will be presented. These efforts will focus on highlighting to officials the need for them to assume their responsibilities “because Lebanon is on the verge of economic and social collapse.” The sources predicted that the efforts that will follow Eid al-Adha, which falls on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, will be similar to indirect dialogue between the political powers seeing as obstacles have hindered their return to the national dialogue table. These efforts will act as last-ditch measures ahead of the possibility of the formation of a government by President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam if the political powers fail to resolve their differences, they added. Salam has said conditions and counter-conditions set by the rival sides have brought his efforts to form a cabinet to a stalemate.
Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat recently revealed that he dropped his support for a new cabinet in which the March 8 and 14 alliances in addition to centrists would get eight ministers each.
He instead called for giving the two rival camps nine ministers each and six ministers to centrists – Suleiman, Salam and Jumblat. This formula prevents a certain party from controlling the government by giving veto power to Hizbullah and its team and another veto power to March 14, he said.
 

Aoun: Rule Today is Based on Bypassing Laws, Abusing Powers
Naharnet /Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun said on Saturday that the rule in the country is based on “bypassing the laws and abusing powers to cover corruption,” calling the current situation in the country a “tragedy of rule.” "Society has became acquainted with corruption in the public sector and has acquiesced to it,” Aoun said in a speech during a FPM event marking the October 13, 1990 memory. He remarked: “We cannot go forward with any plans of reform if the situation remained as it is.”"Oppressed voices and those willing and capable of change must work together to remove the obstacles that are limiting the people's capabilities and that are keeping them hostages to political and sectarian feudalism.” Aoun continued: “Today, and as reform has started, we pledge to continue our struggle to establish a state whose leaders respect the constitution and the laws, and who feel the people's pain.” Aoun said the “land was freed but the minds remained occupied,” He added: “These occupied minds have helped in making the political decision in the country under foreign control, which made independence lose its significance.” "Today we will in a tragedy of rule. The leaders came from feuding militias to power. They are allied now and work taking into consideration foreign commands. They are unable to free themselves of these orders,” he said. “The militia mentality that we thought had disappeared, still persists in the spirits of the leaders, controlling the country and its institutions.”Aoun pointed out: “From here, we drew our spirit of reform.” The FPM leader had started his speech by recalling the memory of October 13, 1990, noting that the people who forget their history “have no future and will repeat the same mistakes.” Aoun served as the PM of the legal faction of the two rival governments contending for power in Lebanon from 1988 to October 1990. He declared the “Liberation War” against the Syrian occupation on March 14 1989. On the October 13, 1990, the Syrian forces invaded Beirut killing hundreds of unarmed soldiers and civilians. Aoun, then-prime minister, left the Presidential Palace and sought refuge in the French Embassy and he was later allowed to travel to France. He returned to Lebanon on May 7, 2005, eleven days after the withdrawal of Syrian troops. In 2006, as head of the FPM, he signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Hizbullah. He visited Syria in 2009.

Lebanon needs donations, not loans, for refugee crisis: Safadi
October 13, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Lebanon needs donations, not loans, to cope with the Syrian refugee crisis in the country, caretaker Finance Minister Mohammad Safadi said over the weekend.
“We cannot be asked to take loans to secure the needs of refugees. We will never accept to make such a move,” Safadi said during a conference in Washington discussing the repercussions of the Syrian crisis on Lebanon.
“Lebanon has always been committed to international conventions and it has the right to ask the international community to support it and offer the country donations so that the state will be able to secure the needs of the Lebanese first and the refugees second,” he added. During the conference, Safadi submitted a four-point economic roadmap for Lebanon to ease the repercussions of the Syrian conflict on the country.
He said the plan was prepared by Lebanon in cooperation with the World Bank. Safadi said that plan consists of financing pending projects in the county as soon as possible, preparing projects for medium-sized enterprises and funding them from a multiple donors fund for refugees, establishing sustainable development projects that would work for infrastructure reforms and private sector investment, as well as promoting private sector participation in the Lebanese market, including services such as energy, electricity, water and transport. The conference was attended by representatives of the United States, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany, Italy, China, Holland and Sweden. Lebanon has been facing major challenges in dealing with the rising number of Syrian refugees fleeing violence in their country.
There are more than 789,000 Syrian refugees presently in the country according to U.N. figures, but Lebanese officials put the number closer to 1.3 million. Many Syrian refugees present in Lebanon have not registered with the U.N.An international meeting last month at the U.N. General Assembly in New York saw an additional $339 million pledged in humanitarian aid aimed at responding to the Syrian crisis. It included $74 million for Lebanon to support refugees.

New Cabinet, strong president needed: Geagea
October 13, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Delays in forming a Cabinet only damage Lebanon’s democratic system, said Lebanese Force leader Samir Geagea over the weekend, urging the president and prime-minister designate to get on with the task of forming the next government after six months of political deadlock. “The delays in forming the government are killing our democratic system and Constitution,” Geagea told the annual conference of the European branch of the Lebanese Forces over Skype Saturday. “What are both heads of state [President Michel Sleiman and Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam] waiting for after six months in order to form the government, particularly given that the stances of political rivals over the new Cabinet formula they desire are now clear?” he asked. Geagea said that the Constitution grants Sleiman and Salam the right to establish the Cabinet in the form they see fit following consultations with parliamentary blocs. “If the delay persists then, unfortunately, the presidents are responsible for obstructing the system although this is not their intention,” he said.
Salam was tasked with forming the new Cabinet in April of this year but differences between political rivals have repeatedly stalled his efforts. Geagea, a leading member in the March 14 alliance, also called for the election of “strong president” arguing against the notion that only a “consensual” head of state could rule. “I call for the election of a strong president for the republic, one who will implement a certain political program and plan,” the LF chief said. “It is wrong to say that the president should be consensual,” he said, adding: “It is true that the president of the republic should be for all the Lebanese but this does not mean he should have no opinion or lack a political plan.”Earlier this week, Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt said Lebanon’s new president should be “consensual.” Caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel said earlier this week that the extension of Sleiman’s term was inevitable should officials fail to form a new government.  Turning to regional affairs, Geagea said Christians should forge ties with moderate Muslims. “The confrontation in the Middle East is currently between the moderates and the extremists,” he said. “Christians should ally with moderate Muslims, who form the majority, against all extremism,” he said. On Syria, Geagea, a supporter of the revolt against President Bashar Assad, said a solution to the crisis in Lebanon’s neighbor had become increasingly difficult
 

Monsignor Labaki's Family Urges Christian Interference with Vatican, Appeal in Sexual Abuse Case
Naharnet/The family of Monsignor Mansour Labaki urged on Saturday Christian figures in the country to intervene with high authorities at the Vatican to allow an appeal in the case of the Maronite father.
Labaki was charged by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican with sexually abusing several minors, LBCI television reported on Tuesday, quoting the French magazine La Croix. "We urge Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi, Beirut Maronite Bishop Boulos Matar, the Maronite Bishops council and all bishops and monks to intervene with Vatican authorities,” the family of Labaki urged at a press conference.
"We call on them and on the colleagues of Labaki and his students to get Pope Francis' blessings to allow an appeal in the case.”According to the French magazine's report, the Vatican's office charged Labaki on June 19 after a two-years investigations. The Monsignor reportedly appealed the sentence, but his appeal was rejected by Rome, the LBCI noted. He was sentenced to a life of penitence and he will also be banned from conducting any ecclesiastical duties or participating in public appearances, La Croix said. Labaki, 73, is a well-known figure in Lebanon and is the founder of a spiritual movement called Lo Tedhal. He has also written several books, and composed famous hymns. Source/Naharnet.

Charbel: Second Phase of Tripoli Security Plan Not Enforced yet, Needs Political Solutions
Naharnet /Caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel stated that the Lebanese army is performing its duties in the northern city of Tripoli “within its capabilities,” reported the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat on Sunday.
He told the daily: “A security plan for the city has been put into effect. The first phase has been implemented, but the second one requires political agreement and solutions.”
He explained that the first phase of the plan calls for setting up security checkpoints at the entrances of the city in order to prevent the entry of booby-trapped vehicles.
The plan was devised in light of twin bombings near two mosques in the city in August, which left 45 people dead and over 800 wounded. “The second phase of the plan needs political agreement and solutions in order for the security forces to take action on the ground,” said Charbel. “This phase needs more than just political positions,” he added. He therefore revealed that a meeting with caretaker Premier Najib Miqati and the security committee tasked with implementing the plan will be held after Eid al-Adha to follow up on the matter. The Eid al-Adha holiday falls on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Asked if there is a shortage in the number of security forces to implement the plan, Charbel replied: “If we reach political agreement, then we will need no more forces than the ones currently at our disposal.”Earlier this week, Charbel explained that the Tripoli security plan calls for the army to intervene between the gunmen in the rival Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen neighborhoods. It also calls for the security forces to protect the city from bomb attacks. The authorities have implemented a similar plan in the Hizbullah stronghold of Beirut's southern suburbs where several blasts have also left several casualties. Clashes erupted on Friday between gunmen in Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen after the Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau detained Youssef Diab, a member of the Arab Democratic Party, the main political and armed group in Jabal Mohsen. The arrest prompted the residents and supporters of Jabal Mohsen to open fire, provoking Bab al-Tabbaneh residents. On Saturday, General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim toured the checkpoints in Tripoli and instructed the security members to “implement the Tripoli's security plan in coordination with security agencies to maintain stability in the area.”
 

Iraq Kurd chief ready to hit militants in Syria, Iraq
October 13, 2013/By Mohamad Ali Harissi/Daily Star
ARBIL, Iraq: Iraqi Kurdistan is prepared to strike militants anywhere, including neighbouring Syria, but the Kurds must avoid being drawn into its civil war, the autonomous region's president Massud Barzani told AFP.
Barzani's remarks came after militants carried out a late-September attack on a security service headquarters in the Kurdish region's capital Arbil, killing seven people -- a rare occurrence in an area usually spared the violence plaguing other parts of Iraq. "We will not hesitate in directing strikes (against) the terrorist criminals in any place," Barzani said in an exclusive interview with AFP, when asked about the possibility of Kurdish action against militants in Iraq or Syria. "Our duty is to protect the Kurds if we are able," he said. But the long-time Kurdish leader made a distinction between that and being drawn into Syria's bloody civil war, which he said the Kurds must try to avoid. "Our opinion is that the Kurds must stand at the same distance" from all parties in the conflict, so "the Kurdish people are not forced into a war" from which they will gain nothing, Barzani said.
But Syrian Kurdish forces have already been drawn into the fighting, clashing with jihadist groups fighting President Bashar al-Assad's troops, who want to secure a land corridor connecting them to Iraq.
The violence has pushed tens of thousands of Syrian Kurds across the border, seeking refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan. And Barzani has previously threatened to intervene in the Syrian conflict to protect Kurdish civilians, although officials have since backtracked on his remarks. Barzani also said in the interview that Iraqi Kurdistan had provided military training to Syrian Kurds so they could defend their communities -- the first public acknowledgement that this was done. "A number of young (men) were trained, but truly not with the aim of entering the war," Barzani said. In claiming the September 29 attack in Arbil, which killed seven security force personnel and wounded more than 60 people, Al-Qaeda front group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant also pointed to Syria.
The group said the attack on the Kurdish asayesh security service headquarters with suicide bombers, gunfire and car bombs was in response to Barzani's alleged willingness to provide support to the government in Baghdad and to Kurdish forces battling jihadists in Syria. The attack was the first of its kind to hit Arbil since May 2007, when a truck bomb exploded near the same headquarters, killing 14 people and wounding more than 80.
Barzani also discussed the future of the Kurdish people, saying that they have a right to self-determination and statehood, but that this will not be accomplished through violence. a natural right for there to be a state for the Kurdish people, but this will not be achieved by violence, and must be done in a natural way," Barzani said. This "age is the age of understanding, and we encourage dialogue between the Kurds and... the states" where Kurdish populations live, he said. Four countries -- Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran -- host major Kurdish populations, which have faced decades of discrimination.
In Iraq, the Kurds now have a three-province autonomous region in the country's north with its own government, security forces, flag and borders. Although Kurdistan and the federal government in Baghdad moved to reduce high tensions earlier this year, they are still at odds over a number of issues. Iraqi Kurdistan has sought to establish a pipeline that would give it access to international energy markets, sent crude across the border to neighbouring Turkey, and signed deals with foreign energy firms. It has also capitalised on its reputation for greater safety and stability, as well as a faster-growing economy than the rest of Iraq, to solicit investment independent of the federal government. All this has angered Baghdad, and the two sides are also locked in a protracted dispute over the Kurds' long-standing demands for the incorporation of other traditionally Kurdish-majority areas into their autonomous region. Barzani also said that political disputes and rampant violence that is killing hundreds of people in Iraq each month will likely not be resolved before parliamentary elections next year.
"I do not believe that the fundamental problems will be resolved until these elections," Barzani said, adding that "there is real fear ... that the conflicts will develop into a civil war."

Ahead of talks, Iran rejects shipping out uranium
October 13, 2013/By Mohammad Davari/Daily Star
TEHRAN: Iran will not agree to ship out its stockpile of enriched uranium, one of its main negotiators said Sunday ahead of crunch talks with world powers on its nuclear programme. "We will negotiate about the volume, levels and the methods of enrichment but shipping out the (enriched) material is a red line for Iran," deputy foreign minister Abbas Araqchi told the state broadcaster. The remarks came on the eve of two-day talks in Geneva, the first meeting between Iranian negotiators and world powers since President Hassan Rouhani, a reputed moderate, took office in August. The red line adds to Tehran's insistence on what it considers its "right" to a uranium enrichment programme on its soil -- a process that can fuel civilian objectives but, in its more advanced form, yield the fissile core of a bomb. Iran currently has a stockpile of 6,774 kilogrammes of low-level uranium enriched, and nearly 186 kg of medium-enriched material with 20 percent purity, according to latest figures by the UN nuclear watchdog in September. It also possesses some 187 kg of the 20 percent material converted to uranium oxide for use in fuel plates. The UN Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend uranium enrichment and has imposed crippling sanctions on the country.
Araqchi said Iran would "remove all of (the) rational concerns of the other side," referring to suspicions in the West and Israel that Tehran is pursuing nuclear arms under the guise of a civilian energy programme, a claim the Islamic state vehemently denies. "They always claim that they are not opposed to a peaceful nuclear energy (programme) in Iran but are against nuclear weapons," Araqchi said.
"When we give them the confidence that Iran has no (nuclear) military programme on its agenda, they will have their victory." As for Iran, he said, the Islamic state's objective is the recognition of "its rights in the field of enrichment." "We will not back down one iota from what the Iranian people are entitled to under international regulations," he added. Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is Iran's top negotiator with the so-called P5+1 group of the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia plus Germany.
But Araqchi said he will lead the Iranian team in the talks with European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and representatives from the P5+1 countries as Zarif will only attend the opening meeting.
"The Iranian negotiating team will present a specific plan ... which we hope will produce results in a logical time period," Araqchi said. A source close to Iranian negotiators earlier told the official IRNA news agency that Iran's proposals envisage "a clear path" for the talks, and include a timetable and a framework with "specified first and last steps." "The intermediate steps will be defined after the first ones are taken," the unnamed source said, adding that the proposal would be presented in PowerPoint. The talks in Geneva come amid raised hopes of a diplomatic resolution to the decade-long standoff following pledges made by Rouhani to engage with the major powers in order to secure the lifting of the sanctions. However Rouhani's diplomatic outreach to the West has provoked criticism from hardliners, including the commander of the powerful Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, who has questioned the president for holding an historic telephone call with US President Barack Obama. Jafari on Sunday renewed his hardline position with an ambiguous warning, saying: "It is not in the offing that we must relinquish our rights."

Bushehr builder Kiriyenko is live wire in Obama-Khamenei backdoor dialogue. Putin gives impetus
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report October 13, 2013/Sergei Kiriyenko, director of the Russian Atomic Agency Rosatom and the builder of Iran’s first nuclear reactor at Bushehr, is one of the live wires behind the secret deal on Iran’s nuclear program worked out between the White House in Washington, the Kremlin in Moscow and the Tehran office of Iran’s leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This is revealed by debkafile’s sources in Washington, Moscow and Tehran. Kiryenko, one of Putin’s most trusted adviser on nuclear affairs, divided his time in July and August between Tehran, Moscow and the southern Iranian town of Bushehr. There, he set up a team of Farsi-speaking Russian nuclear scientists for start-ups of joint Russian-Iranian nuclear projects.
Those scientists are most likely the only foreigners personally familiar with all the key players of Iran’s nuclear program, including those known to Russian intelligence to be engaged in weapons work.
According to our sources, President Putin drafted this team into the project for drawing up, under Kiriyenko’s guidance, the text of a nuclear accord for Tehran and Washington to sign. This text was to be modeled on the US-Russian accord for the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons that Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov concluded in Geneva on Sept. 14.
Then, too, a Russian team was employed through the month of August to collate all the US, Russian and Syrian position papers on the subject, translate them into diplomatic language and compile accords, most of whose sections remain classified up to the present, except for those applying to implementation in the field.
That team was headed by Russian deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov, holder of the Syrian portfolio in the Russian foreign ministry, in Putin’s Kremlin bureau and in Russian intelligence.
A tight veil of secrecy has been drawn by Washington, Moscow, Damascus and Tehran over the two Russian teams for Syria and Iran and their mode of operation.
However, debkafile’s sources can reveal how the mechanism has worked for producing a document of understanding between Washington and Tehran:
The general framework of the document was drafted by Presidents Barack Obama and Putin and passed to Kiriyenko and his team. They broke it down into segments or topics and analyzed them one by one against the current state of Iran’s nuclear program. The paper was then put before the Iranian experts and developed, section by section, into an agreed Russian-Iranian text.
Sergei Kiriyenko then went into action on the two tasks assigned him by Putin:
1. To bring the Russian-Iranian draft in line with the US-Russian accord.
2. If the Iranian experts balked at the draft, Kiriyenko was to turn to higher authority in Tehran - President Hassan Rouhani or Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran-AEOI to clear up points of disagreement.
If they too withheld approval of the draft, Kiriyenko put their objections before President Putin. He was to get together with Obama and return to the drawing board to compile a revised accord..
A senior Israeli defense official on a visit to Washington was asked last week what answer Ayatollah Khamenei would receive if he asked Salehi: “Can we develop a nuclear weapon whenever we want?” The answer would be “Yes,” said the Israeli official. After the two presidents saw eye to eye, the text was referred to Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov, to be couched in formal language as accords. Buts of those documents will be put on the negotiating table as agreed proposals when the Six Powers and Iran meet in Geneva on Oct. 15.

Netanyahu warns France, UK against lifting Iran sanctions

By TOVAH LAZAROFF/10/12/2013/J.Post/
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned French and British leaders over the weekend not to lift sanctions against Iran precisely when they appear to be working. In advance of the six party diplomatic talks scheduled to be held in Geneva on Tuesday and Wednesday, Netanyahu spoke by telephone with French President François Hollande and British Prime Minister David Cameron. France and Great Britain will participate in the P5+1 talks, along with the US, China, Russia and Germany and Iran. Netanyahu made the calls as part of his diplomatic and media blitz to sway the international community not to be fooled by conciliatory tones out of Iran. He supports diplomatic initiatives to avert a nuclear Iran, but fears the international community will accept a compromise on this issue that will allow Tehran to avoid dismantling its nuclear weapons facilities and removing enriched uranium from the country. In an interview with The New York Times published on Friday, Netanyahu pointed to photographs in his office of two men who had also been on solitary international missions: British prime minister Winston Churchill – who warned of the dangers of Nazi Germany in the 1930s – and the father of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl. “They were alone a lot more than I am,” Netanyahu said. Of the role he has taken on in warning the world against a nuclear Iran, he told the Times, “We’re here for a purpose – I’m here for a purpose. Which is to defend the future of the Jewish people, which means to defend the Jewish state. Defending it from a nuclear Iran.
“I’m not going to let that happen,” he said. “It’s not going to happen.”Official Israeli diplomatic sources said on Saturday night that the prime minister told Hollande and Cameron sanctions were close to achieving the desired result, of forcing Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.
The sanctions should continue and be amplified until this happens, Netanyahu said.
The international community should not be satisfied until Iran has stopped enriching uranium, has dismantled the machinery to do so and has removed all enriched uranium from the country, he said.
According to the diplomatic sources, Netanyahu told the French and British leaders not to forget that Tehran had ignored the UN Security Council on the nuclear issue, was behind terrorist attacks on five continents and had participated in the massacres taking place in Syria. Hollande promised Netanyahu that his country would take a tough stance with regard to Iran, and would wait to see if Tehran’s words were reflected by actions, according to AFP. The French president is expected to visit Israel next month.
US State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters in Washington on Friday that when it came to Iran’s nuclear program, “words aren’t enough; we need to see action.”
She said the US agrees with Israel that “sanctions are the reason the Iranians may be using more conciliatory tones today. But what we’re all focused on is seeing what they come with substantively.”
Stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is the highest national priority for both Israel and the US, as well as for the region as a whole, Harf said. “That’s why the president’s been clear that we will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, that all options remain on the table,” she said. But it was important to try to resolve the issue through diplomacy, she said, “in large part because the alternative has a lot of incredibly grave consequences that would go along with it.”Netanyahu is likely to address the issue when he speaks to the Knesset plenum on Monday.
Since 2006, the Islamic Republic has crossed several thresholds deemed unacceptable by the West and Israel. Iran built a second uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, deep underground near the Shi’ite holy city of Qom, started producing uranium to a level closer to that suitable for bombs, and installed advanced centrifuges able to enrich much faster. Illustrating the nuclear program’s growth and increasing complexity, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s reports have more than doubled in length, to 14 pages this year from just five in 2006.
Despite a more moderate tone from Iran under President Hassan Rouhani, Vienna-based diplomats say they see no clear indication that Iran is putting the brakes on its nuclear drive. Between May and August this year, it installed an additional 1,861 old-generation centrifuges at its main enrichment site near the town of Natanz, bringing the total to 15,416, although only about 60 percent of them seemed to be in operation. At the same time, Iran completed putting in place 1,008 advanced so-called IR-2m centrifuges at Natanz and was planning to test them, the IAEA said in a report issued in late August. At Fordow, it continued to produce medium-enriched uranium – refined to 20 percent concentration of the fissile isotope – with 700 IR-1 centrifuges out of a total of 2,710 installed. In addition, it has 328 IR-1 machines producing the same medium-enriched material in a research and development facility in the Natanz complex, as well as nearly 400 centrifuges of various models it is testing, including more advanced ones.
Iran’s total number of centrifuges – machines that spin at supersonic speed to separate the fissile U-235 isotope – comes to over 19,800. The fact that many of them remain idle suggests that it could sharply ramp up production at short notice. “Iran could quickly begin feeding natural uranium into these cascades [linked networks of centrifuges] and more than double its enrichment capacity,” said David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security think tank. Iran says it makes the centrifuges itself, but nuclear experts believe it likely needs to procure components and materials for the equipment abroad, evading sanctions aimed at stopping the trade.
Reuters contributed to this report.

Egypt strongman raps Hagel over US decision to cut aid
By REUTERS, ARIEL BEN SOLOMON/10/13/2013//J.Post/Egypt does not appreciate the way in which the US hints at suspending aid from time to time, army chief Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sisi communicated in a strongly worded message to US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel during a conversation last Thursday. This is especially true when dealing with a country the size of Egypt, the military leader added.Egypt rejects any external pressure that seeks to affect its domestic affairs, Sisi said, according to a military source quoted on Friday in the London- based daily Al-Hayat. A US decision to curtail military and economic aid to Egypt to promote democracy may backfire, pushing Cairo to seek assistance elsewhere and giving Washington less leverage to stabilize the Arab world’s most populous country.
Washington faces a dilemma in dealing with Egypt. Cairo controls the Suez Canal and has a peace treaty with Israel, but its army overthrew the first freely elected president, Islamist Mohamed Morsi, in July.
The United States said on Wednesday it would withhold deliveries of tanks, fighter aircraft, helicopters and missiles to Cairo as well as $260 million in cash aid to push the army-backed government to steer the nation toward democracy. Egypt’s government, the second- largest recipient of US aid after Israel, said it would not bow to American pressure. The country’s military, which has been leading the crackdown against Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood, can afford to be even more defiant. Hundreds of Brotherhood members were killed and about 2,000 Islamist activists and Brotherhood leaders, including Morsi, were arrested.
Sisi has emerged as the most popular public figure in Egypt, and he is well aware that many Egyptians have both turned sharply against the Brotherhood and bitterly concluded that Washington supports the movement.
At the same time, many Brotherhood members believe the Obama administration was behind what it calls a military coup. With its credibility in question, Washington has little chance of getting the two sides to compromise and take part in a democratic, inclusive political process.
Even the European Union, which is seen as far more neutral, has made little headway. Most worrying for the US is the possibility that the Egyptian army – the largest in the Arab world – will turn to a rival country for aid after decades of close ties to Washington. The US has long provided Egypt with about $1.55 billion in annual aid, including $1.3b. for the military. Military officials told Reuters that the country’s generals have grown mistrustful of the US throughout the political crisis that erupted after Morsi’s overthrow. They were infuriated from early on when the US began hinting that action could be taken to demonstrate Washington’s displeasure at Morsi’s removal. Military officials said they were not surprised by the reduction in aid. “There is a saying among us that ‘whoever is covered by the Americans is in fact naked,’” one military source said. “Americans shift their positions based on their interests and don’t have principles. But we also know that whatever they say or hint they would do, in the end they will not want to lose Egypt.”
Egypt’s army is exploring its options. “The military definitely has plans to diversify its source of weapons which include going to Russia,” said the military source, who did not elaborate.
El-Watan newspaper, which is close to the army, quoted a military source as saying that Egypt will soon announce deals for arms from “new markets other than America” that are of the same standard as ones from the US.
The paper reported on Saturday that it could turn to Russia or China instead of the US. Sources told the paper that the Egypt Defense Ministry has already contacted its Russian counterpart in order to cooperate militarily.
These communications began about three months ago when Egypt anticipated a possible cutoff in aid.
The US is also pressuring Germany to stop exporting weapons to Egypt, according to the report.
American efforts to sell democracy in Egypt and return the Brotherhood to politics have deepened long-standing mistrust of the US.
Conspiracy theories about American plans to divide Egypt and the greater Middle East have mushroomed, with some of the plots detailed in diagrams in newspapers.
“Screw the American aid,” read one banner newspaper headline in red. In one part of Cairo, a poster of the American president with a white beard reads “Obama is a terrorist.”Military officials buy in to some of the conspiracy theories, including one which suggests that Israel wants Islamists in power in the Middle East to keep the region unstable. “Islamists ruling Arabs would be enough to ensure that Israel remain the biggest power in the region,” one colonel said. Support from Gulf Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, which were happy to see Morsi go because of their loathing of the Brotherhood, could give Egypt room for maneuver if it decides to move away from the US.
After Morsi was deposed, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates promised Egypt a total of $12b. in loans, grants and fuel shipments. The aid has kept the economy afloat and may give Egypt some policy flexibility. “Compared to Gulf aid, American aid is peanuts. It won’t financially affect Egypt and could easily be filled by Gulf countries,” said Abdullah al-Askar, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in Saudi Arabia’s Shoura Council, an appointed parliament that has only advisory powers. “People in the Gulf do not see [cutting the aid] as a democratic message. Otherwise why is America allowing the Syrian regime to continue killing people every day?” Both Saudi Arabia and Egypt – America’s most important allies in the Arab world – are frustrated with US policy and see Washington as an indecisive superpower.
“The US position is not clear and not understood and comes at a time when Egypt needs help,” a government official said. “For sure the US will lose the support of the Egyptian people and it is natural that the void it leaves by its loss of the Egyptian people will benefit another power in the world.”Israel also has issues with the American approach in Egypt. Jerusalem welcomed in private the downfall of Morsi and urged Washington behind the scenes to provide full support to the new military-backed government in Cairo. “I would not be surprised, by the way, if tomorrow or the day after, the Saudis and others begin to hold talks with the Russians under the carpet in order to ensure there will be a protective umbrella when the time comes,” former defence minister and current Labor MK Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told Israel Radio. Sisi has promised a political road map will bring free and fair elections.
He is not under any real pressure from Egyptians to speed up the process, and Egyptian officials won’t take it too kindly if the US keeps pressing the military.
“Any inch Obama loses, another power will gain and we will not mind,” said the government official.

Iran: No speculations on nuclear talks please, we have a plan
By JPOST.COM STAFF/10/13/2013 09:04
At talks with world powers on Iran's nuclear program scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday in Geneva, Iran was reportedly prepared to present a three-step proposal aimed at garnering Western recognition of Tehran's "right to enrich" uranium.The first stage of the Iranian package reportedly calls on the P5+1 members - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, the US - to commit to acknowledging "Iran's right to enrich the soil," Iranian semi-official ISNA news agency reported Saturday. However, Iranian officials allegedly believe that without an agreement on the first phase of the proposal, continued nuclear negotiations will be "difficult and perhaps impossible," according to ISNA. Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Sunday that completely getting rid of its stockpile of enriched uranium will not be an option during upcoming P5+1 talks in Geneva, rejecting a key demand of world powers due to resume nuclear negotiations. "We will negotiate about the volume, levels and the methods of enrichment but shipping out the (enriched) material is a red line for Iran," Araqchi said.
Meanwhile, Senior Iranian lawmaker Mohammad-Hassan Asafari says Western governments should begin lifting sanctions before upcoming nuclear talks in Geneva in order to show their good faith in relations with the Islamic Republic, Iran's IRNA news agency reported on Saturday. For example, the official said, they could lift the ban on imports of Iranian oil by China, India and Japan before talks begin to show their good faith.
A concrete timetable must be made in order for nuclear talks to yield results, he added.
He also told IRNA that uranium enrichment is Iran's inalienable right, and is a matter that should not be discussed during this week's talks in Geneva.
A Wall Street Journal report on Tuesday said Iran was reportedly prepared to offer to halt enriching uranium to levels of 20% purity during talks, as well as offer to open the country's nuclear facilities to more intrusive international inspections. The Islamic Republic was also considering offering to close the underground uranium-enrichment facility near Qom, according to the report.
In return for meeting the key demand of the P5+1 group, Tehran was reportedly set to ask the US and EU to start easing economic sanctions, the the Wall Street Journal reported. The US delegation to the upcoming talks about Iran's nuclear program includes one of the US government's leading sanctions experts, a hint that Washington may be giving greater thought to how it might ease sanctions on Tehran. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, effectively the State Department's third-ranking diplomat, will lead the US delegation to negotiations between Iran and six major powers in Geneva on Tuesday and Wednesday, the State Department said.
The central issue at the talks, which will involve Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United States and Iran, will be to explore what, if any, steps Iran might take to curb its nuclear program and what, if any, sanctions relief the major powers may offer in return. Western powers are concerned that Iran is seeking to develop atomic bombs. Iran denies that, saying its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.
Reuters contributed to this report.

Netanyahu: Wave of terrorism disturbs 'quietest year in a decade'
By JPOST.COM STAFF, TOVAH LAZAROFF
10/13/2013/The relative silence of the "quietest year in over a decade" has been disturbed by the increase of terrorist activities in recent weeks, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told his cabinet on Sunday morning, just after a Palestinian tunnel from Gaza into Israel was uncovered. "I want to commend the IDF for exposing the terror tunnel," Netanyahu said."Its part of our policy, a policy of aggression against terror, with elimination, with intelligence work, with activities that we initiate and react to and of course with Operation Pillar of Defense," Netanyahu said.
Separately, security forces are investigating the murder of Col (res.) Sraya "Yaya" Ofer, Netanyahu said.
Ofer was killed early Friday morning outside his home in Brosh Habika in the Jordan Valley.
Last Saturday, a nine-year-old girl was wounded in a suspected terror attack at her home in the West Bank settlement of Psagot.
In September, two IDF soldier were killed in the West Bank. "The suffering over the loss of your son is difficult. The criminal incident proves once again that the fight against terrorism is constant," Army Radio quoted Netanyahu as saying to the family of slain IDF soldier Sgt. Tomer Hazan. In light of the IDF's exposure of the tunnel leading from Gaza, the Coordinator of Activities in the Territories, Major-General Eitan Dangot, called for Israel to stop the transfer of construction materials to the enclave, Israel Radio reported. Leaders from communities near the Gaza border called for the IDF to revoke a previous decision to pull soldiers out from deployments on frontline communities near the northern and southern borders. Haim Yalin, head of the Eshkol Regional Council said the discovery of the tunnel prevented disaster, according to the radio station.
Meanwhile, MK Omer Bar-Lev (Labor) on Sunday called on the IDF to provide maximum security to residents of communities near the border with the Gaza Strip.
"This morning we received a reminder that terrorism exists and that it could erupt at any moment," Bar-Lev said in response to an announcement earlier in the day of the IDF's discovery of a Palestinian terrorist tunnel.
**Yaakov Lappin contributed to this report.

Prospects for Syria are Growing Bleaker
By: Written by : Michel Kilo/Asharq Alawsat
The Syrian scene is witnessing significant transformations that are changing the nature of the battle raging there. This is not only because of the new armed forces joining the ones that have been fighting for more than 30 months, but also due to the new agendas that do not mesh with with the ideological, intellectual and political ones Syria has grown accustomed to throughout this long struggle.
At this point in time, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is being forced out of the areas it took from the regime. With this in mind, it is possible to say that if the area extending from the Iraqi borders to the eastern part of the Syrian coast through Idlib falls into the hands of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the nature of the revolution will change. As a result, the revolution will be limited to isolated enclaves in Idlib and Hama—the situation in both is almost normal—as well as Homs. As for Damascus, the regime succeeded in separating the city from its two Ghouta districts where it continues to murder people daily whether by artillery, rocket launchers, warplanes, or by letting its people perish out of hunger and thirst. Finally, in Deraa, the regime established a strong defense line to separate the battles in Hauran and reduce their effect on the battle of Damascus.
These developments threaten to split Syria into two areas that, although one is ultra-nationalist and the other religious, are different in appearance yet similar in essence given the tyranny they are subjected to. They also threaten to fragment and tear apart the FSA and the entire civil and democratic uprising, minimizing their role in the revolution, especially if my fears of the receding influence of the FSA prove to be accurate.
Moreover, there are two worrisome phenomena in Syria: First, the media campaign targeting the Syrian National Coalition, damaging its reputation and accusing it of being a sell-out regarding its attitude towards Geneva II. Secondly, the creation of a military alliance under the name of the “Islamist Army,” with which Islamist organizations intend to replace the “National Army” or render it superfluous. In fact, Islamists consider the National Army as taking on a character contradictory to their own, believing that its existence will inevitably lead to an armed conflict between themselves and other revolutionaries. This sentiment has been echoed by the some members of the SNC, when I proposed that the legal committee prepare a decree forming the National Army.
Are we heading towards a situation where there are three anti-FSA—or anti-National Army—forces active in Syria? These forces are the regime, foreign jihadists, and the proposed Islamist Army.
Since the announcement of its inception, the Islamist army gave the impression that it aimed at blocking the formation of the National Army. On the other hand, many voices from within the FSA—which will form the core of the National Army—denied the legitimacy of its current leadership. This is not to mention the other voices denying in turn the legitimacy of any measures proposed, accusing a wide range of the SNC members of treason. These very voices take an extremely strict attitude towards the interim government, as well as rallying their supporters against it.
With these developments, the Syria political arena enters a new stage where neither the people who ignited the revolution nor those who have sacrificed their lives—whether from the civil and democratic forces or the FSA—in defense of Syrians and their values will have any role. Instead, there will be jihadist organizations that, together with their supporters, will be necessary for the survival of Bashar Al-Assad regime.
In fact, Assad’s regime has planned since the eruption of the revolution to establish organization that claim to want to replace him but in fact have not done anything apart from forcing the FSA out of the areas it liberated. The real function of these groups is to intimidate the world into accepting the survival of the Assad regime.
This scenario is not a product of my imagination. It has been implemented for months across our homeland, posing existential challenges to our people and the forces demanding freedom, justice, equality and the preservation of the unity of the state and society. Today, Syrians are threatened with a future more dangerous than anything they have ever faced.
 

Downsides Of The War On Terror
Abdullah Iskandar/Asharq Alawsat
The current US administration is proud to have achieved substantial success in confronting the Al-Qaeda organization, and terrorist groups in general, in the world and inside the United States. Indeed, President Barack Obama, like his administration’s spokespersons, never misses an opportunity to focus on this aspect of US strategy.
Alongside the process of military withdrawal from the arena of the two wars waged by the previous Republican administration, the current Democratic administration is engaged in a kind of political withdrawal as well, considering that the priority should be to persist in the war against Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups, and that the US strategy in the region should be in the service of this war.
The strategy of the War on Terror can be summed up, in terms of field operations, in focusing on the assassination of targets accused of terrorist activity that has affected American interests or persons, by way of unmanned drone strikes or swift commando operations.
Such a strategy spares the US from sending troops on the ground, with what this would entail in terms of logistic, financial and political complications, thus ensuring local support for the administration in its domestic battles, especially in Congress. Yet at the same time, such a strategy introduces fundamental changes to the way the United States deals with the issues of the Middle East – which are in the first place connected to the US War on Terror – and in fact leads to repercussions that negatively affect historical relations between the United States and the countries of the region.
Under the slogan of focusing the battle on terrorism, President Obama’s administration has placed the United States’ main allies in both the Arab and Muslim worlds in a position of extreme embarrassment. Indeed, it clings to its airstrikes against the citizens of some of those countries, exposing the latter’s governments to criticism and accusations of treason by violating their sovereignty. At the same time, Washington urges those governments to organize military campaigns on their own soil against locations that are supposed to be safe havens for terrorists and extremists. On the other hand, that same administration assumes a position of criticism, condemnation and threats to cut aid, every time authorities in these countries take practical steps in the field of the War on Terror, after accusing them of violating human rights, infringing on democracy, etc… This at the end of the day weakens those authorities and undermines their ability to take action at the domestic level, driving them to further failure – and this is what has happened in Pakistan and in Yemen, for example.
In addition to the current state of harsh division and the likelihood of internal armed conflicts erupting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, coinciding with the US military withdrawal, in view of the lack of clarity of the American vision regarding the alternatives that could ensure a certain extent of stability in the two countries, Iran has found its way through the cracks, expanding its influence in the region and filling the vacuum caused by the absence of an American vision. This has taken place at the expense of those countries in the region that ensure, through the sources of energy they hold, strategic depth for the United States. Thus Iran has overwhelmed Iraq and has broadly infiltrated the remaining countries of the region, reaching the shores of the Mediterranean in Lebanon and Syria. The recent phone call between Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rohani has come to somehow reinforce this trend, which is arousing a great deal of fear and concern among the remaining countries of the region, whether with regards to repercussions in the Gulf or on the issue of Syria. Indeed, the way the US has dealt with the latter has been, from the beginning, governed by the obsession with the War on Terror. Thus, in the American mind, the peaceful protest movement of a people who have suffered for decades under the rule of a tyrant and oppressor became mixed up with the actions of suicide bombers who target US interests. Such a mix up has led, and continues to lead, to a lack of realistic vision of the significance of what is happening in Syria, going as far as to grossly exaggerate the role played by extremist fighters. In fact, this latter issue has for the administration become tantamount to confirmation of its fears about terrorism and of the necessity of persisting in the strategy of fighting it, without paying heed to the political significance that lies behind ceasing to understand and support popular aspirations. Thus, the strategy of the War on Terror, the way it is being applied by the US administration in our countries, becomes counterproductive. Indeed, terrorism and extremism are spreading, and with them widens the sphere of confrontations and local wars, while the margin of freedom and pluralism narrows.

An American Gift For Sisi
Elias Harfoush/Asharq Alawsat
If General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is in need to complete his image as a national hero who represents “the symbol of Egypt’s dignity and the freedom of its decision,” and who stands up to all those who meddle in its internal affairs, he has now been given an opportunity on a golden platter to do just that, with the recent U.S. decision to curtail military and financial aid to the Egyptian army.
Perhaps Sisi does not need for matters to reach a dramatic extent equal to what we saw under Nasser with the nationalization of the Suez Canal. Moreover, he is not able to bring about a radical coup in military ties between the Egyptian and American armies, in a flipped version of what Sadat had done when he expelled Soviet experts from Egypt in 1972.
To be sure, circumstances in Egypt and the treaties it has to abide by at this stage (especially Camp David) do not permit the restoration of the nationalistic glare of Gamal Abdel Nasser, despite some Egyptian nostalgia to that era. Likewise, they do not allow for all of Egypt’s eggs to be taken out of the American basket in retaliation for the U.S. recent decision. But certainly, Egyptian-American ties are undergoing a phase that, to say the least, is critical, ever since July 3. The recent U.S. decision was the culmination of this phase.
The U.S. administration can deem this decision to be symbolic and temporary, aiming at not more than sending a ‘clear message’ to Cairo, after the toppling of President Mohamed Morsi and the emergence of the current interim administration. However, the decision for many Egyptian officials is more than symbolic. They see it as a flagrant and brazen meddling in internal Egyptian affairs.
Regardless of the justifications for the U.S. decision, and how it relates to developments after July 3, what is indisputable is that the decision is more than three months late. This delay makes it appear as though the decision was made to serve Sisi’s opponents, more than to serve the principles cited by the Obama administration in making its decision – that is, the pretense of defending democracy and human rights in Egypt. Indeed, those who want to defend these principles should have made the appropriate decision at the appropriate time. If they had made up their mind back then, they could have spared Egypt, the Egyptians, and the military administration itself the political and security crises they faced in attempting to control the internal situation.
In other words, the leverage the U.S. administration had with the leaders of the Egyptian army on the one hand, and with the leaders of the former Muslim Brotherhood-led administration, on the other, could have set up a road map to forestall the sharp polarization now seen in the Egyptian street, ultimately leading to national reconciliation without excluding any side from the political process.
Now, after this reconciliation became more elusive, especially with the recent decision to dissolve the Muslim Brotherhood, the decision to curtail U.S. aid will only further increase the popularity of the current administration in Egypt, especially after the positive reactions to Sisi’s response to the U.S. defense secretary’s phone call notifying him of the decision. Sisi told the secretary that Egypt does not bow down to any foreign pressure meant to influence its internal decisions.
On top of that, the Egyptians can only understand Washington’s reassurances that the cut in aid would not impact Camp David commitments or the Egyptian army’s operations in Sinai as an insult to the national role of the Egyptian army and its responsibilities – as though its mission, in the eyes of the Obama administration, is limited to protecting the requirements of that treaty and maintaining peace with Israel, as Washington sees this as a crucial strategic issue for its policy in the region.
Obama made a bad faux pas. If he meant to put pressure on General Sisi through freezing some aid to the Egyptian army, and improve the conditions for internal reconciliation, it is exactly the opposite that has happened. Obama has created an opportunity for Sisi to rally Egyptians around him, as he has now turned in the eyes of his supporters into a “national symbol” who stands up to U.S. meddling in Egypt. Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood’s image is now one of a party seeking support and protection from abroad, which is more than their opponents were wishing for.

Bahrain And The Persian Covetousness
Jihad al-Khazen/Asharq Alawsat
I will now resume my discussion of Bahrain and the US Ambassador there, Thomas Krajeski. In an interview with the political magazine published by Yale, Krajeski alluded to his work as an ambassador in Yemen. He made a comparison between Yemen’s poverty and the high illiteracy rates there, and Bahrain, the relatively wealthy country – according to him – where education is very important and nearly amounts to 100 percent, and where the prosperous economy was affected by the 2008 crisis (which was caused by George W. Bush’s inept politics). He further noted that despite the present differences between the Sunnis and the Shiites, the two sects lived in peace together in a small island for 300 years.
I wonder what changed, and why did all these differences occur? The only answer consists of the covetousness of the Iranian Islamic Republic, which is controlled by the non-elected Ayatollahs and which has Persian ambitions in Bahrain and the entire Gulf.
Had the differences in Bahrain been centered on democracy, I would have taken part in the protests. However, the differences revolve around the fact that Bahrain is an open country rather than a self-isolated republic that the whole world is sanctioning.
Bahrain is a prosperous country as per the ambassador. I should add that the cause for this prosperity is the “skillfulness” of the ruling people there and the support of the GCC. Bahrain is a country with no major natural resources. Indeed, the country produces 50,000 oil barrels daily. However, another 200,000 barrels are produced from a shared field with Saudi Arabia. Thus, Bahrain obtains revenue from the production of 250,000 oil barrels a day. This figure amounts to half the oil revenues of Oman, a country preceding Bahrain when it comes to oil production in the GCC.
The Bahraini regime turned the country into an active financial center and a tourism destination for the neighboring countries, especially for weekends. All this was achieved while Sheikh Khalifa Ben Salman was the prime minister; but I recently heard that the American ambassador asked King Hamad Ben Issa to oust the prime minister. I don’t know if this is true and I hope it’s not, because the ambassador has no right to interfere at all since the government is a purely Bahraini matter. Even if the king wanted to replace his uncle, Sheikh Khalifa, with a new prime minister, if the ambassador did indeed intervene in this matter, the king will surely change his mind and keep Sheikh Khalifa. The American ambassador’s real or fictitious interferences actually led to a decision taken at the level of the Bahraini parliament to halt the ambassador’s interferences in the Bahraini domestic affairs.
Once again, I am not certain that the ambassador is really interfering that much. However, there is no smoke without fire. The campaign against him in the local media and the parliament does not lead one to believe that he will playing a positive role in ending the violence acts carried by the opposition under the Iranian incitement. If the United States wishes to solve its problem with Iran at the expense of Bahrain, it will fail, because Bahrain is not alone and is supported by the GCC countries and all the other Arab countries, especially Egypt. The Arab countries that are affected by the Persian covetousness will protect Bahrain. This is a red line. The Arabs will not accept that this red line be violated like Barack Obama accepted the violation of his red lines.
King Hamad Ben Issa is the one who called for an international investigation committee, and he is now working on implementing its recommendations. The Minister of Interior, Sheikh Rashid Ben Abdullah, appointed two prominent officers from Britain and the United States at the Ministry of Interior in order to provide counseling and monitor the work. Did any other regimes do what the king and his minister of interior did? I am waiting for the answer of the ambassador and the Human Rights activists as well as the congressmen who sent a letter to King Hamad. The members of the Kuwaiti parliament came up with an excellent but long response to this letter. I would have hoped to publish some of it.

Egypt And The Guardian Of Democracy
Mostafa Zein/Asharq Alawsat
Ever since the Arab Spring began and before it became a tragedy, the United States has been trying to contain the changes it has produced and continues to produce, especially as those who were toppled had been its allies for decades. It used to depend on them to protect its interests and confront its enemies and its rivals. President Hosni Mubarak, for example, preserved Egypt’s “neutrality” in what had remained an Arab-Israeli conflict throughout his prolonged time in power. During that period, the Arab World witnessed an Israeli invasion of Lebanon, withdrawal from it in 2000, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and a war on Lebanon again in 2006, in addition to several minor wars and intifadas, and the assassination of President Yasser Arafat.
Neutralized from the conflict, Egypt has been in a coma ever since the Camp David Accords. The war it fought in 1973 was its last war, as Sadat had declared at the time. Its African dimension was no longer important, despite undergoing changes that posed a threat to its national security, starting from Somalia and up to Libya and Sudan, not to mention Ethiopia, Mali, Nigeria, and other countries of the Nile Basin. It practiced a policy of seclusion, without having this luxury, especially with the great river, its lifeblood, under threat. As for its Levantine dimension, international and regional forces fight over it, disrupting its geography and demographic components, waging wars in it and drawing up plans to fragment it, without Cairo having any role or say in the matter. In other words, the Land of the Pharaohs has become besieged from both its African and Levantine dimensions, while Israel makes itself heard on every issue.
This was the reality of Egypt before June 30: a country that relies on aid, which the ruling class would distribute among itself, while the majority of the people are overwhelmed by poverty and unemployment; and a country that ignores the storm while being in the eye of that very storm, allowing smaller countries to try to play its role in the Middle East and impose their policies there; all in exchange for a few donations.
After the “Spring”, the United States tried to contain the changes and keep Egypt in the same position by reaching an understanding with the Muslim Brotherhood, which had risen to power. From day one, the Brotherhood tried to outbid the policies of the former regime. Thus, President Mohamed Morsi announced that the Camp David Accords would be preserved, and began to coordinate with the Israelis in the Sinai. He also drew the Hamas movement into the “moderate camp”, called for Jihad in Syria and stood against Iran, without taking into consideration the political changes that were taking place. Those stances satisfied the United States, but they did not satisfy the people and the army, especially as the President sought to “Brotherhoodize” the state. The army thus took advantage of the people’s resentment and deposed him.
The move made by the army upset the United States, which considers its alliance with this army to be essential to Egypt remaining a US ally in the Middle East. It thus began seeking to return Morsi to power, by means of a European effort led by Catherine Ashton. When it found this to be impossible, it resorted to punishing Cairo, cutting its aid by a few hundred million dollars, and threatening to cut it off entirely if the army persists in its stance on Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, having made the continued supply of such aid contingent on the extent to which “democracy” is being applied.
The fact of the matter is that Washington is now at a turning point in its Middle Eastern policy, having backed down on bombing Syria, and being on the verge of recognizing Iran’s influence in the region. This new reality requires a new policy from Cairo, one different from that of Sadat and Mubarak and from the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood. All of them had held Egypt’s position, weight and influence hostage to a few billion dollars that used to end up in the pockets of a few, and being paid to the American companies that handle the maintenance of military aid. This is in addition to the fact that such aid is not even worth much, when compared to the overall budget of the Egyptian state. It was a “symbolic” amount of aid that allowed Washington to control the policies of the former regimes. And here is the US now reducing it, in a clear process of blackmail.
It could take years before Egypt regains its standing, but it has begun to take the first steps in that direction, and may well be subjected to additional pressure from the guardian of democracy in the world.