Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources/September 02/13

Geagea Slams Suleiman's Critics: We Won't Accept Any Cabinet Not Endorsing Baabda Declaration as Policy Statement
Pope asks other faiths to join in prayers for peace in Syria
Arab states urge action against Syrian government
Obama's history-defying decision to seek Congressional approval on Syria
In Putin's first comments on Syria, he urges Obama not to rush into a decision
Scornful Syria hails 'historic American retreat' as Obama hesitates
Is it time to recall Canadian Parliament to debate Syria?
As Obama stalls on Syria, Netanyahu says Israel is 'calm and confident in itself'
Obama’s climb-down on Syria attack spells “military nightmare” for allies Israel, Turkey, Jordan
Syrian state-run media derides Obama's Congress request as US 'retreat'
Weak world response on Syria boosts chance of strong Israeli action on Iran
The Obama Doctrine: Right is might
Obama surprised top aides with last minute change of heart on Syria
Berri Suggests Roadmap that Includes Dialogue Retreat on Cabinet Formation, Policy Statement
Suleiman Calls for Dialogue Based on Baabda Declaration, his Vision on Defense Strategy
Mustaqbal Official Criticizes Berri's Initiative, Says Problem Lies in Lack of Trust in Hizbullah
Al-Rahi Meets Yaziji: We Reject Any Foreign Intervention in Syria, Demand Peaceful Solution
Al-Rahi Says Officials Responsible for Deadly Bombings over 'Prolonged Conflict'
Berri Suggests Roadmap that Includes Dialogue Retreat on Cabinet Formation, Policy Statement
Edgy Lebanese Add Smartphones to their Anti-Car Bomb Arsenal
Jumblat Appeals for End to Internal Disputes amid Syria Strike Threat
2 Tripoli Brothers Briefly Kidnapped Near Beirut Airport
Bahia Hariri 'Returns' to the 'People' More than LL525 Million
Charbel: No Fears over Lebanon from Possible Syria Strike
Syrian Ambassador Says Damascus Keen to Maintain Stability in Lebanon
Netanyahu Says Israel Ready for Any Scenario in Syria
Obama Says U.S. Ready to Strike Syria, Will Seek Congress Authorization
Syria Says its Army is Ready, has 'Finger on Trigger'
Syrian Ambassador Says Damascus Keen to Maintain Stability in Lebanon
Official Failed 'Terrorist' Attack on Suez Canal Ship
Syria U.N. Inspectors Say Analysis May Take Up to 3 Weeks
Report: FBI Increases Surveillance of Syrians in U.S.

Arab states urge action against Syrian government
Reuters – CAIRO (Reuters) - Arab states on Sunday urged the international community to take action against the Syrian government over a chemical gas attack that killed hundreds of civilians. The final resolution passed by an Arab League meeting in Cairo urged the United Nations and international community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for".
The League foreign ministers also said those responsible for the attack should face trial, as other "war criminals" have. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said condemnation of Syria over the poison gas attack, which U.S. officials say killed 1,429 people, was not enough. He said opposing international action on the grounds that it was "foreign intervention" was no longer acceptable. "Any opposition to any international action would only encourage Damascus to move forward with committing its crimes and using all weapons of mass destruction," said Faisal. "The time has come to call on the world community to bear its responsibility and take the deterrent measure that puts a halt to the tragedy." The United States had seemed to be gearing up for a strike against President Bashar al-Assad's forces over an August 21 poison gas attack, but is now seeking Congressional approval first. President Barack Obama's decision to delay military action to seek Congressional support could delay a strike by at least 10 days, if it comes at all. The Arab League resolution promised to "present all forms of support" to help the Syrian people to defend themselves. Syria's neighbors Lebanon and Iraq, as well as Algeria, all declined to back the text, as they have done with similar resolutions in the past. Syria itself is suspended from the League. The meeting highlighted divisions between Saudi Arabia and Egypt over how to approach the Syrian crisis. Egypt, which has been promised $5 billion by Saudi Arabia to bolster its dwindling reserves since the army overthrew Islamist president Mohamed Mursi, had said it was opposed to foreign military intervention in Syria, but did not vote against the resolution. (Reporting by Shaimaa Fayed; Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

Geagea Slams Suleiman's Critics: We Won't Accept Any Cabinet Not Endorsing Baabda Declaration as Policy Statement
Naharnet /..Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Sunday strongly defended President Michel Suleiman against his critics, rejecting the postponement of the presidential election and any cabinet that does not endorse the Baabda Declaration as its Policy Statement. “State institutions are suffering near-complete paralysis and constitutional junctures have been postponed until further notice from Hizbullah and Syria. The chaos of arms and the series of bombings are undermining security and the economy is in a miserable situation,” Geagea lamented in a speech commemorating the “martyrs of the Lebanese Resistance” during a ceremony organized by the LF in Maarab.
“Lebanon is going through its most difficult days because an armed party has decided on behalf of the rest of the Lebanese and against their will to usurp the national decision and manipulate it as it wishes, domestically and abroad, disturbing the life of the Lebanese in their country and opening the gates of hell on them from the outside,” Geagea added.
He warned that Hizbullah's involvement in “repressing the Syrian people antagonized dozens of countries and hundreds of millions of Arabs, Muslims, Christians and the international public opinion.”
“The presidency is being marginalized after the Baabda Declaration was torpedoed and subsequently the principle of the national dialogue table,” he noted.
Geagea charged that “under Hizbullah's plan,” the Lebanese army has turned into “a mere observer of its (Hizbullah's) massive movement of fighters between Lebanon and Syria.”
“Autonomous security is being practiced today against citizens and diplomats. Who took the decision of the party's intervention in Syria and what is left of the principle of the national defense strategy?” Geagea wondered.
He noted that the “deformed” army-people-resistance formula “died at the hands of Hizbullah itself and we have buried it.”
Geagea said the country is suffering a “revised hegemony that does not resemble the Assad regime's hegemony in shape, but they have the same content, a hegemony that puts Lebanon's capabilities in the service of the requirements of the Syrian and Iranian regimes.” “We want a strong president who would restore the strength and meaning of the republic. There cannot be a strong republic without a strong president and we want a president whom the Cedar Revolution can entrust with its principles,” the LF leader added. “We are resisting this situation with the same ferocity we had when we resisted the previous occupations,” he went on to say.
“We will not allow the impediment of the presidential election and we will no longer accept that the presidential vote be the fruit of a regional deal or bargain,” he said.
Hitting out at Suleiman's critics, Geagea said “those who want the president of the republic to leave are the ones who must leave,” adding that “they are also seeking the election of a puppet president in the upcoming vote.”
Turning to the issue of the stalled cabinet formation process, Geagea called for a cabinet of "harmony, construction, employment, stability, prosperity and reform."
"We will no longer accept any cabinet – whether political, technocrat or neutral – that does not endorse the Baabda Declaration as its Policy Statement," Geagea stressed.
"The army-people-resistance equation has become outdated, following what happened in Qusayr and the killing of women and children in Damascus' Ghouta," he said.
Slamming the Syrian regime and Hizbullah, Geagea added: “Demanding freedom, equality and justice would make you a Takfiri in the eyes of the dictatorial regimes -- whether you are Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Christian -- but if you cheer and clap for the dictator, he will consider you to be secular, patriotic, progressive and nonsectarian, whether you support al-Qaida or Hizbullah.”
He noted that “extremists and Takfiris do not belong to the Arab Spring at all, because their ideological scheme existed decades before the dawn of the Arab Spring and because this scheme does not acknowledge Arabism in the first place.”“The dictatorial regimes want us to choose between two options: Religious Takfirism or a dictatorial, secular Takfirism, but we are against both,” Geagea emphasized.

Al-Rahi Meets Yaziji: We Reject Any Foreign Intervention in Syria, Demand Peaceful Solution
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi and Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East Youhanna X al-Yaziji on Sunday rejected the anticipated military strike on Syria, demanding a peaceful solution to the crisis. “We do not support violent solutions in Syria and we demand diplomatic methods because no one has the right to terminate the life of any human,” al-Rahi said after meeting al-Yaziji at the Balamand Monastery in northern Lebanon. “The huge tragedy in Syria is unacceptable at the humanitarian and moral levels, that's why we demand that the conflict be resolved through diplomatic and peaceful means,” he added.
Al-Rahi also demanded the release of bishops Yohanna Ibrahim and Boulos al-Yaziji, who were abducted near Syria's Aleppo.
"We are against any foreign intervention through weapons and war in Syria or elsewhere," he went on to say.
"We need the rhetoric of peace and we need to put out the grudges. We have been living together as citizens in the Arab countries and the Levant since 1,400 years and we have built a sort of democracy and we don't want the war to eradicate what we built throughout 1,400 years," the patriarch added. "We are proud that our Christian identity in Syria and the Levant contains components of the Islamic identity and the Islamic identity contains something of the Christian identity and we don't want any foreign culture to obstruct our coexistence," he said, adding that "we are advocates of peace, love and dialogue everywhere and no one can usurp the freedom of others."
Earlier on Sunday, al-Rahi held officials responsible for the deadly bombings that have recently rocked Beirut's southern suburbs and the northern city of Tripoli.
“Political parties don't value the heavy price payed by innocent citizens in the three bombings,” al-Rahi said in his sermon at his summer residence in Diman.
Politicians “haven’t yet realized that they are responsible for the victims over their prolonged conflict and their obstruction of the work of constitutional institutions,” he said. Two separate car bomb blasts have recently rocked Beirut's southern suburbs, a Hizbullah stronghold, while two similar consecutive bombings have targeted mosques in Tripoli, leaving hundreds of casualties.
The politicians "only condemned, condoled and accused the other,” he mocked.
“Had they taken bold and responsible moves towards political and sectarian reconciliation ... and security measures that would stop arms proliferation and self-security, the relatives of the victims would have received some consolation,” al-Rahi said. Al-Rahi also criticized politicians for not coming up with a “real initiative” to resolve the cabinet formation crisis.
He reiterated that the new government should be strong and capable of protecting citizens, imposing security and controlling arms proliferated across the country.
Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam has so far been unable to form his cabinet over conditions and counter-conditions set by the bickering March 8 and 14 camps.

Pope asks other faiths to join in prayers for peace in Syria

By REUTERS 09/01/2013/Pope Francis on Sunday invited people of all faiths to join him and the world's Catholics in a day of prayer and fasting on September 7 to end the bloody three-year internecine conflict in Syria.
Addressing tens of thousands of people who had gathered in St. Peter's Square, Francis issued a long, impassioned appeal for peace in Syria and across the Middle East, saying God and history would be the judge of those who promoted violence or prevented peace. The pope condemned the use of chemical weapons, which Western powers say were clearly used by Syrian government forces, but added: "War, never again".
The United States and France are considering military action against Damascus in response to the chemical attack on August 21, which the US says killed more than a thousand people, but Francis urged the international community to make every effort to bring about peace based on "dialogue and negotiations"."Violence never leads to peace, war leads to war, violence leads to violence," he said. The pope asked the 1.2 billion Roman Catholics around the world to pray for peace in Syria and observe a day of prayer and fasting on Saturday. Francis announced his initiative a day after a meeting of top Vatican officials on Syria. He said he would lead a special prayer service in St. Peter's Square on Saturday between 7 p.m. and midnight (1800-2300 GMT). The pope invited other Christians, members of other religions and all "people of goodwill" to join the Catholic initiative in any way they saw fit. The peace initiative is reminiscent of several made by the late Pope John Paul, including one in which he dispatched envoys to Iraq, the United States and European capitals in 2003 to try to avert war in Iraq.
 

Obama's history-defying decision to seek Congressional approval on Syria
By Walter Shapiro/Yahoo news/President Barack Obama, according to background briefings by his aides, reached a fateful decision late Friday afternoon as he strolled along the White House lawn with his chief of staff Denis McDonough. Contrary to every expectation by his national security team, Obama concluded that he should ask Congress for authorization to bomb Syria.
The full reasoning behind the president’s turnabout remains murky. He may have wanted to share responsibility for a risky strategy to punish the barbarous regime of Syrian strongman Bashir al-Assad for using chemical weapons against his own people. Obama may have recognized the political dangers of attacking another Middle Eastern country without popular support at home.
And the president, a former part-time constitutional law professor, may have also belatedly recalled the wording of Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution that grants Congress the sole power “to declare war.”
But whatever Obama’s underlying motivations and however the Syrian vote plays out on Capitol Hill, the president’s decision to go to Congress represents an historic turning point. It may well be the most important presidential act on the Constitution and war-making powers since Harry Truman decided to sidestep Congress and not seek their backing to launch the Korean war.
Just a few days ago, before Obama’s decision was known, legal scholars from both the right and the left were in agreement that waging war over Syria – no matter how briefly – without congressional approval would bend the Constitution beyond recognition.
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who served as a Bush administration lawyer during the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, wrote in the legal blog Lawfare, “The planned use of military force in Syria is a constitutional stretch that will push presidential war unilateralism beyond where it has gone before.” And liberal constitutional scholar Garrett Epps, writing for the Atlantic , concluded, “It’s pretty clear that an American attack would violate the Constitution.”
Virtually no one in politics, the press or the academic community expected Obama to go to Congress for approval. That isn’t the way the presidential power works in the modern era. It is a sad truth that whomever occupies the Oval Office invariably expands rather than trims back the Imperial Presidency. Obama himself has reflected this pattern with his aggressive enhancement of the National Security Agency’s efforts to monitor electronic communications.
For more than six decades, the war-making powers of Congress have been eviscerated by presidents of both parties.
Which brings us back to Truman, who in 1950 balked at asking a Congress weary after World War Two for approval to militarily respond to the Communist attack on South Korea. Dean Acheson, Truman’s secretary of state, claimed in his memoirs that a congressional debate over the Korean War “would hardly be calculated to support the shaken morale of the troops or the unity that, for the moment, prevailed at home.”
Acheson may not have remembered that military morale and national unity are not mentioned in the Constitution. But the war-marking powers of Congress are at the heart of the nation’s founding document. It was as if the sign on Truman’s desk read, “The Buck Stops Here – And This is Also Where the Constitution Is Twisted.”
The plain-spoken Truman resorted to weaselly words to claim that Korea was a United Nations-sponsored “police action” rather than a war. No other American “police action” has ever led to 54,246 wartime deaths.
Truman’s assertion of vast executive power as Commander in Chief set a template for future presidents. Even when presidents have gone to Congress for approval of major military engagements, these blank-check authorizations have often been based on deceptive arguments.
Lyndon Johnson premised the entire Vietnam war on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was designed to permit a limited response to two minor and maybe mythical naval skirmishes with North Vietnam. Similarly hyperbolic were George W. Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s non-existent arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Even more legally dubious were all the times a president sent troops and planes into combat without anything more than desultory briefings of the congressional leadership.
Ronald Reagan dispatched the Marines into Grenada in 1983 under the preposterous rationale that he was only protecting endangered American medial students. Bill Clinton skirted congressional approval for the 1999 airborne attacks to halt Serbia’s ethnic cleansing of Kosovo on the shaky grounds that this was a NATO operation. And Obama himself was even on flimsier footing when he justified America’s participation in the 2011 bombing campaign over Libya based on a United Nations resolution.
But Syria did not provide Obama with any of these fig-leaf justifications.
No American lives are in danger and the national security threat is hard to identify. Not only is NATO not participating, but also neither are the Brits, the United State’s closest diplomatic ally. With Russia serving as Assad’s enabler, there will be no Security Council resolution or UN mandate.
Every time a president employs questionable legal arguments to wage war, it becomes a valuable tool for the next Commander in Chief impatient with the constitutional requirement to work through Congress. That’s why it would have been so dangerous for Obama to go forward in Syria without a congressional vote or the support of the UN or NATO. It is as much of a slippery slope argument as the contention that Iran, say, would be emboldened with its nuclear program if America did not punish Assad’s chemical attacks.
Assuming Obama wins congressional approval, America’s coming attack on Syria is designed to set a lasting precedent: No government can ever again use chemical, biological – let alone nuclear – weapons without facing devastating consequences. As Obama asked rhetorically in his Saturday Rose Garden statement, “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?”
But Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval may prove to be an even more important precedent. Future presidents – as they consider unilateral military action without American security hanging in the balance – will have to answer, “Why didn’t you go to Congress like Obama did over Syria?”
Confronted with a series of wrenching choices over Syria, Obama chose the course that best reflects fidelity to the Constitution as written. Hopefully, in the days ahead, taking that less traveled road by presidents will make all the difference.

In Putin's first comments on Syria, he urges Obama not to rush into a decision
By Lynn Berry, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – Sat, 31 Aug, 2013/MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin urged President Barack Obama on Saturday not to rush into a decision on striking Syria, but to consider whether strikes would help end the violence and be worth the civilian casualties they would inevitably cause.
Speaking for the first time about the suspected chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21, Putin also questioned whether Syrian government troops should be held responsible. He said it would make no sense for them to carry out such a devastating attack while they were on the offensive.
"In such conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for foreign military intervention is foolish nonsense," Putin said. "It defies all logic."
The United States said Friday that the attack in a rebel-held suburb of Damascus, the Syrian capital, killed 1,429 people, including more than 400 children.
The Russian leader said he was convinced the suspected chemical attack was a provocation aimed at drawing the U.S. military into Syria's civil war, implying he believed the attack was carried out by the Syrian rebels.
If the Americans have evidence proving the involvement of President Bashar Assad's regime, they should present it to the United Nations inspectors and the U.N. Security Council, he said. "If there is evidence it should be presented," Putin said. "If it is not presented, that means it does not exist."
Putin's foreign policy adviser complained Friday that Russia had not seen the U.S. intelligence that Washington insists proves the Syrian government was responsible for the attack.
On Saturday, the U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, met with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov to provide information backing up the U.S. position, the Foreign Ministry said.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his deputies have stated repeatedly that Russia opposes any use of force against Syria without U.N. Security Council approval, while also making clear that Russia would vote against such a resolution.
Ryabkov used tougher language on Saturday, warning the U.S. that launching strikes without a Security Council resolution would be "an act of aggression, a flagrant violation of international law."
If Washington goes ahead with the strikes, however, Moscow has appeared to rule out Russian military action. "We're not intending to go to war with anyone," Lavrov said early this week.
A longtime ally of Assad, Russia is a major supplier of weapons to Syria and maintains a naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus.
In addressing Obama, Putin said he was speaking to him not as the U.S. president but as a holder of the Nobel Peace Prize.
"We have to remember what has happened in the last decades, how many times the United States has been the initiator of armed conflict in different regions of the world," Putin told Russian journalists, including from state television, covering his visit to Vladivostok in the Far East. "Did this resolve even one problem?"
He urged Obama to reflect on the results of the U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq "before taking a decision to carry out air strikes that will bring casualties, including among the civilian population."
Putin said he hoped to talk to Obama in person when leaders of the Group of 20 meet next week in St. Petersburg. Obama had planned to hold a separate summit with Putin in Moscow ahead of the G-20 meeting, but he cancelled three weeks ago. The White House said Russia's decision to grant asylum to National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden was the last straw, but that a lack of progress on other issues, including on the Syrian civil war, played into the decision. No one-on-one meetings between Putin and Obama are planned during G-20, but both sides have said it is likely that the two leaders will have an opportunity to talk.
 

Scornful Syria hails 'historic American retreat' as Obama hesitates
By Yara Bayoumy and Thomas Ferraro | Reuters/By Yara Bayoumy and Thomas Ferraro
BEIRUT/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Syria hailed an "historic American retreat" on Sunday, mockingly accusing President Barack Obama of hesitation and confusion after he delayed a military strike to consult Congress.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said tests had shown sarin nerve gas was fired on rebel-held areas near Damascus, and expressed confidence that lawmakers would do "what is right" in responding to last month's attack.
Washington says more than 1,400 people, many of them children, were killed in the attack.
Obama's decision on Saturday to seek congressional authorization for punitive military action against Syria is likely to delay any strike for at least nine days.
However, the United Nations said his announcement could be seen as part of an effort to forge a global consensus on responding to the use of chemical arms anywhere.
With Obama drawing back from the brink, President Bashar al-Assad's government reacted defiantly to the threat of Western retaliation for the August 21 chemical attack, which it says was staged by the rebels.
Assad said Syria was capable of confronting any external strike, but left the most withering comments to his official media and a junior minister.
"Obama announced yesterday, directly or through implication, the beginning of the historic American retreat," Syria's official al-Thawra newspaper said in a front-page editorial.
Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad accused Obama of indecision. "It is clear there was a sense of hesitation and disappointment in what was said by President Barack Obama yesterday. And it is also clear there was a sense of confusion as well," he told reporters in Damascus.
Before Obama put on the brakes, the path had been cleared for a U.S. assault. Navy ships were in place and awaiting orders to launch missiles, and U.N. inspectors had left Syria after gathering evidence on the use of chemical weapons. Kerry urged skeptical U.S. lawmakers to back a strike on Assad's forces. "This is squarely now in the hands of Congress," he told CNN, saying he had confidence "they will do what is right because they understand the stakes."
WEARY AMERICANS
Last month's attack was the deadliest incident of the Syrian civil war and the world's worst use of chemical arms since Iraq's Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in 1988.
However, opinion polls show strong opposition to a punitive strike among Americans weary of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S. lawmakers for the most part welcomed Obama's decision but have not cut short their summer recess, which ends September 9. Many Democrats and Republicans are uneasy about intervening in a distant civil war in which 100,000 people have been killed over the past 2-1/2 years.
Lawmakers were to be briefed by Obama's national security team on the case for military action. Kerry said he had more evidence backing accusations against the Syrian government.
"I can share with you today that blood and hair samples that have come to us through an appropriate chain of custody, from east Damascus, from first responders, it has tested positive for signatures of sarin," Kerry told CNN's "State of the Union."
The U.N. weapons inspectors collected their own samples and diplomats say Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has told the five permanent Security Council members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - that it would take up to two weeks before the final report is ready.
Ban views Obama's decision "as one aspect of an effort to achieve a broad-based international consensus on measures in response to any use of chemical weapons," U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky said.
In Damascus, Syrians reacted with a mixture of relief, disappointment and scorn to Obama's decision. "I have to admit this morning was the first time I felt I could sleep in," said Nawal, who works as a housekeeper in the Syrian capital. Bread had returned to the bakeries and members of the state security forces appeared relaxed, drinking tea and chatting at their posts outside government buildings.
"We always knew there wouldn't be a strike. It's not going to happen. Anyway, we were never nervous about it. We were just worried for the civilians. But we're confident it's not going to happen," one of them said.
FRANCE CANNOT GO IT ALONE
The United States had originally been expected to lead a strike relatively quickly, backed up by its NATO allies Britain and France. However, British lawmakers voted last Thursday against any involvement and France said on Sunday it would await the U.S. Congress's decision.
"France cannot go it alone," Interior Minister Manuel Valls told Europe 1 radio. "We need a coalition."
French President Francois Hollande, whose country ruled Syria for more than two decades until the 1940s, has come under increasing pressure to put the intervention to parliament.
A BVA poll on Saturday showed most French people do not approve of military action against Syria and most do not trust Hollande to conduct such an operation.
Jean-Marc Ayrault, his prime minister, was to meet the heads of both houses of parliament and the conservative opposition on Monday before lawmakers debate Syria on Wednesday.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said Riyadh would back a U.S. strike on Syria if the Syrian people did. He was speaking at a meeting in Cairo of the Arab League, which has blamed Syria for the chemical attack but has so far stopped short of explicitly endorsing Western military strikes. Syria and its main ally, Russia, say rebels carried out the gas attack as a ploy to draw in foreign military intervention. Moscow has repeatedly used its U.N. Security Council veto to block action against Syria and says any attack would be illegal and only inflame the civil war there.
Obama's credibility had already been called into question for not punishing Assad over earlier alleged gas attacks, and he is under pressure to act now that he believes Damascus has crossed what he once described as a "red line".Failure to punish Assad, some analysts say, could mean his ally Iran would feel free to press on with a nuclear program the West believes is aimed at developing an atomic bomb but which Tehran says has only civilian goals. That might encourage Israel to take matters into its own hands, analysts say.
"If Obama is hesitating on the matter of Syria, then clearly on the question of attacking Iran - a move that is expected to be far more complicated - Obama will hesitate much more, and thus the chances Israel will have to act alone have increased," Israeli Army Radio quoted an unnamed government official as saying.
Pope Francis called for a negotiated solution to the conflict in Syria and announced he would lead a worldwide day of prayer for peace in the country on Saturday.
(Additional reporting by Yeganeh Torbati in Dubai, Louis Charbonneau and Edith Honan at the United Nations, Nick Tattersall in Istanbul, Dan Williams in Jerusalem, Philip Pullella in Rome, and Ismael Khader in Antakya, Turkey; Writing by David Stamp; Editing by Jon Boyle)

As Obama stalls on Syria, Netanyahu says Israel is 'calm and confident in itself'
J.Post/In his first public comments since US President Barack Obama announced Saturday he was seeking Congressional approval for a limited strike on Syria, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sought Sunday to illustrate Israel's sangfroid. "Israel is calm and confident in itself," Netanyahu said at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting. "The citizens of Israel know very well that we are prepared for any possible scenario," he said, without mentioning Syria or referring directly to Obama's statement. "Israel's citizens also need to know that our enemies have very good reasons not to test our strength – and they know why," he added.
Over the last week, Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, and Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz have repeatedly said that Israel was not involved in the Syrian civil war, but would respond "fiercely" if attacked.Israeli leaders have remained completely quiet on how they thought the US or the west should respond to Syrian President Basher Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people.

Obama’s climb-down on Syria attack spells “military nightmare” for allies Israel, Turkey, Jordan
http://www.debka.com/article/23245/Obama’s-climb-down-on-Syria-attack-spells-“military-nightmare”-for-allies-Israel-Turkey-Jordan
DEBKAfile Special Report September 1, 2013/US President Barack Obama’s about-turn Saturday night, Aug. 31 on the planned US military operation against Syria’s chemical weapons has shaken up the volatile Middle East balance of strength, spelling for Israel, Jordan and Turkey what Western and Israeli military sources called the day after “a military nightmare.”
Syria, Iran and Hizballah are let off the hook by the lifting of the imminent US military threat against Bashar Assad over his use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21. Not only that, but the threesome have won an unforeseen tactical advantage: President Obama’s turn to Congress to authorize that attack gives them at least a fortnight for launching a pre-emptive strike against US forces and its allies. Syria and Hizballah’s defenses are already upgraded against the projected US strike and their forces on peak readiness. Rather than hanging around and waiting for the US Congress to go through with a debate, which only starts in the week of Sept. 9, they are fully capable of forcing the pace on their own terms, with the object of getting the US operation cancelled altogether.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, for his part, will not waste the opportunity for pursuing further advanced weapons transactions with Iran and Syria.
A high-ranking Israeli office commented Sunday that the three hostile allies, having achieving an indefinite postponement of the American military threat with Moscow’s help, can be expected to press their advantage with further diplomatic and military mischief. Trouble looms for Israel, Jordan and Turkey if Russian and Iranian intelligence experts estimate that an aggressive move will strengthen the hands of the US lawmakers opposed to US military intervention in Syria. Syria's allies may deduce that high war flames in the Middle East will stoke the anti-military congressional faction’s pressure on the administration to keep American out of the region. They will argue that even the very limited action proposed by Obama would be enough to drag America deep into the Syrian mire.
Two Republican senators have already come forward as nay-sayers. Directly after the president’s speech, John McCain and Graham Lindsey said they would vote against any limited military action in Syria short of an offensive for toppling Bashar Assad. September is a sensitive month in Israel because most of it is taken up with festivals, starting in Rosh Hashanah, followed by Yom Kippur and then the Feast of Tabernacles.
debkafile’s military sources say that the government and military command decided in hectic overnight discussions to take no chances. Against possible negative repercussions from the US president’s bombshell, they decided to maintain the high state of security and military preparedness along Israel’s borders with Syria and Lebanon. The three-tiered anti-missile system therefore remains in place and the gas mask distributions stations were reopened to the public Sunday morning.

Netanyahu Says Israel Ready for Any Scenario in Syria
Naharnet/Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that the Jewish State was prepared for "every possible scenario" in neighboring Syria after U.S. President Barack Obama postponed a threatened missile strike.
"Israel is calm and sure of itself, the citizens of Israel know that we are prepared for every possible scenario," he told ministers at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting, in remarks broadcast on public radio.
Obama had promised to act against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons, but on Saturday announced that he would first seek endorsement from Congress, effectively pushing any military action back until at least September 9, when U.S. lawmakers return from their summer recess. Netanyahu sought to calm domestic fears that a U.S.-led attack on Syria could prompt Assad or Hizbullah to retaliate against neighboring Israel, Washington's key ally in the region. "Our enemies have very good reasons not to try our strength, not to test our power," he said. "They know why."Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres have both insisted that Israel is not involved in the bloody conflict in Syria, in which over 100,000 people have been killed, but will respond if attacked.
Neither Netanyahu nor his senior cabinet colleagues referred directly to Obama's surprise announcement, but Housing Minister Uri Ariel, of the far-right Jewish Home party, had advice for Washington regarding Assad.
"This is a murdering coward," he told army radio. "Take care of him." Local newspapers were generally critical of what they saw as the slow pace of Obama's response to the gas attacks.
"Where was the United States when more than 100,000 people, for more than two and a half years, were killed in attacks using conventional weapons? Do they care which weapons were used to kill them?" asked the left-leaning Haaretz in an editorial. "Looking out at the world is the picture of the American president as a frightened, alarmed politician, paralyzed by the fact of being a Nobel peace laureate," wrote commentator Avraham Ben-Zvi in Israel Hayom, the top circulation daily considered close to Netanyahu. "Senior Israeli officials said they believed that no matter how things developed going forward, the Americans had already lost their momentum, and any attack that would now be staged now would not be effective," Yediot Aharonot, another Israeli daily, reported. "Assad is sitting and rubbing his hands together gleefully, and the Iranians are laughing their way to the nuclear bomb."Israel, which has the Middle East's sole, albeit undeclared, nuclear arsenal, regards key Damascus ally Iran as its deadly foe. Along with the West, Israel suspects the Islamic republic of trying to develop atomic weapons under the guise of its nuclear program, a claim Tehran denies.Source/Agence France Presse.

Berri Suggests Roadmap that Includes Dialogue Retreat on Cabinet Formation, Policy Statement
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri on Saturday suggested holding a five-day dialogue retreat to discuss pending issues in the country. “I suggest to President Michel Suleiman setting a roadmap that would get the country out of the current crisis and it includes holding a five-day dialogue retreat that would discuss the formation of the cabinet and its policy statement ,” Berri said in a televised speech he gave in the 35th memory of the disappearance of the spiritual leader Moussa al-Sadr. A rally was supposed to take place marking al-Sadr's disappearance but due to the instability in the country, organizers from Berri's AMAL Movement announced postponing the annual event.
Revered by Lebanon's Shiites as a key spiritual and political guide, Sadr vanished in 1978 amid mysterious circumstances and was last seen in Libya where he was invited by slain leader Moammar Gadhafi.
Berri elaborated: “The dialogue sessions will be held with the participation of premier-designate Tammam Salam and the roadmap would also include supporting the army with additional 5,000 members, saving (the northern city of) Tripoli and the Bekaa from the spread of weapons and disassociating Lebanon from the Syrian crisis.” Berri's suggestion also mentioned dialogue on the adoption of a new electoral law, reaching consensus over a national defense strategy and solutions to the current economic problems in the country. “The only way to get out of the current crisis is dialogue and to those who are waiting for a sign from regional powers or to see how things will develop in neighboring countries, we tell them that Lebanon is no longer a priority.”The speaker accused Israel of being behind the recent bombings and rocket launching that took place in the country.
“Israeli fingerprints are behind these happenings,” Berri said. “These cells are Israeli cells, no matter what were they labeled.”On August 23, two powerful blasts rocked the northern city of Tripoli, killing 45 people and wounding over 800 others. These attacks came eight days after 27 people were killed and around 300 wounded in a car bombing that rocked the Beirut southern suburb of Ruwais, a Hizbullah bastion. The AMAL Movement leader lamented the “collapse of the Arab order,” considering that the Jewish nation is trying to impose its conditions on a settlement with Palestinians.
“We stress on the importance of denouncing our conflicts and instead supporting the Palestinian people in obtaining their rights. Our battle should be against Israel.”
Berri compared the current crisis in Syria to the Palestinian Nakba, urging disassociating Lebanese and all foreign factors from the neighboring country's crisis.
“We warn that Lebanon will be exposed to the dangers resulting from the Syrian crisis,” he pointed out. "Lebanon will be the most affected by a war waged on Syria." “Israel is the only beneficiary and we call on all Syrians, whether opponents or supporters of the regime to accept participating in the Geneva II talks.” Berri also stated his rejection of the “all arms on the border.”“Except for the military institution and the resistance's arms, all other weapons on the border are rejected," he said.

Mustaqbal Official Criticizes Berri's Initiative, Says Problem Lies in Lack of Trust in Hizbullah
Naharnet /An al-Mustaqbal movement official criticized Speaker Nabih Berri on Saturday for allegedly ignoring U.N. Security Council resolution 1701 and “confiscating” the authorities of President Michel Suleiman.
In remarks to An Nahar daily published on Sunday, the official, who was not identified, said a speech made by Berri a day earlier had loopholes mainly over the legitimacy of the weapons of the army and the resistance in the South. Berri launched an initiative calling for the resumption of national dialogue among bickering politicians for a period of at least five consecutive days to discuss the form and policy statement of the future government, revive talks on a new electoral law, and support the military to deal with arms in Tripoli and salvage the eastern Bekaa Valley and the northern border with Syria from the chaos of arms and gunmen. The initiative also includes a call to address a national defense strategy, a thorny issue that hasn't been resolved in the past years over differences on Hizbullah's arms. Berri “ignored international resolutions and mainly resolution 1701 that organized armed presence in the South,” the official said. The speaker added new articles to these resolutions, he said, wondering whether Berri was seeking to come up with a new resolution that outstrips 1701.
The official also criticized Berri over his call for dialogue. “He cut the road on the president who was a pioneer in inviting” for such a dialogue, the source said.
Berri “confiscated the constitutional authorities of the president that enable him along with the Prime Minister-designate to form the government,” he said. The cabinet formation efforts are not the role of the national dialogue members, he added. The Mustaqbal official also slammed the March 8 alliance, which Berri's Amal movement is part of, for not abiding by previous decisions reached at the national dialogue table. “The problem lies in lack of trust in Hizbullah and the rest of the March 8 factions that approve certain things at the dialogue table and then act on their own,” the official told An Nahar. “The last example is the Baabda Declaration,” he said in criticism to Hizbullah's fighting in Syria despite approving the declaration that calls for keeping Lebanon at a distance from the regional developments and crises. Other March 14 alliance officials also criticized Berri for failing to discuss Hizbullah's arms, which they said are imposing self-security in Beirut's southern suburbs. They said Berri only referred to Tripoli and the Bekaa, a reference to the northeastern border town of Arsal whose residents are staunch backers of the Syrian rebels

Suleiman Calls for Dialogue Based on Baabda Declaration, his Vision on Defense Strategy
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman called on Sunday for the resumption of national dialogue to agree on a defense strategy based on the Baabda Declaration and the vision he has proposed to bickering officials, a clear answer to Speaker Nabih Berri who a day earlier made a similar but wider initiative.  “We should form an all-embracing government as soon as possible and hold national dialogue to agree on a defense strategy based on the vision I have proposed and on the Baabda Declaration,” Suleiman said in a speech at his summer residence in Beiteddine on the anniversary of the creation of Greater Lebanon in 1920.
Berri called on Saturday for the resumption of the all-party talks among bickering politicians for a period of at least five consecutive days to discuss the form and policy statement of the future cabinet, revive talks on a new electoral law, and support the military to deal with arms in the northern city of Tripoli and salvage the eastern Bekaa Valley and the northern border with Syria from the “chaos of arms and gunmen.”
The initiative also includes a call to address the defense strategy, a thorny issue that hasn't been resolved in the past years over differences on Hizbullah's arms.
Also in his speech Sunday, Suleiman rejected a possible U.S. military strike on Syria in response to the Assad regime's alleged use of chemical weapons, and reiterated the need for a political solution in the neighboring country.
He called for “holding accountable” the persons who allegedly used the weapons. Suleiman reiterated his call for the implementation of the Baabda Declaration, saying both “local and foreign parties should keep Lebanon at a distance by land and air from the repercussions of what could take place.” He stated that article 12 of the declaration clearly calls for distancing Lebanon from the region's turmoil.
Suleiman rejected the boycott and obstruction of state institutions. Such acts lead to vacuum and paralyze the institutions, he said. They also harm the democracy mentioned in the Taef accord, he said. “Lebanon hasn't been and will never be a dictatorship. It's a civil country that gives rights and believes in modern values,” Suleiman said. “The Greater Lebanon has kept its democracy. Parliament is the meeting point between sects,” the president said.
“Lebanon is ruled through wisdom and not force,” he added.

Al-Rahi Says Officials Responsible for Deadly Bombings over 'Prolonged Conflict'
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi held on Sunday officials responsible for the deadly bombings that have recently rocked Beirut's southern suburbs and the northern city of Tripoli. “Political parties don't value the heavy price payed by innocent citizens in the three bombings,” al-Rahi said in his sermon at his summer residence in Diman. Politicians “haven’t yet realized that they are responsible for the victims over their prolonged conflict and their obstruction of the work of constitutional institutions,” he said. Two separate car bomb blasts have recently rocked Beirut's southern suburbs, a Hizbullah stronghold, while two similar consecutive bombings have targeted mosques in Tripoli, leaving hundreds of casualties. The politicians "only condemned, condoled and accused the other,” he mocked. “Had they taken bold and responsible moves towards political and sectarian reconciliation ... and security measures that would stop arms proliferation and self-security, the relatives of the victims would have received some consolation,” al-Rahi said.Al-Rahi also criticized politicians for not coming up with a “real initiative” to resolve the cabinet formation crisis. He reiterated that the new government should be strong and capable of protecting citizens, imposing security and controlling arms proliferated across the country.
Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam has so far been unable to form his cabinet over conditions and counter-conditions set by the bickering March 8 and 14 camps.

Jumblat Appeals for End to Internal Disputes amid Syria Strike Threat
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat has appealed for unity, urging politicians to end their differences amid critical developments in the region. In remarks to An Nahar daily published on Sunday, Jumblat said: “The stage that Lebanon and the region are passing through require an end to internal disputes and skirmishes.”His words echoed similar remarks he made on Friday when he urged the bickering officials “not to fall in the trap of the wager on radical changes in Syria.” “They must also end their involvement in the fighting in Syria and avoid returning to a new round of issuing accusations of treason against each other at a time when the Lebanese people have lost faith in their country,” he said in his statement. Jumblat's repeated appeals come as U.S. President Barack Obama on Saturday asked Congress to authorize military action against Syria. The move lifted the threat of immediate strikes on President Bashar Assad's regime. But the fears that the attack would trigger a wider war through a Hizbullah attack on Israel remain. Iran and Hizbullah are strong allies of the Assad regime.

2 Tripoli Brothers Briefly Kidnapped Near Beirut Airport
Naharnet /Two men from the northern city of Tripoli were kidnapped while heading to Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport at dawn Sunday but they were released after a few hours. Contact with Ramez and Rajab al-Saidi was lost at dawn Sunday after they reached the area near the airport, their brother told MTV. The young men were heading to the airport to pick up their father, said the state-run National News Agency. But the abductees were released around noon Sunday and headed back to their Bab al-Tabbaneh neighborhood in Tripoli, NNA said. According to MTV, the men were held by Hizbullah members at a security checkpoint on the airport road. A Turkish pilot and co-pilot were kidnapped on Aug. 9 by unidentified assailants while heading from the airport to a hotel in the Lebanese capital.

Bahia Hariri 'Returns' to the 'People' More than LL525 Million
Naharnet/Al-Mustaqbal bloc MP Bahia Hariri “returned” on Sunday more than LL525 million to the Lebanese people, the salary that she has received since her election in 2009. During a ceremony held at Beiteddine palace, the summer residence of President Michel Suleiman, Hariri said: “I apologize to the Lebanese people for not doing my job since 2009. I have received from the people a paycheck that I don't deserve.” She said she “had the honor” to “return to them” more than LL 525 million to establish the “I Love You Lebanon 2020” fund. The Sidon MP said during the ceremony on the anniversary of the establishment of Greater Lebanon in 1920 that Suleiman would supervise the fund as an honorary president until 2020 in cooperation with the Banking Association. She expressed hope that other MPs would walk in her footsteps and write similar checks to work on planning the appropriate legislation that would make Lebanon in 2020 a country of innovators.

Charbel: No Fears over Lebanon from Possible Syria Strike
Naharnet/Caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel ruled out that Lebanon would suffer from the repercussions of a possible U.S. military strike on the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
“There are no fears on Lebanon from the consequences of a military strike that the international community could carry out on Syria,” Charbel told the Kuwaiti al-Seyassah newspaper published on Sunday.
He said the authorities were taking measures to resolve the issue of Syrian refugees and the security problems. The General Security Department proved its effectiveness on the border with Syria, Charbel told the daily.
There are fears in Lebanon that any U.S. strike in Syria would lead to a further refugee influx. The caretaker minister rejected the search of vehicles owned by the Kuwaiti and Saudi embassies by Hizbullah members near Beirut's southern suburbs. “Only the Lebanese army and security forces should set up checkpoints and carry out inspections,” he said. Hizbullah has recently taken strong security measures in its stronghold in Beirut’s southern suburbs and has established checkpoints at the entrances to Dahieh after two separate bombings left hundreds of casualties. On Friday, the Saudi embassy filed a complaint with the foreign ministry after one of its cars was inspected at a Hizbullah checkpoint. A day later, the Kuwaiti mission filed a similar protest after a Kuwaiti citizen was stopped at one of the checkpoints.

Syrian Mortar Rounds Hit Outskirts of Lebanese Villages
Naharnet/Three mortar shells from Syrian side hit the outskirts of the Lebanese border towns of Hekr Janine and Qashlaq in the northern district of Akkar, the state-run National News  The News Agency reported that Syrian security forces also opened gunfire at the outskirts of the two towns. The almost three-year long violence in Syria has increasingly spilled over into Lebanon, with cross-border shelling in the north and east.
Mortars and shells from the Syrian side regularly crash in Lebanon, causing several casualties. But Lebanese forces have never fired back despite promises of retaliation. Syrian authorities had threatened to attack Lebanese territories if “terrorists” continue to infiltrate the country from Lebanon. Lebanese parties are sharply divided over the developments in Syria despite the dissociation policy that was adopted by the state.

Syrian Ambassador Says Damascus Keen to Maintain Stability in Lebanon
Naharnet /Syrian Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Abdul Karim Ali stressed on Saturday that his country is seeing to maintain stability in Lebanon. “Syria is keen to preserve Lebanon and its resistance,” Abdul Karim said after talks with Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun in Rabieh. He accused the United States of “trying to divide the region to maintain Israel's stability.” Analysts say the bloody conflict that is tearing Syria apart is spilling into neighboring Lebanon, pitting supporters of the Damascus regime against its opponents. Tensions have grown between Sunnis, who mostly support the rebellion against the regime of Bashar Assad, and Shiites, who back his government. Tripoli in particular has been riven by often deadly strife over the Syria conflict between Sunnis and Alawites, a Shiite offshoot sect from which Assad hails.
Asked about the fate of Syrian refugees, the ambassador stressed that his country is coordinating with the Lebanese state. He called on the Syrian refugees to return to their country as the state will provide them with a safe shelter in safe zones and with all their needs.Abdul Karim accused the countries that are aiding the Syrian refugees are also funding “terrorism.”Over 700,000 Syrian refugees have registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Lebanon. Source/Agence France Presse.

'Disappointed' Syria Opposition Thinks U.S. Congress Will OK Strike
Naharnet/Syria's main opposition bloc said Sunday it was disappointed with U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to seek approval from Congress for action against the regime, but said it believed lawmakers would OK a strike. "We had a feeling of disappointment. We were expecting things to be quicker, that a strike would be imminent... But we believe Congress will approve a strike," said Samir Nashar, a top official at the Syrian National Coalition. To general surprise, Obama on Saturday postponed threatened missile strikes against Syria that the world had thought were imminent, opting instead for the risky gamble of getting Congress approval. This effectively pushes back any military action aimed at punishing the regime over an alleged poison gas attack until at least September 9, when U.S. lawmakers return from their summer recess. Nashar said the coalition was confident that Arab foreign ministers who meet Sunday in Cairo would give "very strong support" to U.S.-led military action. "The Turkish position is also very important. Washington needs this support," the Istanbul-based official said.
"The coalition will get in touch with Arab countries and Turkey so that they cooperate as much as possible with the United States," he said. "We will try to push these countries to take part in the military operation, which will greatly alleviate the suffering of Syrians."Source/Agence France Presse.

Iran has learned its lesson
By: Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Alawsat
It does not matter how Bashar Al-Assad views the British parliament’s decision to reject participation in the international coalition that US president Barack Obama is trying to assemble to respond to Damascus’s use of chemical weapons in Syria. What is more important is how Iran will view this international division, and what will happen in the region as a result of this.
Iran, which cooperated—in every sense of the word—with the US invasion of Iraq, has been well aware since that time that this region is fated to chaos and violence. In fact, it was well aware of this following the September 11 terrorist attacks that struck the US in 2001. Tehran expanded its influence in the region against this backdrop, and today there can be no doubt that Iran has understood that the international division over Syria—and particularly over the use of chemical weapons—means that it is not just the region that is divided, but the international community. This gives Iran the opportunity to strengthen its position in terms of the nuclear negotiations, in addition to extending its influence across the region either by strengthening its presence on the ground or by working to escalate the chaos and violence.
Therefore, we say that Assad’s response is unimportant because he is now a known factor, and regardless of what he does—and regardless of the international division over his regime—the story now is no longer about the Assad regime collapsing as a result of a possible military strike by the US, France and others. The story now is about Iran’s reading of this international division—or, shall we say, international weakness. Tehran is well aware that the region has been exposed internationally, particularly during the Obama era, while it is also aware that regional alliances broke down as a result of the so-called Arab Spring, which has seen crisis after crisis strike the Arab world. The region is fortunate that Egypt did not slide into violence and chaos, following the course of Libya and Syria, although Cairo remains in the recovery phase. As for the reputation of the Syrian revolution, this has been significantly distorted by the wrong approach followed by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during the Mursi era. As for the Arab Gulf, the puzzling differences of opinion between Gulf states remains clear for all to see. The best example of this can be seen in the Qatari position towards Egypt, in contrast to its dealings with some parties in the Syrian opposition.
Therefore, we can be certain that Iran has absorbed the British message—namely that the international community is divided, and is not serious about dealing with vital issues, including the use of chemical weapons in Syria, not to mention the suffering of the Syrian people at the hands of the Assad regime. This is something that Assad is only able to do thanks to the blatant intervention of Hezbollah and Iran. The question that must be asked here is: What about us? What about the region? How will we deal with the ambitions of Iran in light of this international division, particularly when we take Washington’s disparate and contradictory positions into account? The US is making these costly foreign policy fumbles in a post-Arab Spring region, and Washington is acting like a bull in a China shop, particularly in Syria, where the US president’s statements are likely to lead to disasters today, and these could engulf the entire region tomorrow. So Iran has learned its lesson—but what about the region?

It’s the UK Parliament’s perogative
By: Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
“The British parliament has given Bashar Al-Assad a blank check to use chemical weapons!”That is the tone of some media comments in the wake of Prime Minister David Cameron’s failure Thursday night to get his resolution approved by the House of Commons.Well, not so fast! A closer look might offer a different picture. To start with, the parallel debates in the Commons and the House of Lords provided an opportunity for a rare show of unity on the core questions regarding the latest phase of the Syrian tragedy. The first question was whether or not chemical weapons had been used in Syria.
The response in both houses was an almost unanimous yes. This was in sharp contrast with claims from Moscow and Tehran, Assad’s main backers, that there had been no such attacks and that the whole thing was a Cecil B. De Mille-style production by Western intelligence services. Even George Galloway, the sole House of Commons member speaking for Assad, admitted that chemical weapons had been used.
The second question concerned responsibility for the attacks. The debates enabled the British government to show that Assad had been behind at least 14 such attacks “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Again, none of the participants in the debate—not even Galloway—repeated Syrian government claims that rebels had been responsible. If anything, the debates showed a remarkable degree of unity in expressing revulsion at Assad’s strategy of clinging to power by terror. But will Britain participate in action to refrain Assad?
Cameron’s hasty reaction after the debate was a surprise. It was as if he never wanted intervention and was now relieved to have an excuse for not doing so.He said that the parliament had shown it did not support military action against Syria. However, that was not the question. Even the Labour Party amendment was premised on the assumption that action might become necessary. The debate was about a timetable and the method of action, not about its substance. Parliament rejected Cameron’s proposed timetable and approach. Legally speaking, he can always come back with a different resolution and get a different result.
Cameron seems to have realized this after a good night’s sleep. This is what he said Friday morning: “I think it’s important we have a robust response to the use of chemical weapons and there are a series of things we will continue to do.”
He added: “We will continue to take a case to the United Nations, we will continue to work in all the organizations we are members of—whether the EU, or NATO, or the G8 or the G20—to condemn what’s happened in Syria. It’s important we uphold the international taboo on the use of chemical weapons.”Has the British parliament become isolationist? No. The same parliament approved intervention in Libya and extended the mission in Afghanistan and—don’t be surprised—may endorse intervention in Syria at a later point. Does the vote affect British–US relations?  Not necessarily. The two allies have not always fought together. The US opposed Britain in the 1956 Suez war. Britain did not take part in the Vietnam War. The US played no part in a series of British wars—from Malaya to Aden to the Falklands. Nor did Britain join the US in the Cuban quarantine or the invasion of Grenada. Despite this, the two allies continue to enjoy close cooperation through military and intelligence services across the globe, and are doing just that on Syria right now.
Britain and the US are founding members of NATO. The treaty obligates signatories to respond to a member-state’s appeal for support in military conflict. If the US calls on the UK for support, that would be extended automatically. However, the operation envisaged by President Barack Obama is not yet aimed at regime change in Syria, and thus does not require full British military participation.
For 30 months, the Syrian tragedy has had many twists and turns. Thursday night witnessed one of those twists and turns, albeit on a minor scale. All along, however, one thing has remained certain: Assad’s strategy of clinging to power through terror is doomed to failure.

Is it time to recall Canadian Parliament to debate Syria?
By: Andy Radia/Yahoo/Prime Minister Stephen Harper answering questions at an announcement on August 20, 2013Should Stephen Harper follow the lead of his international allies — specifically U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and U.S. President Barack Obama — and recall Parliament to debate a potential attack in Syria? Earlier this week, the British Parliament debated and eventually rejected Cameron's motion for U.K. military involvement — in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime. On Saturday, Obama called for direct military action in Syria but said that he would also seek Congressional authorization to do so.
"I have decided that the United States should take military action Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open ended intervention, we would not put boots on the ground. Instead our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope," the President said during a press conference on the White House lawn.
"I have made a second decision. I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress. For the last several days we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree."Calls for Harper to reconvene Parliament for a debate on Syria have been muted since last Thursday. On that day, during a press conference on another topic, the Prime Minister said that, while the government supports its allies in responding to the chemical attack, it had "no plans" for a "Canadian military mission."
But there are still some that feel that our MPs should be debating our "support" of a U.S. offensive.
The Toronto Star's Tim Harper argues that is what Parliament is for.
"We are not joining any potential mission, but we are backing one, and for that reason alone, Canadians deserve to hear from the men and women we sent to Ottawa to represent us," he wrote in an article published on Saturday. Political commentator Bruce Anderson says that Canada's position needs to be clarified and debated.
"The point of a debate would [be] to let the country hear in more detail the thinking behind the PM's position (Are there some U.S. options that we would oppose; do we have a view as to whether the goal should be a change in the regime; how do we evaluate the dilemma of what we can accomplish with limited strikes?) as well as to hear the ideas of other leaders and Parliamentarians," Anderson told Yahoo Canada News in an email exchange.
"If we take the position that whatever a majority government decides need not be debated because as a practical matter they can do what they want, there would be very few debates on anything."
And former Brian Mulroney chief of staff Norman Spector says that in light of Obama's speech (where the President asks the international community to "stand publicly behind our action"), Harper should recall the House to express Parliament's support. "Yes, recall House to express political support for Obama’s limited attack on Syria, no boots on the ground etc.," Spector told Yahoo Canada.
To their credit, the Conservatives have briefed the opposition leaders about the Syrian conflict. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has been in recent contact with Justin Trudeau, Thomas Mulcair and Elizabeth May.
But is that enough? Should Harper recall Parliament? Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
Are you a politics junkie?