Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources/September 06/13

Analysis: Surprise or not, U.S. strikes can still hurt Assad
By Phil Stewart
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It would hardly be a surprise to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or his military if American missiles start hitting Syria soon.
With weeks to prepare for an attack, Assad might benefit in some ways from the delay in any strike caused by President Barack Obama's decision to seek approval from a divided U.S. Congress.
U.S. officials and defense experts say Assad's forces cannot take enough targets out of reach to blunt the U.S. military mission, especially since it is billed as having very limited objectives.
Obama is calling for a limited military strike in response to a chemical weapons attack on civilians blamed by the United States on Assad's forces.
Fixed targets, for example, cannot be protected no matter how much time elapses. "A building can't be moved, nor hid," one U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Other fixed targets could include airfields, although not any storage facilities with chemical weapons in them.
Defense analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank said if successful, hitting fixed targets would eliminate key assets to Assad that "can't easily be replaced, like command and control facilities, major headquarters."
"These are lasting targets," Cordesman said.
It is still unclear when any U.S. attack on Syria will happen but Assad already has had ample time to try to get ready. U.S. officials have been openly discussing the possibility of hitting Syria since shortly after the August 21 chemical weapons attack near Damascus.
Even if Congress approves military action, a final vote would be unlikely before the middle of next week.
A second U.S. official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the delay added "complexities" to the planning efforts.
"It may change target sets," the official said. "We'll continue to refine our targeting options to conditions on the ground."
Assad has already moved some military equipment and personnel to civilian areas and put soldiers whose loyalty to Assad is in doubt in military sites as human shields against any Western strikes, the Istanbul-based Syrian opposition has said.
It cited movement of rockets, Scud missiles and launches, as well as soldiers to locations including schools, university dormitories and government buildings inside cities.
That could complicate the ability of the United States to reach some targets.
COLLATERAL DAMAGE
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged publicly to Congress that Obama has ordered the military to develop plans that keep a lid on collateral damage - civilian deaths and damage to civilian infrastructure.
"Though they are in fact moving resources around - and in some cases placing prisoners and others in places that they believe we might target - at this point our intelligence is keeping up with that movement," Dempsey, the top U.S. military officer, told lawmakers on Wednesday.
WAIT FOR MONTH?
The question of whether losing the element of surprise makes a difference militarily became a bone of contention in the debate over congressional backing for Obama's attack plan.
Senator John McCain, one of the Republicans who has pushed hardest for military action in Syria, said this week he was "astounded" when Obama said the military had advised him that an attack would still be effective in a month's time.
"When you tell the enemy you are going to attack, they are obviously going to disperse and make it harder," McCain said in Congress on Tuesday.
"It's ridiculous to think that it's not wise from a pure military standpoint not to warn the enemy that you're gonna attack," McCain said.
The Obama administration says the planned attack is designed to strike a particular balance - being strong enough to deter Assad from using chemical weapons in the future while also degrading his ability to do so.
But the Obama administration has said any attack would not be designed to topple Assad or necessarily shift the momentum in Syria's civil war to the detriment of government forces.
U.S. objectives include targets directly linked to the Syrian military's ability to use chemical weapons, as well as missiles and rockets that can deliver them, Dempsey said.
Air defenses that could be used to protect chemical weapons sites are also potential targets, Dempsey said.
"That target package is still being refined as I sit here with you," Dempsey told lawmakers.
Despite the stated objective of deterring Assad, the U.S. military cannot guarantee its strikes will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons in the future.
Even the objective to degrade - a military term that means "diminish" - his capabilities is vague. There has been no clear, public objective offered by the United States on how much it must damage Assad's capabilities.
(Additional reporting by David Alexander; Editing by Alistair Bell and Will Dunham)

Hezbollah prepares for US strike; Russia lashes at rebels
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4426353,00.html
Lebanese sources say ten thousand Hezbollah militants gird for Damascus' defense in case of US strike, pending Iranian go-ahead. Russian report claims rebels behind Aleppo sarin attack
Ynet Published: 09.05.13/Ynetnews
Russia counters with its own chemical report, Hezbollah prepares for strike: Moscow accused the Syrian rebels of using chemical weapons in an attack on the town of Khan al-Assal near Aleppo on March 19.
At the same time, Hezbollah is reportedly preparing for two tasks: Preventing Damascus from falling in rebel hands during expected US strike, and firing toward Israel. The Saudi newspaper al-Okaz reported on Thursday that according to Lebanese sources in Beirut Hezbollah is readying for the collapse of the Syrian army following an American attack and is therefore planning to stand ground in Damascus with ten thousands combatants.
However, such a move – as well as firing missiles in the north of the country – will only be commenced with direct instructions from Iran, said the report.
Recently, the Shiite group has tuned down its involvement in the Syrian civil war due to the severe criticism turned against it at home. On Wednesday, it was reported that a top official in the group admitted that Assad is responsible for the chemical massacre in Damascus' suburbs.  Moscow, as said, is standing in staunch support of its ally Assad, and turns a blaming finger at the Syrian rebels.
The Russian RT network reported that Russian specialists claimed that the shells found were improvised, and conjectured they were manufactured in northern Syria by rebel forces.
According to them, the shells contained sarin nerve gas, classified by the UN as a weapon of mass destruction. The Russian Foreign Ministry declared that probing the evidence may aid the UN investigate that incident in which at least 26 civilians and Syrian army soldiers were killed, and 86 more were injured. Meanwhile, the Syrian President's Office political advisor, Bouthaina Shaaban, claimed that it was the Syrian opposition who perpetrated the August 21 chemical attack: "The opposition kidnapped men and children from villages in Latakia and brought them to the Gouta area near Damascus. There it used chemical weapons against them," she said in an interview for Sky news in Arabic. Earlier this week, UN Chief Ban Ki-moon stated that the UN inspectors are expected to return to Syria in order to investigate additional attacked suspected to have involved chemical arms.
Meanwhile, the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee voted on Wednesday to give President Barack Obama the authority to use military force against Syria in response to a deadly chemical attack in Damascus on August 21.  The Senate committee vote was 10-7, with one senator voting present. The full Senate is expected to vote on the measure next week.
Regarding the proposal for military action in Syria, President Obama stated on Wednesday during a press conference in Sweden: "I believe that Congress will approve it. I think it’s very important that Congress say that we mean what we say." He stressed that "My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important. And when those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage. How can this happen in this modern world? Well, it happened because a government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations. "And so the question is how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed? The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons? And I do think that we have to act because if we don’t, we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth and so on, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity."

Hizballah mobilizes to defend Damascus under US attack
DEBKAfile September 5, 2013, 10:16 AM (GMT+02:00)
The Shiite Hizballah has transferred 10,000 fighters to Damascus ahead of a US strike on Syria, according to various sources in Lebanon. The Lebanese organization has “called on all its officers and members to man their positions.” Hezbollah fighters have left their regular positions and checkpoints in southern Beirut, turning off their mobile phones so that they could not be traced. The Hizballah force is assigned the main onus of defending the Syrian capital in the event of a US military attack, while also preparing to launch a rocket attack on Israel, depending on the okay from Tehran.
 

U.N. Wants Capable Government, Urges Politicians to Support Lebanese Army
Naharnet/U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Derek Plumbly said the formation of a capable government facilitates the work of the United Nations in Lebanon.
In an interview with As Safir daily published on Thursday, Plumbly said it was up to the Lebanese to decide on the form of the new cabinet but it was “important to form a capable government as soon as possible.”
He also stressed the importance of holding the national dialogue under President Michel Suleiman at Baabda palace. “The concerns of the U.N. in Lebanon and the South, and on the issue of the refugees require consultations. The presence of a capable government facilitates our work,” he said. The diplomat shied away from answering about the fears of the U.N. on the repercussions of a possible U.S. military strike on Syria. He only said that U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon discussed the issue with the members of the Security Council a few days ago.
“What I am concerned with as the U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon is the protection of Lebanon as stated in the Baabda Declaration,” Plumbly told As Safir.
The U.S. Congress could vote as early as next week to authorize strikes to punish Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons. Plumbly denied there was a decision to evacuate the families of UNIFIL's civilian members over the possible U.S. action in neighboring Syria. “No such decision was taken,” he said. “UNIFIL will continue in its mission … This won't change no matter what the circumstances were.” “Does anyone have any doubt about that?” he wondered. Plumbly lauded the Lebanese army for not being confessionally divided. He described it as a “symbol” that reflects the unity of the people. He said the army was under a lot of pressure and that it deserved the support of all political parties.





Ibrahim Warns of Security Threats, Assures No Civil War Or Israeli Aggression
Naharnet /General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim warned on Thursday that Lebanon is passing through a dangerous phase and is still a target for perpetrators who plan to shatter its peace but assured that the nation will not slide into another civil war or be subject to an Israeli aggression.
“The security situation in Lebanon is open to all kinds of prospects, and we expect more assassinations,” Ibrahim told al-Joumhouria daily.
He added that any assassination attempt aims to destabilize the country and benefit the perpetrators who planned it for that purpose. He said: “Anyone can be a target for an assassination because it aims to destabilize the country. Its our duty to confront the danger threatening Lebanon.”
He also assured that Lebanon will not plunge into civil war despite the attempts dragging it to one, and said “the state and its institutions are coherent and united despite the regional and local situation.”
Lebanon witnessed a number of security breaches lately including missiles that hit the areas of Baabda and Beirut's southern suburbs (Dahieh), and the rockets launched against Israel which retaliated back by firing on Naameh, south of Beirut.
Other massive car blasts in August hit Dahieh and two mosques in Tripoli, killing and wounding hundreds.
The Maj. Gen. said he met with several political rivals who confirmed that none of them wants to go to civil war, he said: “Everyone is convinced that force in Lebanon does not impose anything.”
He ruled out the possibility of an Israeli aggression against Lebanon. On the situation in the region, Ibrahim described it as “difficult” pointing to a ministerial meeting held at Baabda on Wednesday that discussed the repercussions of a military strike against Syria, “We have taken some precautions to confront the worst possibilities, mainly the influx of Syrian refuges.”
He pointed to a workshop in collaboration with the Ministry of Social Affairs and the UNHCR to follow up on the refugees file.
The number of Syrian refugees who have fled the violence in Syria since March 2011 has topped the two million mark, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

Jumblat Discusses with Salam Cabinet Formation Efforts Amid Renewed Hizbullah Condition
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat discussed with Premier-designate Tammam Salam the latest cabinet formation efforts and an alleged Saudi go ahead to an all-embracing government despite a rejection by Hizbullah of a 24-member line-up in which the three major factions would get 8 ministers each. Al-Joumhouria newspaper said that Jumblat visited Salam on Tuesday night to brief him on the results of the discussions that caretaker Social Affairs Minister Wael Abou Faour held with Saudi officials in Riyadh. Abou Faour regularly visits the Saudi capital as a PSP envoy. Jumblat, who is a centrist, has promised to facilitate the formation of the cabinet. According to the daily, the PSP chief hailed the results of Abou Faour's discussions with Prince Abdul Aziz after Riyadh paved way for the formation of an all-embracing cabinet as called for by President Michel Suleiman. The March 14 alliance had initially rejected Hizbullah's participation in the government over its fighting in Syria. The Saudi green light gave some hope that the line-up would be ready soon.
But Hizbullah deputy leader Sheikh Naim Qassem said Wednesday that “things were back to square one,” adding that the conditions of the March 14 coalition had not changed. Qassem reiterated Hizbullah's demand for a government in which all political parties are represented in accordance to their weight in parliament. An Nahar said that Hizbullah proposed a new formula of giving the March 8 and 14 alliances nine ministers each and the centrists – Suleiman, Salam and Jumblat – six ministers. “No government can succeed unless all the parties are justly represented in it,” said Qassem.

Al-Daher Appeals for Support to ISF, Condemns Hizbullah for 'Terrorizing' Lebanese
Naharnet /Al-Mustaqbal MP Khaled al-Daher slammed on Thursday the critics of the Internal Security Forces Intelligence Branch, accusing them of serving the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad to defend Iran's project in the region. “The Lebanese should protect Lebanon by supporting the security forces,” he said at a press conference he held in the northern city of Tripoli. He thanked the Intelligence Branch on its “tremendous efforts in arresting agents and spy networks, in addition to terrorist cells.” Hizbullah should “withdraw from Syria and safeguard the blood of the Shiite sect,” he said. “The so-called resistance's weapons are now terrorizing the Lebanese and collaborating with the Syrian regime through assassinations,” al-Daher added. “Why are you pointing your finger at Takfiris in the bombings?” he wondered, addressing Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who last month declared that the takfiri movement had taken a decision to destroy Lebanon. Nasrallah accused a takfiri group of being behind a deadly car bombing in Beirut's southern suburbs on Aug. 15, stressing that explosions in Hizbullah's stronghold and a series of attacks that targeted the party's convoys would not deter his support for Assad. But al-Daher said: “Thanks to the Intelligence Branch we now know who the Takfiris and the terrorists are – the Syrian regime.” He was referring to two consecutive bombings near mosques in the northern city of Tripoli last month. The attacks were allegedly ordered by a Syrian security officer.
“All personalities and associations receiving money from Syria and Iran have the ultimate goal of dealing with security issues and providing them with information on Lebanese officials,” al-Daher said.
The lawmaker urged politicians to “immediately form a cabinet based on the constitution.”

Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam says he won't give up on Cabinet
September 05, 2013/ The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam said Thursday he will not give up on efforts to form a new government in Lebanon, despite months with little progress in bringing together rival sides over a Cabinet lineup. “As long as there is positive cooperation with the president and as long as I feel the support of the people, I will continue to seek government formation,” Salam told reporters after talks with President Michel Sleiman at the Presidential Palace in Baabda. Salam said he will not hesitate to give up the task of forming a Cabinet if the quest becomes harmful to the country or the people.
Salam suggested that the rival parties were not interested in forming a new government and blamed them for the delay. "The issue of the formulas and numbers are just details,” he said in response to a question. “Having a serious intent to form a government is what matters." “Conditions and counter-conditions put by the political forces are preventing the facilitation of the formation process,” he added.
Salam said he is looking into forming a government that “can deal with the delicate and sensitive situation we are living in.”Since his appointment in April, Salam has been struggling to form a new government in the face of conditions and counter-conditions by rival Lebanese camps. Wednesday, Hezbollah again rejected a old proposal for a 24-member Cabinet, reiterating its demand for the formation of a government in which all political parties are represented in proportion to their size in Parliament. The proposal for a 24-member Cabinet equally divided among the March 8 and March 14 parties and centrists – a reference to Sleiman, Salam and MP Walid Jumblatt – was first made by Salam shortly after he was named on April 6 to form a new government.
 

Sleiman, Maronite bishops warn against military strike on Syria
September 05, 2013/By Antoine Amrieh/The Daily Star
DIMAN, Lebanon: President Michel Sleiman and the Maronite bishops denounced Wednesday the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, but warned against a U.S.-led military strike against the strife-torn neighboring country. “We are against a foreign military intervention in Syria. But this does not mean that we do not condemn in the strongest terms the use of chemical weapons to annihilate people,” Sleiman told reporters after attending a heritage event with Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai in Diman, the patriarch’s summer residence. He said it was up to the United Nations, which is investigating the chemical arms attack that killed hundreds outside Damascus last month, to take action against the culprits. Sleiman urged Lebanese and external parties to distance Lebanon from any regional conflict should Syria be attacked by the United States and its Western allies for allegedly using chemical weapons against civilians. “If a [military] intervention happens [in Syria], I appeal to everyone, external or internal parties, not to involve Lebanon in this issue and to fully neutralize it,” Sleiman said. “Lebanon’s territory, airspace and its people shouldn’t be part of an action or reaction [to a military strike].” The remarks were apparently directed at Hezbollah amid fears that the party, which is backing forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, might attack Israel in response to a massive military strike on Syria. Similar warnings were issued by the Maronite bishops. “The bishops denounce the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but they call for being aware of the risks of a potential military strike,” the bishops said in a statement following their monthly meeting, chaired by Rai in Diman. Washington has warned it is considering military action against the Syrian government after accusing it of being behind a chemical attack that claimed the lives of over a thousand people in the suburbs of Damascus last month.
The bishops said that a possible military strike on Syria could affect the entire region, advocating a political solution as the best option for ending the crisis. “We call for resolving the Syrian crisis through dialogue and peaceful diplomatic means; a political solution is the best option for Syria,” the bishops said. They also reiterated their call for forming a Cabinet capable of addressing challenges facing the country. “Given the dangers threatening Lebanon from both inside and outside the country, the bishops call on state officials ... to overcome all barriers dividing them and form a Cabinet capable of confronting dangers and of protecting the Lebanese people and constitutional institutions from total collapse,” the bishops said. “It is high time to realize that if the nation falls apart, we will all fall with it.” The council’s meeting was attended by caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati, who later attended a lunch and held a closed-door meeting with Rai. Rai voiced concern over the delay in the Cabinet formation. “We feel with you in the role you have to bear and we praise your patience and efforts. We are concerned with the fate of the nation in this difficult period and the lack of a government that can confront developments,” he said. For his part, Mikati stressed the need for National Dialogue to end the country’s political crisis and reiterated his call to remain neutral when it comes to conflicts in the region, mainly in Syria. “Dialogue between the Lebanese is centrally important for resolving disputes and leaving our children a nation that is at peace and not subjected to wars every few decades,” Mikati said. “I call for facing the difficult circumstances experienced by Lebanon through consolidating the domestic front and reinvigorating the policy of dissociation by returning to the Baabda Declaration.”

World Bank helps Lebanon with Syria assessment
September 05, 2013/The Daily Star
WASHINGTON: The World Bank is helping Lebanon prepare the ground to request an influx of international aid to offset the high costs of the spillover from the Syrian war, President Jim Yong Kim told the Associated Press.
Kim said in an interview late Tuesday that Beirut asked the World Bank to take the lead in preparing a quick assessment of the socioeconomic impact of the war in Syria, to be presented during a Sept. 25 meeting of an international support group for Lebanon at the United Nations General Assembly. Kim said the bank made a “very intensive effort” to finish the assessment in a few weeks, something that normally would take six to nine months.
Lebanon is hoping the World Bank’s stamp on the analysis will underpin its request for aid from individual donor countries as well as international agencies. It will look at the Syrian conflict’s enormous strains on Lebanese tourism, trade, health, education and on ordinary citizens. “We have been preparing the path so that the global community can support Lebanon,” Kim said, adding that he hopes funds will begin to flow once the assessment is presented at the U.N. The bank is looking for partners to provide grants to alleviate some of the strain on the economy, budget and infrastructure of the country, which is hosting more than 720,000 registered refugees.

Hezbollah again says ‘no’ to three-eight Cabinet proposal
September 05, 2013/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Hezbollah again rejected Wednesday an old proposal for a 24-member Cabinet, reiterating its demand for the formation of a government in which all political parties are represented in proportion to the size of their representation in Parliament. The proposal for a 24-member Cabinet equally divided among the March 8 and March 14 parties and centrists – a reference to President Michel Sleiman, Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam and MP Walid Jumblatt – was first made by Salam shortly after he was named on April 6 to form a new government. However, the proposal has been rejected outright by Hezbollah and its March 8 allies.
The remarks by Hezbollah’s deputy leader Sheikh Naim Qassem were viewed as a response to Sleiman and Salam, who were reported to have revived the three-eight Cabinet formula after attempts to form a neutral, nonpartisan government had foundered in the face of strong opposition by the Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance. “We are keen to see the formation of an all-embracing government capable of shouldering the burden of reinvigorating and protecting Lebanon from the dangers and crises surrounding the region,” Qassem said in a statement after meeting a delegation from the Jabal Amel Ulama Association. “No government can succeed unless all the parties are justly represented in it,” he added. Citing media reports about the revival of the three-eight formula and saying that the March 14 parties had dropped their opposition to Hezbollah’s participation in the government, Qassem said: “The fact is that matters are back to square one. There is nothing new in what is being proposed. The conditions announced by the March 14 parties have been the same ones since the first day. These are isolationist and not unifying conditions and do not fit for Lebanon in this stage.” Reiterating that Hezbollah and its allies demand the formation of a government in which all the parties are represented according to their political clout in Parliament, Qassem said: “We will not accept a government with an unbalanced representation. We are not seeking ministerial posts in which we [have no role]. This is the case with the 8-8-8 Cabinet.”
Sleiman Wednesday renewed his call for the formation of an all-embracing government in which all the political parties shoulder responsibility in resolving the country’s worsening political and socio-economic problems.
He also reiterated his call for the resumption of National Dialogue between the rival March 8 and March 14 leaders in a bid to seek ways “to defend Lebanon in the face of the dangers, particularly the Israeli threat.”
He spoke during a meeting with a delegation representing private sector institutions at Baabda Palace.

Minqara released in Tripoli bombs case urges dialogue

September 05, 2013/By Kareem Shaheen, Youssef Diab/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A pro-Assad Islamist preacher accused of withholding information on the twin car bombs in Tripoli last month proclaimed his innocence Wednesday after a military court ordered his release and called for dialogue among religious leaders in Lebanon to prevent further bloodshed. “We don’t want blood to be spilled,” Sheikh Hashem Minqara said at a news conference after his release. “Enough blood – I called for dialogue because more blood can be spilled and maybe we can prevent it.” The Military Court of Cassation, headed by Judge Alice Shabtini, ordered Minqara’s release. The court dismissed an earlier request by Military Prosecutor Saqr Saqr, who sought the continued detention of the Islamist preacher. Ibrahim Ayoubi, Minqara’s lawyer, said that the decision proved Minqara’s innocence. Military Investigative Judge Riad Abu Ghayda had ordered Minqara’s release Monday but the decision was challenged by Saqr.
Minqara, the head of Islamic Tawhid, a pro-Assad group, was charged with withholding information about a cell involved in last month’s bombings in Tripoli that killed 47 and wounded hundreds. Two suspects in the bombings remain in detention – Sheikh Ahmad Gharib and informant Mustafa Houri. Minqara, who spoke at a news conference Wednesday evening at the headquarters of the Islamic Action Front in Beirut, criticized the investigation into the bombings, saying it “lacks transparency.”
He declared his innocence of the charge against him, saying he would not have withheld information on a potential bomb plot from the authorities.
“Even if a piece of information was not certain, I would have reported it,” he said.
Gharib and Houri, as well as two Syrians who are still at large, were charged last month in the car bombs case.The two men were charged with tasking the two Syrians to set up a “monitoring and planning cell to carry out terrorist acts in Lebanon,” while the two Syrians were charged with rigging two cars with explosives and placing them, with the help of other individuals, outside the Al-Taqwa and Al-Salam Mosques in Tripoli.
Minqara said he “strongly condemned” the loss of life in Tripoli, where he said the “blood of innocents” was spilled.
“We are all targeted, not just in Lebanon and Syria but in all the Arab and Muslim countries,” he said, referring as well to bombings in Iraq where he said both Shiite and Sunni mosques have been attacked. Minqara said that Gharib was only involved in providing services and assistance to detainees held in connection with the crisis in Syria. “There was nothing else, and anyone who has additional information, let them come forth,” he said.
Minqara appeared critical of the apparent reliance of security agencies on the testimony of Houri.
“If you rely on Mustafa Houri for your information, that is your business,” he said. “Mustafa Houri is detained along with Sheikh Ahmad; let the investigation show who is right.”Minqara also questioned whether the Information Branch of the Internal Security Forces acted quickly enough on information supplied by Houri, hinting that the bombings could have been prevented.
He issued a call for dialogue to leading religious scholars, including Sheikh Salem Rifai, the imam of Al-Taqwa Mosque in Tripoli that was the scene of one of last month’s car bombs. “I call for this dialogue sooner and not later.”
Minqara urged religious unity despite political disagreements on the crisis in Syria, warning that ‘takfiris,’ a term used to describe Islamist fundamentalists, would ignite “a devastating war” throughout the country.
Sources in Tripoli said it was unlikely that Minqara would return immediately to the city, where some groups have publicly threatened him with violence.
The preacher was evasive when asked if he would go back, saying he had some outstanding issues to settle before returning, though he held the country’s security agencies responsible for protecting him and his allies from attack and called on them to investigate threats of violence.
Arrest warrants are expected to be issued soon against the two Syrian men allegedly involved in the attacks in Tripoli, which has frequently witnessed violence over the conflict in neighboring Syria.
Minqara repeated his opposition to the Syrian rebels, declaring his support for regime-led reforms.
He described his position as one that championed the cause of opposing the West and Israel, rather than being one of outright support for the Assad regime.
“Show me another resisting nation like Syria today,” Minqara said. “The regime says it wants to reform. If we reform it inch by inch, isn’t that better than replacing this project with the Nusra Front?”
The Nusra Front is one of the strains of Al-Qaeda-inspired groups that are fighting against the Assad regime.

Banks, malls, leading businesses heed strike call
September 05, 2013/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Most leading businesses, malls and banks observed a one-day strike in Beirut and some parts of the country Wednesday, threatening further action if officials failed to form a new government.
“We will adopt escalatory steps in the event a government is not formed,” said Adnan Kassar, head of the Economic Committees, which led the call for strike. “Our action is not aimed at disruption but stems from our concern for the country.”His comments came during a news conference that followed a meeting with President Michel Sleiman.
“Lebanon is almost the only country in the world where employers take the decision [to strike] when faced by economic risks,” Sleiman said at the news conference.
“This is a strong call for restoring the situation in the country ... and this needs the cooperation of everyone,” Sleiman added. Kassar and the business leaders insisted that the strike was successful and had served its purpose.
“The strike achieved its aim and Lebanon has not seen a similar action by the private sector in 40 years,” said Nicolas Chammas, head of the Beirut Traders Association.
He added that the Economic Committees had gone ahead with the action in spite of its high cost to businesses, ranging between $75 million and $100 million.
Head of the Industrialists Association Nehmat Frem warned that Lebanon had crossed into dangerous territory when its public debt grew above $60 billion.
“We demand a government that is capable of neutralizing [the dangers of] all regional struggles, because the economy and citizens are paying a huge price,” he said.
In Beirut’s main Hamra thoroughfare and Ashrafieh’s Sassine Square, big stores and banks abided by the strike action. But many small shops and businesses were seen open. In total, an estimated 50 percent of businesses were closed around 11 a.m.
Marwan Chehab, one of the Hamra vendors that remained opened, said the strike did not make much sense to him.
“The strike does not make a difference, and even those who call themselves leaders have no say in the formation of a Cabinet,” he said. “If we close the shop, we will only incur more losses.” A number of cafe and restaurant owners said they ended the strike action at 12 p.m. in line with a decision by the Association of Restaurants.
But many cafes and restaurants were seen open for business even before midday. Some of the biggest shopping malls in the country closed for most of the day and re-opened at 4 p.m.
Businesses in the capital’s suburbs seemed less concerned by the strike, and shops were mostly open in Antelias, Zalka, Dora and Beirut’s southern suburbs. The NNA said most businesses in Jounieh went on strike.
In Tripoli, Lebanon’s second-largest city, the picture was similar with many large, privately owned firms and banks closed. A significant number of the shops in the city center were closed, The Daily Star’s correspondent in the area reported. However, the strike action in the southern city of Sidon was limited to the closure of banks.
The normally busy city streets saw little morning traffic.
The NNA reported closures in downtown Zahle. However, in other parts of the country, only banks were closed for business. The majority of gas stations operated normally despite a decision by oil importers to stop delivering fuel. The Economic Committees – a body representing private sector groups – called for the strike last week, demanding that political parties agree on forming a Cabinet in order to support the economy.
The Cabinet resigned in March following a fallout over attempts to extend the term of a senior security official and the formation of a committee to oversee the now postponed general elections.
Caretaker Industry Minister Vreij Sabounjian said Wednesday the strike would not hasten a Cabinet lineup, reiterating calls for a “quiet economic dialogue” between government officials and the Economic Committees.
“The participation of the banking sector in the strike cripples the work of businesses and citizens as well as investors, who are obliged to make daily transfers, deposits and withdrawals,” he said
Economy Minister Nicolas Nahas said that while action carried a rightful message, Lebanon had little control over the causes of recession.
“The main problem is the regional crisis and the war raging in Syria, which is causing political divisions in the region and among Lebanese political parties. We are paying the price of those divisions,” he said.
The private sector strike coincided with sit-ins by the Union Coordination Committee demanding the passage of the long-awaited public sector wage increase and “the protection of national unity.”
UCC head Hanna Gharib disassociated his group’s action from that of the Economic Committees.
“Our action has nothing to do with that of the money ‘whales,’” he told protesters, adding that by standing against planned public sector wage increases, the Economic Committees had made cooperation with the labor group impossible. “We want a government to protect civil peace and ensure the livelihood of citizens that are part of the civil peace,” Gharib told a rally outside the Education Ministry Wednesday.
Similar protests were held in Tripoli, Baabda and Sidon.
 

Key US Senate panel backs Obama on strike against Syria
DEBKAfile September 4, 2013, 11:19 PM (GMT+02:00)
The Senate Foreign Relations committee voted 10 to 7 Wednesday to authorize President Barack Obama to take military action against Syria over its use of chemical weapons on civilians. The resolution calls for limited action lasting no more than 90 days and says no US soldiers would be put on the ground. The measure will now be referred to the full Senate, following which it goes to the House of Representatives.

Egyptian minister survives assassination bid
DEBKAfile September 5, 2013, 1:33 PM (GMT+02:00)
Security sources said Interior Minister Mohammed Ibrahim, who is in charge of the police, survived a bomb car attack on his convoy in Nasser City, Muslim Brotherhood stronghold in Cairo. It was not clear if the attack was caused by a suicide car bombing or an explosives-packed car detonated by remote control. There was no word on the minister's condition or other casualties

U.S. vote opens door for strikes to cripple Assad
September 05, 2013/Agencies
WASHINGTON: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in favor of military force in Syria Wednesday – the first in a series of votes as the president’s request makes its way through Senate and House committees before coming before the two chambers for a final vote.
Members voted 10-7 in favor, with one senator merely voting “present.” Full debate is expected next week when all of Congress returns from holiday.
The vote had been delayed after Republican Sen. John McCain, an outspoken advocate of intervention against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, introduced an amendment, which was passed. McCain said he wants more than cruise missile strikes and other limited action, seeking a stronger response aimed at “reversing the momentum on the battlefield” and hastening Assad’s departure.
The initial resolution states that the military mission would not exceed 90 days and would involve no U.S. troops on the ground for combat operations.
Earlier Wednesday, President Barack Obama said the international community’s credibility was at stake in the debate over a military response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
Asked about his past comments drawing a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons, Obama said that line had already been drawn by a chemical weapons treaty ratified by countries around the world.
“That wasn’t something I made up,” he said. He spoke in Sweden before he attends a G-20 economic summit in Russia later this week.
With Obama in Europe, his top national security aides were at the Capitol arguing for Congress’ authorization for strikes against Assad’s regime. That’s in retaliation for what the administration says was a sarin gas attack by his forces outside Damascus last month that killed more than 1,400. The Obama administration also needs to persuade a Republican-dominated House of Representatives that has opposed almost everything on Obama’s agenda since the party seized the majority more than three years ago.
The top Republican in Congress, House Speaker John Boehner, has signaled key support, saying the U.S. has “enemies around the world that need to understand that we’re not going to tolerate this type of behavior.”
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told lawmakers that the planned strike would not be a “pin prick” and would significantly reduce Assad’s military power.
“The President [Barack Obama] has said ... this would not be a pin prick. Those were his words. This would be a significant strike that would in fact degrade his capability,” Hagel told a hearing of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee.
Hagel also said he thought “the likelihood is very high” that Assad would use chemical weapons again unless the U.S. took action to make clear use of the weapons was unacceptable. Secretary of State John Kerry agreed, saying he thought it was “100 percent” likely.
Hagel also said a strike was expected to cost “tens of millions” of dollars.
“We have looked at the different costs, depending on the different options,” Hagel told a hearing in the House of Representatives. “It would be in the tens of millions of dollars, that kind of range.”Arab nations have offered to help pay for any U.S. military intervention, Kerry said. “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the cost and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes, they have. That offer is on the table,” Kerry said as he appeared before a House of Representatives panel. The offer was “quite significant,” he said.
“Some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost. That’s how dedicated they are to this.”
But he stressed: “Obviously, that is not in the cards and nobody is talking about it, but they are talking about taking seriously getting this job done.”
Obama Saturday unexpectedly stepped back from ordering a military strike under his own authority and announced he would seek congressional approval.
Reporters asked Obama Wednesday whether he would take action against Syria if he fails to get that approval.
As commander in chief, “I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security,” he said.
The administration says 1,429 people died from the gas attack on Aug. 21. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which collects information from a network of anti-government activists in Syria, says its toll has reached 502. Assad’s government blames the episode on the rebels.
A United Nations inspection team said Wednesday it was speeding up its analysis of tissue and soil samples it collected in Syria last week and hopes to have it done in two or three weeks.
Obama is expected to find little support for action on his overseas trip. Among major allies, only France has offered publicly to join the United States in a strike.
France’s prime minister made a passionate appeal Wednesday for intervention in Syria, placing the blame for the chemical attack on Assad and warning that inaction could let him carry out more atrocities.
Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault addressed the French National Assembly at the beginning of a debate on the wisdom of a French military response. Wednesday’s debate ended without a vote – since President Francois Hollande can order a military operation without one – but it was part of his government’s delicate dance to rev up support at home for an unpopular intervention.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has warned that any “punitive” strike on Syria would be illegal without a sound case for self-defense or the approval of the Security Council, where Syria ally Russia has used its veto power to block action against Assad’s regime.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned the West against taking one-sided action in Syria but said Russia “doesn’t exclude” supporting a U.N. resolution on punitive military strikes if it is proved that Syria used poison gas on its own people. In an interview Tuesday with the Associated Press, Putin expressed hope that he and Obama would have serious discussions about Syria and other issues at the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg this week.
Obama said Wednesday he was “always hopeful” that Putin would change his position on taking action in Syria.
On the ground Wednesday, a nun and activists say rebel fighters have attacked a regime-held, predominantly Christian village, commandeering a mountaintop hotel and shelling the ancient community from there.
The nun, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, said the assault began around dawn Wednesday with a suicide bombing at a regime checkpoint outside the village of Maaloula.
She said she had heard firefights and regime airstrikes. The nun, speaking by phone from a convent in Maaloula, said regime troops were deployed at the village’s entrance, while rebels had commandeered the Safir hotel overlooking Maaloula and surrounding caves. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights confirmed the attack and said the rebels were from the Al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.
 

It may be curtains for Bashar Assad
September 05, 2013/By Michael Young/The Daily Star
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2013/Sep-05/229996-it-may-be-curtains-for-bashar-assad.ashx#axzz2dz9oommN
There was a distinct mood change in Washington Tuesday, as congressional leaders supported President Barack Obama’s proposal to retaliate against the regime of President Bashar Assad for its use of chemical weapons in the Ghouta area near Damascus.
Obama is likely to win Senate approval for military action, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has agreed to the wording of a resolution authorizing U.S. military force. The House of Representatives is a tougher nut to crack, but the president received a boost this week when the speaker, John Boehner, and the majority leader, Eric Cantor, both Republicans, backed him up. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leader, and Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip, are also on board.
More significantly, the language has changed compared to last week. Whereas Obama had diffidently spoken of a “limited” operation then, he went much further on Tuesday, stating that aside from degrading Assad’s chemical weapons capabilities “we have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition [and] allow Syria ultimately to free itself” from its civil war.
Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “Only the most willful desire to avoid reality can assert that [a chemical attack] did not occur as described or that the regime did not do it. It did happen, and the Assad regime did it. ... This is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter.”
Across the board, members of Congress echoed this view, making the kind of moral case that usually precedes American military operations.
But what can America do specifically, given that Obama wants to avoid a war in Syria and will not deploy American soldiers? That remains unclear, but the most plausible assumption is that the U.S. will seek ways to coordinate its attacks, which may well include aircraft, with ground operations by the rebels, who have made significant gains in the areas around Damascus in recent weeks.
Indeed, there has been considerable speculation that Assad’s resort to chemical weapons came in the aftermath of a rebel advance into the northeastern quarters of the capital. And even then, pro-Syrian sources in Beirut are admitting that the Syrian army’s effort to reconquer the lost neighborhoods was exceptionally difficult.
Perhaps the Americans are gambling that the Free Syrian Army units with whom they are in contact can take Damascus, or at least make inroads that force Assad to step down or accept a political transition. This would give the FSA a decisive advantage over Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups concentrated in the north. Moreover, American officials may have realized that a U.S. bombing campaign will persuade many military units to defect, making Assad’s downfall all but inevitable.
Henri Barkey of Lehigh University perceptively tweeted: “I’ve always had sneaking suspicion that the delay had to do with the [aircraft carrier] Nimitz. It cannot launch aircraft from current location.” Indeed, there is now open talk about using aircraft, which was not the case last week. The value of aircraft in Syria would mainly be tactical, providing support to those fighting on the ground.
The mood is changing in Moscow as well. On Tuesday, President Vladimir Putin said Russia “doesn’t exclude” supporting a U.N. resolution on punitive military strikes if it were proven that Damascus had used chemical weapons against its own people. He also announced that he had stopped shipment of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, which Assad would need to defend against Western aircraft.
The U.S. had sought Russian help in preventing Assad from using chemical weapons, and the Russians may have been embarrassed when he did not listen. With international outrage rising, Putin has no choice but to alter his position, knowing that if he doesn’t he will be isolated if Assad is pushed out. He may prefer to position himself as a mediator in a transitional solution. Some have speculated that this may be discussed at the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg this week. Iran and Hezbollah will be watching carefully to see what happens. The options are limited. If their plan is to target Israel with rockets, this will do little good. Hezbollah would invite a devastating Israeli response if it fires from Lebanon, at a moment when its Syrian policy is unpopular at home and thousands of its combatants are in Syria. A war would also create hundreds of thousands of Shiite refugees, who would angrily wonder why they have to suffer to defend Assad.Moreover, Hezbollah and Iran’s ability to absorb Shiite discontent is restricted. There will be no Arab money this time to rebuild; and Iran is too financially pressed – even as it is paying a hefty financial bill to prop up Assad rule in Syria – to res If, as some have speculated, Hezbollah targets Israel from Syria, this may precipitate the very outcome that Iran and the party seek to avoid. It makes no sense to respond to an American attack against Syria through a mechanism that invites an Israeli attack against Syria, one bound to undermine Assad’s position further.
Obama’s last-minute decision to postpone an attack against Syria confused everybody. But Assad’s satisfaction with the delay was premature. The bully’s bluff has been called, an American attack is coming, and it will hit very hard – unless Russia can devise a political resolution before then that would force Assad from office. It’s not yet the end of the Assad regime, but it could well be the beginning of the end. And when nightmares end, there is only relief.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Assad ally said to defect, Putin chides U.S. on Syria
September 04, 2013/By Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Amena Bakr/Reuters
AMMAN/DOHA: General Ali Habib, a former Syrian defence minister, has become the most senior member of President Bashar al-Assad's ruling Alawite sect to defect, opposition figures said on Wednesday, as Washington debated a military strike on the war-racked country.
Habib had been under house arrest since he resigned in protest at Assad's crackdown on demonstrators in 2011 but had reached the Turkish border late on Tuesday with Western help, Kamal al-Labwani of the Syrian National Coalition told Reuters.
Other sources also said Habib had fled but Syrian state television denied he had left his home. Turkey's foreign minister said he could not confirm the general had defected. Washington and Syria's main backer Russia remained publicly at odds over U.S. plans for a possible military strike but both raised the prospect of easing the deadlock when President Vladimir Putin hosts world leaders at a G20 summit on Thursday.
U.S. President Barack Obama said he would continue to try to persuade Putin of the need for punitive strikes on Assad for using chemical weapons when the two meet in St. Petersburg.
But Putin again questioned Western evidence. He accused U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry outright of lying when, in urging Congress to approve strikes on Syria, Kerry played down the role of al Qaeda in the rebel forces. "Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this," Putin said. "He is lying and knows he is lying. It's sad." Having surprised friends and foes alike by seeking approval from Congress before attacking, Obama has been working to build support at home and abroad. In Stockholm en route for Russia, he appealed to lawmakers' consciences:
"America and Congress's credibility is on the line," he said. "The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons."
In Washington the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Syria, clearing the way for a vote on the resolution in the full Senate, likely next week. Obama is also seeking approval from the Republican-led House of Representatives.
Earlier, Putin had said in a pre-summit interview with the Associated Press that he could not absolutely "rule out" Russia supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution to punish Assad - if it could be proved he had used poison gas. Briefing members of congress in Washington on Wednesday, Kerry said those comments were "hopeful" and "there may be a road forward where Russia would consider not blocking action."
A senior Western official said that, while Moscow was unlikely to say so in public, there were signs Russian officials believe Assad was indeed responsible for the deaths on Aug. 21 and that it had strained Russian support for him - providing an opening for a new, concerted drive to end the conflict.
However, Putin's characteristically blunt tone towards the U.S. position appeared to limit prospects for a breakthrough in a stalemate that has prevented international action to rein in a conflict that has killed more than 100,000 Syrians and left millions homeless but which neither side has been able to win.
The rebels, largely drawn from Syria's Sunni Muslim majority, have captured big swathes of territory and won backing from Gulf Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, as well as from Turkey and Western powers. But Assad, armed by Moscow and backed by Shi'ite Muslim Iran, has held on in Damascus and elsewhere.
Christians, Kurds and others, as well as Western leaders, are wary of Islamist militants among the rebels. Assad's fellow Alawites, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam, fear annihilation if he loses and provide the backbone of the president's armed forces.
Numerous defections over the past two years by senior commanders, either to the rebel Free Syrian Army or into exile abroad, have not led to a collapse of Assad's defences. But the flight of Habib, if confirmed, would lend credibility to suggestions that parts of the Alawite community may be turning against Assad. Previous high-level defections have generally involved Sunni officers.
"Ali Habib has managed to escape from the grip of the regime and he is now in Turkey, but this does not mean that he has joined the opposition. I was told this by a Western diplomatic official," the SNC's Kamal al-Labwani said from Paris.
A Gulf source told Reuters that Habib had crossed the Turkish frontier late on Tuesday with two or three other people. He was then taken across the border in a convoy of vehicles. Kerry said he did not know if the report of Habib's defection was correct but "there are currently defections taking place, I think there are something like 60 to 100 in the last day or so, officers and enlisted personnel." Born in 1939, Habib was defence minister from June 2009 to August 2011 and has also served as Chief of the General Staff of the Syrian Army. He is from the port city of Tartus.
Some opposition sources say that Habib disagreed with the use of force against protesters at the start of the revolt in 2011. Those sources say he was dismissed. He later said publicly that he had left the post for health reasons.
"Habib is a simple and honest. Unlike the Assads he is not corrupt," said a military defector who served under Habib.
"His defection will rattle the Alawite community because it will be seen as another man jumping off a sinking boat, indicating the coming fall of the regime."
Predictions of the imminent collapse of the four-decade-old Assad dynasty, including by Western leaders, have turned out to be wishful thinking before. Recently, the alleged use of poison gas has been cited as evidence of desperation in the Assad camp.
The head of German intelligence told members of parliament this week that German agents had recorded a call between the Iranian embassy in Damascus and a senior figure in Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi'ite militia, which, the agents believe, betrayed a lack of confidence among these two key Assad allies.
A person who attended at the lawmakers' briefing on Monday said the material was presented as evidence of Assad's role in the release of poison gas in rebel-held suburbs of Damascus on Aug. 21. But it also indicated doubts about Assad's tactics.
The Hezbollah official said Assad was wrong to order the gas attack and that it indicated he was losing his nerve. Germany has ruled out joining any military action in Syria.
Following the failure of British Prime Minister David Cameron to win parliamentary backing for air strikes last week, France and Turkey are the only military powers lining up behind Obama. The French parliament debated Syria on Wednesday, though President Francois Hollande does not need approval for action.
His foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said using force against Assad could pave the way for a new round of diplomacy.
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault told parliament that failure to strike Assad would send a message to the likes of Iran and North Korea that they could defy Western powers with impunity, notably over concerns about their nuclear programmes.
Obama has won the backing of key figures in the U.S. Congress, including among his Republican opponents.
The administration is trying to balance the views of many in Congress who want a narrowly defined resolution explicitly ruling out ground troops against calls from hawks such as Senator John McCain, who has pushed for a broader resolution that would allow direct U.S. support for Syrian rebels.
In the Senate, Democratic leader Harry Reid is guardedly confident that a majority of the 100 members will vote yes, but is still unsure if he can get the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican procedural roadblocks, aides said.
In the 435-member House, a senior Republican aide predicted that most of the 50 or so Republicans backed by the anti-big government Tea Party movement will vote no. A number of Democratic liberals are also expected to vote against a resolution, placing the final outcome in doubt.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told a hearing of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee that he thought "the likelihood is very high" that Assad would use chemical weapons again unless the United States took action to make clear use of the weapons was unacceptable.
Kerry agreed, saying he thought it was "100 percent" likely.

Is it time to forgive Neville Chamberlain?
By: Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Alawsat
If we are to look at public opinion trends in the major Western countries, then the picture is clear: two thirds of the public in these countries, namely the US, UK and France, oppose intervention in Syria.
Perhaps both US President Barack Obama, and before him British Prime Minister David Cameron, took this fact into account when they decided to shirk responsibility by deferring the decision to Congress and Parliament respectively.
There can be no doubt that democracy is a good and necessary system of government. While it is also true to say that US and British citizens remain traumatized by the invasion of Iraq, mainly as a result of heavy human losses and the high financial cost of the war, in addition to feeling that their leaders in the White House and Downing Street deceived them and betrayed their trust.
All this is true.
It is also true that British Prime Minister David Cameron is a middle-of-the-road politician with weak convictions and a penchant for compromise. In fact, this is the main reason why the Conservative Party elected him as leader following three bitter defeats at the hands of the Labour Party. Yet, even when he led the Conservatives to victory at the last elections, Cameron failed to win a parliamentary majority; this is why he had to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats.
Those monitoring British politics know that a party leader’s influence and status largely depend on the number of parliamentary seats his party occupies in the House of Commons. If the prime minister enjoys a large majority—as Margaret Thatcher did following the 1983 elections (144 seats) and 1987 elections (102 seats), or such as that enjoyed by Tony Blair following the elections of 1997 (179 seats) and 2001 (167 seats)—then they will concurrently enjoy a stronger position. Even if some MPs rise up against the prime minister, the large parliamentary majority that the leader enjoys renders any act of mutiny largely ineffective. Conversely, a slander majority not only demonstrates sharp political division in a country, it also shows that the party leader’s influence on his MPs is limited, encouraging backbenchers who are displeased with their leader’s policies to rebel. This is precisely what is happening with Cameron now, particularly as the Conservatives do not enjoy an absolute majority in the first place. Prime Minister Cameron is the head of a coalition government based on horse-trading, amicable settlements, and exchange of favors.
In light of this reality on the ground, Cameron’s move to place the Syria resolution before the House of Commons raises a number of questions: Does he actually want to intervene in Syria? If so, why did he first seek a parliamentary mandate, something that he as prime minister was not bound to do? Was he certain of emerging with a “yes” vote? If he was certain that parliament was with him, what happened there that led to the defeat of his motion? We must also bear in mind that the Conservative Party has a Whip’s Office—which is tasked with ensuring that all members vote according to party guidelines—so what exactly went wrong?
In short, Cameron has failed as a “leader” even though he succeeded—in many people’s eyes—as a “democrat” who respects the will of the people. Here it must be noted that the wording of the draft resolution on Syria was ambiguous and vague, while domestic political considerations played a large part in Cameron’s downfall, namely the opposition’s desire to humiliate a sitting prime minister. In addition to this, the right-wing of the Conservative Party are also seeking to weaken, and potentially even topple, Cameron before the next elections, particularly as the isolationist right-wing UK Independence party (UKIP) which is calling for Britain to secede from the European Union (EU) is expected to pick up a high percentage of traditionally Conservative votes at the polls.
Barack Obama finds himself in a not too dissimilar position from David Cameron. Like Cameron, Obama is a moderate and populist politician with weak convictions and a penchant for seeking settlements at the expense of his principles. He also did not have to resort to the US Congress for authorization, keeping in mind that the military strike he has pledged to launch against the Syrian regime is merely is a “disciplinary” warning. However, Obama has so far sent several contradictory signals which only served to encourage intransigence on the part of Russia and China, and allow the Assad regime to feel overconfident. This sense of disregard and conceit from Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry is something that we continue to see in Washington, even after the death toll in Syria exceeded the 100,000 barrier.
Let us now turn to the initial response to the shocking chemical attack on the eastern Ghouta region near Damascus.
During the early hours following the attack, Washington and London lapsed into a practiced silence, and sometimes even denial. I recall how the BBC’s flagship Newsnight TV program dealt with the chemical attack that night. The coverage was very poor and unsympathetic while the interviews with former US Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley, Conservative MP John Baron, and US researcher Michael Rubin were passive and skeptical.
However, the disturbing footage coming out of Syria forced the BBC to change its tone the following day. The subsequent interviews conducted by Newsnight with Dr. Rana Kabbani, US former Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane, and former US ambassador to the United Nations Nancy Soderberg were excellent. All three guests highlighted the world’s moral and principled duty towards the use of chemical weapons, regardless of passing political interests.
It was not too long before Kerry issued a statement accusing the Assad regime of committing the chemical massacre in eastern Ghouta, announcing that Washington would seek to punish the Damascus regime for its break of international norms. Following this, there was a widespread belief that a direct military strike on Damascus would take place in a matter of hours, rather than days, and a large number of desertions from the Syrian army were reported. It was also reported that several of Bashar Al-Assad’s top aides had fled the country for Lebanon. Then, all of a sudden, Obama surprised everybody by deferring the decision to the US Congress.
Obama is a politician who truly believes in democracy, just as the British prime minister does. Like Cameron, Obama knows how to manage a crisis, but he ultimately lacks leadership qualities.
The late French president Charles de Gaulle once said: “When I want to know what France wants, I ask myself.” This is because he was well aware of his political status and the value of his moral attitudes, in addition to his duty as a historical leader. As for great US statesmen Henry Clay, he said: “I’d rather be right than a president,” and this is because he understood the meaning of sticking to one’s principles.
On the subject of principles, countries that describe themselves as “democracies” rarely sought appeasements or compromises when dealing with dictators and war criminals. This is why generations of British people have mocked former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain for brandishing the Munich Agreement and promising them a “peace for our time” following his meeting with Adolf Hitler.
Now, considering Obama and Cameron’s recent actions, perhaps the time has come to forgive Neville Chamberlain.

Egypt’s interim president: Egypt security takes precedence
September 05, 2013/Associated Press
CAIRO: Egypt’s interim president has defended the military’s ouster of his predecessor and said his government’s top priority was restoring security, as gunmen killed a police officer Wednesday in the country’s south.
Adly Mansour’s interview Tuesday with Egyptian state television, the first since his appointment, aired on the same day that a military tribunal issued verdicts against supporters of ousted President Mohammad Morsi and a court ordered channels sympathetic to the former regime off the air.
The wide-ranging interview seemed aimed at putting a civilian face on the military ouster of Morsi amid concerns that the country’s army was pulling the strings from behind the scenes. Mansour said Egypt was moving from “authoritarian rule to democratic rule” and added that the country’s top priorities were sticking to a military-backed road map for transition, restoring security and improving the economy.
The interim government is charging ahead with a transition plan, appointing a committee to review the constitution passed under Morsi. A new version is to be put to a popular referendum within two months, and if passed, it would open the way for presidential and parliamentary elections.
Mansour defended reinstating emergency laws in the meantime. The state of emergency grants authorities sweeping powers to make arrests.
“Acts of terrorism and an aggressive war by extremists led us to this decision,” he said.
He said, without elaborating, that there was a plan aimed at “burning Egypt.” State media has frequently accused Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood group and their supporters of carrying out acts of terrorism and attacking police stations, churches and government buildings.
Morsi’s backers say the new leaders are relying on security forces and a corrupt system to go after the group to avoid finding a political solution or compromises to the crisis.
Mansour said that his government would not hold reconciliation talks with any individuals who had incited or taken part in acts of violence.
Egypt’s state MENA news agency Wednesday said a police officer was killed and three conscripts wounded when gunmen opened fire at a checkpoint in a village in the southern Aswan governorate.
He said the fate of the Brotherhood was now in the hands of the judiciary, which is reviewing a case calling for the group’s dissolution on the grounds it allegedly operated outside the boundaries of the law. The country’s interim prime minister recently said the Brotherhood should be allowed to have a political party and be monitored rather than be forced underground as it had been for more than 80 years.
In the past several weeks, many leaders and members of the Brotherhood have been detained and face prosecution on charges ranging from inciting violence to possession of weapons and murder. Morsi himself has been held in an undisclosed location since his July 3 ouster. He has been referred to trial for inciting the murder of his opponents last year, though no date has been set.
Despite the fierce crackdown against Morsi’s backers and those critical of his ouster, thousands protested across the country Tuesday in scattered marches and raised the ex-president’s picture.
Meanwhile, a court Tuesday ordered Al-Jazeera’s local affiliate and three other stations to stop broadcasting. The case against Al-Jazeera Mubasher Misr has been mounting for weeks. The station has aired videos of wanted Brotherhood figures calling for more protests and focused extensive coverage on the group’s rallies.
The court said in its ruling that the stations “hurt national security,” as well as “broadcast lies to the Egyptian people, defamed the armed forces, violated the professional code of conduct, and incited foreign countries against Egypt,” according to MENA.
The sudden ouster of Morsi after several days of huge protests has also rattled U.S.-Egypt relations. The decision by Egypt’s new leaders to authorize force to clear out two large Brotherhood-led protest encampments in the capital further strained relations, prompting U.S. President Barack Obama to call for a review of relations.
“We wait to see the results of the review of relations that President Obama called for,” Mansour said.
He spoke sharply about Turkish leaders, who have strongly criticized Morsi’s removal from power. Ties have been strained and both countries have pulled out their ambassadors.
“We would have hoped that the Turkish government sees its real interests are with Egypt and its people and not with the leaders of a certain group that made ties with Turkish leaders based on personal interests based on economic incentives,” Mansour said. Although some U.S. senators and European leaders have called it a coup, Mansour insisted it was the will of people who voted for Morsi to remove him from power for failing to govern democratically. “This is real democracy,” he said. Also Wednesday, Egypt’s Interior Minister removed the head of the country’s prison authority amid reports he facilitated meetings between detained Islamists, an official said.
The decision was part of a limited reshuffle in the ministry in charge of security, which also saw security and investigative chiefs removed in the southern governorate of Minya, where unrest is rife and mobs have attacked government buildings and churches. A security official said Minister Mohammad Ibrahim removed Mostafa Baz after reports emerged he had overlooked meetings in jail between Muslim Brotherhood leaders and other Islamists and allowed them to communicate outside the prisons. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media. Baz had been in the post since June 10.
Explaining his decision, Ibrahim told Egypt’s state news agency the reshuffle was necessary to restore state security. Asked about Baz, Ibrahim said: “Prisons are one of the most important police sectors and require strong leadership. The removal was to correct the path and appoint a more qualified leadership.”

Syria and the Road to Geneva II
By: Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat
The road to Geneva II has become far less precarious than it was before, however we are still facing a number of difficult battles. A series of important events over the coming days are set to address the Syrian crisis, including the G20 summit that will be held on Thursday in Russia’s Saint Petersburg. The UN General Assembly will also begin its deliberations on Syria in one weeks’ time, while the Saudi delegation has already begun its campaign to push for a decision against the Assad regime. In addition to this, the US Congress will also vote on a possible military strike to punish the Assad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons next week.
The Syrian crisis is worsening as time goes by, on the ground as well as in the international arena. It is no longer easy to ignore what is happening in Syria. The UN continues to repeat its warnings that the crisis is spiraling out of control as one third of the Syrian people have been displaced, while more than five million have become homeless. Refugee camps in neighboring countries are overflowing while relief organizations, which have been providing vital aid to millions of destitute Syrians, have run dangerously low of supplies.
In addition to the humanitarian crisis, the political risks from the fighting in Syria continue to rise as time goes on. Lebanon has become embroiled in a sectarian and partisan conflict as a result of what is happening in Syria. These clashes represent the first of their kind since the Lebanese civil war ended more than twenty years ago. As for the Turks, they are trying to keep control of their border areas which are under the threat of further destabilization. For its part, Iraq has deployed the majority of its forces along its border with Syria after terrorists returned to the region, resulting in greater incidents of violence.
Luckily, the Syrian opposition, including its military-wing—the Free Syrian Army (FSA)—has been able to achieve military progress on the ground, in addition to strengthening political unity and securing qualitative and quantitative support. This success can be traced back to the efforts of the Syrian and Arab political opposition. However, the question that must be asked here is: What does all of this progress and development actually mean?
Syria has become an international issue; it is no longer about the Syrians’ alone. This responsibility is preventing international governments and regimes from resorting to war, or imposing whatever solution they want. The proposed Geneva II peace conference has now become an excellent option following the latest political and military developments in Syria. It is probable that Geneva II will be held sometime this autumn—so long as reasonable conditions are met—ending Assad’s rule and handing over power to the opposition. It is no longer possible to countenance the political solutions that were proposed previously, based on joint rule between the Assad regime and the opposition during a transitional phase in Syrian politics. The Russians and the Americans have realized the impossibility of this poisonous proposal being accepted, particularly as even if it did come to pass, it would only lead to more fighting. A number of Syrian forces and Arab governments have made sure that this solution is no longer viable. As this juncture, the only possible and reasonable solution is Assad’s exit from power, the maintenance of the state’s vital institutions—including the army—and authority being handed over to the opposition. Only following this can Syria achieve national reconciliation. There is no place for Assad and his regime in the new Syria. Both the political and military wings of the Syrian opposition can no longer be ignored, and it is not possible to carry out any national reconciliation without the participation of the opposition. The Arab governments that are supporting the Syrian people now have the upper hand, when compared to the Assad regime’s own allies. Therefore, Geneva II will certainly enjoy favorable political and military conditions.

How does Obama think?
By: by : Hussein Shobokshi/Asharq Alawsat
The following lines will not be an attempt for me to tell somebody’s fortune or do the work of a psychologist. Yet, it is an attempt to rate US President Barack Obama’s character and the way he makes political decisions in general, including the decision to launch a military strike against the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime, following the horrible massacre he committed against his own people in which nearly 2,000 people were killed or injured, the majority being children, as everyone knows. Obama came to power after a president who embroiled the US in two wars without a clear objective, exhausting much of America’s financial resources. In fact, these two wars contributed to an unprecedentedly grave financial crisis that entangled the entire world, not to mention the human causalities endured by the US armed forces. Therefore, Obama was always keen to repeatedly say that he will be the president who will end America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and that he will not get the country into any new wars.
Furthermore, there are influential political circles around President Obama that keep telling him that the Middle East region is no longer important to the US and that less than 24 percent of its oil come from that region—an average they say is likely to decrease owing to the existence of shale oil and other alternative resources. The political circles around Obama argue that the problem must be with China, for it relies greatly on the Middle East’s oil, and so it must have clear and important interests there. Therefore, for those circles, now Obama must not handle or view the issue as critically important.
However, President Obama had made a big political promise that using chemical weapons is a “red line” and he will not allow anyone to cross it. So, the case now is the stature and credibility of America’s leadership of the world. This is because should Obama not react forcefully, it would be a highly significant message to rogue states across the world that they were free to cross red lines without retribution, or the deterrence would be limited and bearable. The hesitation of the decision-makers in the US seems clear, as such hesitation occurred when handling an oppressive, blood-thirsty and a tyrannical regime that is theoretically backed by America’s rivals. It is not really difficult to convince others of the case, especially in view of the evidence, proofs and eyewitnesses that all testify to the al-Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons to kill its own people, and not for the first time.
The world is anticipating America’s decision and reaction to Assad crossing the red line it had drawn for him and to exhibiting indifference to its threat. Now, America’s stature is placed on that red line, and so any tremor in America’s world stature could impact on its huge interests there. This also means that the US does not think about the victims of the Assad regime or of the Syrian revolution and its course in this particular moment, but only of how the Assad regime dared to challenge the US and to cross the redline it had drawn for it.
Barack Obama is a cautious and hesitant academic who always wishes to gain the satisfaction of everyone, a mission that seems almost impossible to achieve. However, an American politician concerned with national security is concerned about the delay in producing a “decisive” reaction against a regime that insulted his country’s leadership by scorning a clear red line it had drawn for it. As I said, this is an attempt to know how Obama thinks, and days will show us practically how the man will react.

Canada decries Russian stubbornness on Syria as leaders arrive for G20
By Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – .ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - Canada is holding out little hope of reaching a compromise with Russia on the continuing violence and alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, as Stephen Harper and fellow leaders began arriving Wednesday for the G20 summit.
A hastily organized meeting of foreign ministers on the sidelines appeared designed to keep the larger economic forum from getting completely swamped with talk of the political crisis.
But Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird threw cold water on the prospect of a larger consensus on how to respond to the alleged chemical attack launched against civilians two weeks ago in a Damascus suburb. Russian President and summit host Vladimir Putin has long backed the regime of Bashar Assad, and has warned that any strike against Syria without UN sanction would be in violation of international law.
"I think we hope that rational, sane people, freedom-loving people, people who abhor the use of these weapons, want to work collectively to ensure to the best of our ability that these weapons are not used again," Baird told reporters travelling on Prime Minister Harper's plane.
"(Russia) picked a lane in this battle years ago and I just don't foresee it changing. This is the great issue we're tackling, Russia's great intractability to work with others on this issue. In some respects that's the heart of the problem."
U.S. President Barack Obama also expressed frustration Wednesday about Russia's position. Speaking in Sweden on his way to the G20 summit, Obama said relations with Russia have "hit a wall," but also expressed confidence that the two can work together on some issues.
Putin told The Associated Press and Russia's state Channel 1 television in an interview late Tuesday that he wouldn't rule out a strike against Syria as long as his government received "objective, precise data as to who committed" the chemical attack. He added that Moscow has provided some components of the S-300 air defence missile system to Syria but has frozen further shipments.
Baird downplayed the meeting of foreign ministers, calling it an "informal discussion on the margins of the G20." Baird's counterparts from the United States, Brazil, China, Russia and Turkey were expected to attend.
"The G20 is normally focused on economic issues, job creation, world economic growth," Baird said.
"But obviously the crisis in Syria has become the biggest humanitarian challenge of this century and the escalation of the brutality of Assad's regime against the Syrian people is of such great concern that obviously we need to take some time to discuss how to properly address it."
This will be the first time in the G20's five-year history that foreign ministers have met at the same time as leaders. Countries such as China and Russia have resisted any previous attempts to make it more than an economic forum.
Foreign ministers met under its auspices last year, but well before the actual summit took place in Los Cabos, Mexico. Russia, which insists on the primacy of the United Nations where it has a veto on the security council, participated with great reservations.
"Putin does his calculations," said Gordon Smith, a distinguished fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), and a former sherpa for Prime Minister Jean Chretien at several G7 and G8 summits.
"He realizes that on Syria he's not going to be alone in advocating caution, but that may have interesting longer term dimensions as to where the G20 goes and whether the G20 starts to talk about political issues which it hasn't done before."
Indeed, other nations are not as keen as say the United States and France to sanction a strike against the regime of Bashar Assad. U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to engage in heavy lobbying on the sidelines of the summit. India, for example, has said it would prefer to wait for full results of a UN chemical weapons inspection. The British Parliament voted down a resolution calling for military action, but prime minister David Cameron continues to support military action. He and Harper spoke by phone early Wednesday.
The landscape is different than it was in June at the G8 meeting in Ireland, where Russia's stance on Syria prompted Harper to say it was more like a "G7 plus one."
And yet Harper, like Putin, was also hoping for a summit that was focused on the global economy — a policy area entirely in the prime minister's wheelhouse.
"Wheels down, #Russia — looking forward to the days ahead, focused on improving the global economy," Harper's twitter account stated after he arrived in St. Petersburg on Wednesday.
Canada and Russia were on the same page when it came to wanting more definitive commitments from G20 nations on how they would tackle their deficits and debts, planning for fiscal consolidation as stimulus projects wind down.
They are also interested in helping to unlock billions of dollars held by insurance companies, mutual funds and other private institutions by making it easier and safer for them to invest in major infrastructure projects.
And there is support for common action against tax evasion and avoidance by helping to automatically exchange tax information rather by doing it only on request.
"A key part of the economic plan for this summit was to send a message of confidence to world markets," said John Kirton, co-director of the University of Toronto's G20 Research Group.
"If the message that is sent through the media from St. Petersburg is that the G20 leaders disagree on Syria, that's a negative."
The impact of the Syria and Egyptian conflicts on oil and gas pricing, and on world markets as a whole, could also be an item up for discussion, along with humanitarian aid.
The official G20 summit gets underway Thursday afternoon with an official welcome by Putin and a first working session.
— With files from Associated Press

Iran's Khamenei warns of U.S. loss over intervention in Syria
Reuters – DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran's most powerful authority, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on Thursday the United States was using a chemical attack in Syria's civil war as a pretext to interfere in the country and warned it would suffer loss from any intervention. "In the case of Syria, the chemical attack is a pretext... The Americans try to play with words and pretend that they've become involved in this case for humanitarian aims," Khamenei told a meeting of the Assembly of Experts, a state body. "I believe the Americans are making mistakes in Syria and they have felt the impact and will certainly suffer loss," he said in the speech, whose text was published on his official website. Khamenei's words indicate no let-up in Iran's considerable support for Syrian President Bashar al Assad, its closest ally who stands accused by Western powers of launching poison gas into an embattled suburb of Damascus on August 21. Around 1,400 people were killed, according to U.S. officials. On Wednesday, the head of Iran's elite Quds force, Qassem Soleimani, told the Assembly of Experts that the Islamic Republic would "support Syria to the end", according to the Fars news agency. But Iran's response to the chemical attack in recent days hints at disagreement within the corridors of power.
In contrast to military commanders, the government of President Hassan Rouhani, a relative moderate, has condemned the use of chemical weapons and warned against military strikes in Syria, but not apportioned blame for the attack.Assad's government has denied responsibility, blaming what it calls a provocation by Syrian rebel forces aimed at provoking foreign military intervention on their side in the two-and-a-half-year-old conflict.
Reporting by Marcus George; editing by Mark Heinrich
 

Russian foreign ministry: US strike on Syria's nuke facilities could mean disaster
By The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – VIENNA - Russia is warning that a U.S. strike on Syria's atomic facilities might result in a nuclear catastrophe and is urging the U.N. to present a risk analysis of such a scenario. The warning comes from Russia's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Alexander Lukashevich. He said in a statement Wednesday that a strike on a miniature reactor near Damascus or other nuclear installations could contaminate the region with radioactivity, adding: "The consequences could be catastrophic."
IAEA spokeswoman Gill Tudor told the AP in an email Thursday that her agency is ready to "consider the questions raised" by Lukashevich if it receives a formal request to do so from Moscow.
Russia's Interfax news agency says that Moscow intends to bring up the issue at next week's 35-nation IAEA board meeting.

Inside the Complex World of U.S. Military Assistance to Egypt
David Schenker /Washington Institute
September 4, 2013
Under current conditions, suspending military assistance to Cairo would be counterproductive for U.S. interests and contractors alike.
Over the past three decades, Washington has provided Egypt with over $40 billion in military assistance, a program that today accounts for 80 percent of the country's total annual military procurement budget. Since July, the army's ouster of President Muhammad Morsi and violent crackdown on his supporters have spurred calls in Washington to suspend this assistance. Yet the size and structure of the State Department's Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program with Egypt -- America's second-largest such program worldwide -- would make a policy shift of this nature complicated, lengthy, and costly on several fronts.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Currently, Egypt receives $1.3 billion per year in FMF under a program that allows it to purchase U.S.-produced military hardware and technical assistance in coordination with the State and Defense Departments. At the Office of Military Cooperation (or OMC-Cairo, housed in the U.S. embassy), American officers work closely with their Egyptian counterparts to determine procurement priorities, such as phasing out old Soviet equipment and improving interoperability with U.S. forces.
Along with Israel, Egypt is one of only two FMF recipients provided the courtesy of "early disbursement" -- at the beginning of the year, U.S. funding is deposited in an account at the New York Federal Reserve, and Cairo is allowed to use the interest accrued on these deposits to purchase additional equipment. Once payments are made, funds are transferred from the Fed to a trust fund. This year, Egypt will receive slightly less than $1.3 billion due to sequestration, assuming the program continues. As of July, $649 million had been moved to the trust fund, leaving $585 million remaining in the Fed.
Another special provision allows Cairo to "cash-flow finance" its purchases from American defense contractors. Unlike most other FMF recipients, the Egyptian government does not have to pay in advance for its expensive U.S.-contracted weapons systems; instead, it can make financial commitments that are covered by projected future FMF grants. Typically, Cairo will have more than $2.5 billion in outstanding commitments to purchase weapons and support services from American companies at any given time.
Technical aspects of FMF sales and transfers are managed by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), a highly specialized procurement branch headed by a three-star general and overseen by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon. Even with this expert monitoring, cash-flow financing makes Egypt's FMF program inordinately complex. To wit, according to a 2006 Government Accountability Office report, even DSCA could not track Egypt's FMF commitments against its disbursement requirements and available appropriations prior to 1998.
EGYPT'S FMF PURCHASES
Currently, Cairo allocates roughly a third of its FMF to new purchases, another third to equipment upgrades, and the remainder to technical support from U.S. contractors. The bulk of its procurement has focused on several large, multiyear programs, including the purchase and local assembly of more than 1,100 M1A1 tanks, 224 F-16s, 10 Apache Longbow helicopters, thousands of Humvees, various munitions (e.g., Stinger MANPADS; Hellfire and Harpoon missiles), communications and radar systems, and naval vessels. The most prominent recent big-ticket item was the December 2012 purchase of 20 additional F-16s, a contract worth nearly $3 billion. To date, eight of these aircraft have been delivered, including four in February.
Notwithstanding America's commitment to Israel's qualitative military edge, Washington usually sells Egypt whatever highly sophisticated weapons it requests. Occasionally, however, some systems are modified or denied to preserve Israel's edge. For example, the 2013 sale of 90 Harpoon II antiship cruise missiles was reportedly delayed for five years due to concerns that the land-attack capabilities they offered would alter the military balance between the two states. To mitigate these concerns, the missile's capabilities were apparently downgraded.
CURRENT STATUS
According to some estimates, Egypt has up to $4 billion in outstanding contractual commitments to be paid by cash-flow financing, or more than three years' worth of FMF. After hundreds of Morsi supporters were killed during last month's crackdown, President Obama announced that Washington would review Egypt's FMF program. Although no official suspension has been announced, DSCA has reportedly delayed delivery of four F-16s and ten Apache helicopters.
Cairo is believed to be current with its payments to contractors through October. Should Washington continue to prevent delivery of equipment, however, U.S. taxpayers would become responsible for meeting the obligation. And if contracts with Egypt are terminated altogether, the cancellation costs due to American companies may be funded from the FMF; more likely, though, the U.S. government would hold onto the equipment until the transfer could be made.
Although Washington could pay the contractors from existing funds in the Fed account, assume the contracts, take possession of the equipment, or even sell it to other countries via direct Foreign Military Sales, these options are not optimal. The U.S. government has no use for the sizable service and maintenance components of these contracts, and some of the equipment would be less than appealing to those countries most able to foot the bill. Egyptian F-16s, for example, are not equipped with AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAMs), but with decidedly lower-capability AIM-7s.
IMPACT OF A CUTOFF
In addition to hurting military-to-military relations between the United States and Cairo -- which are especially important now that the army is running Egypt again -- suspending the FMF program would undermine relations with the civilian government, further erode Washington's already low standing among Egyptians, and perhaps fray fragile U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, which has vocally supported the July coup. Moreover, Riyadh, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait could fill the gap, enabling Cairo to continue funding military purchases. These Gulf donors have already stepped in once since the coup, providing $16 billion to help Egypt's distressed economy.
Other scenarios could diminish U.S. leverage as well. For example, the Egyptian military may be able to fund procurements itself, given that it loaned the Central Bank $1 billion in December 2011. Worse, news of a U.S. cutoff might buoy the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and strengthen their resolve to fight the military, further destabilizing the state. Alternately, China or Russia might try to capitalize on a suspension and supplant Washington by funding Egypt's purchases of their own systems, though this is unlikely.
It is unclear whether halting FMF would entail cessation of the $1.8 million in annual U.S. International Military Education and Training (IMET) funds, a grant that brings hundreds of Egyptian officers to study in the United States. Equally uncertain is what a pause in U.S. equipment transfers and training would mean for the country's already-limited readiness and operational capabilities.
Cutting assistance might also put key U.S. strategic interests in Egypt at risk, including counterterrorism cooperation, priority access to the Suez Canal for U.S. warships, and relatively unrestricted U.S. military overflights. Between 2001 and 2005, American military aircraft made more than 35,000 flights through Egyptian airspace, often on short notice, while U.S. military vessels made nearly 900 expedited Suez passages. In addition, the Egyptian military's support for the Camp David peace treaty -- and the excellent Israeli-Egyptian coordination on Sinai security it has fostered -- might also suffer.
As for domestic repercussions, suspending the program would represent at least a short-term blow for American military contractors, including Lockheed Martin (which manufactures the F-16s) and Boeing (Apaches). Dozens of smaller companies and subcontractors would likely face even more serious economic consequences.
CONCLUSION
The potential suspension of the FMF program with Egypt could entail some high strategic and domestic costs for the United States. And given the Egyptian military's view of the struggle with the Muslim Brotherhood, such a move would likely prove ineffective in shaping decisionmaking in Cairo. Therefore, even if cutting aid is deemed consistent with past legislation, it would be counterproductive in terms of policy.
If Washington wants to send a message to Cairo without suspending the program entirely, it could end the early disbursement of FMF, which has long been an unnecessary perquisite. More important, the Obama administration should encourage Congress to revise the legislation granting Egypt the privilege of cash-flow financing. Absent significant changes to the FMF program, the United States will be left with few palatable options to calibrate its military assistance to Egypt for the foreseeable future.
*David Schenker is the Aufzien Fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute.

Syria conflict attracts Canadians to fight on front line
CBC/The mother of a young Canadian man currently in Syria has been asking for months how and why her son ended up there among a group of extremist fighters.
"How do you sit there and admit to somebody, my son has gone off to fight in a war where I don't know if he's a terrorist or not?" the mother said to CBC's Adrienne Arsenault.
"Are you going to openly admit that? Probably not. ‘Cause the first thing a mother says is, 'What did I do wrong? How could this be my son? What did I do?"
As she worries about her son, the mother is too scared to reveal her identity.
The situation in Syria threatens to escalate, as a panel of U.S. senators on Wednesday voted to give President Barack Obama the authority to use military action against the Syrian government after the White House said the regime carried out a chemical weapons attack.
Estimates vary as to how many Canadians are jihadi fighters in Syria. Government estimates and others who track jihadi fighters put the figure at a range of a few dozen to as many as 100 fighting in Syria against the government, a figure that should cause alarm, given that the public number of Americans fighting there is much smaller, meaning Canada may be overrepresented.
"When you look at it in context, it is certainly disproportionate," said John Amble, who researches regional militant Islamic groups.
"The community of which foreign fighters tend to originate is also much smaller in Canada, there are just fewer Muslims," he said.
A Canadian named Abu Muslim was part of a raid on a Syrian airport a few weeks ago, said Bilal Abdul Kareen, an American filmmaker who has lived among an Islamist group for a year. "He was a part of that process," Kareen said. A social media report from a jihadi group claims a Canadian was killed in the airport raid, but CBC could not confirm that or track down Abu Muslim's family.
Speaking from Aleppo province, Kareen said he has encountered 20 to 30 Canadians.
CBC News has anecdotal evidence of at least three Canadian deaths in Syria, but the Department of Foreign Affairs has not answered requests for official numbers.
The young man whose mother spoke with Arsenault had a hard time during his teenage years. There was a suicide attempt, a bipolar diagnosis, isolation, but then apparent salvation. He converted to Islam and calmed down.
"He had found somewhere where he belonged," she said.
But happiness was fleeting. Just before he turned 20, he moved into a boarding house and became secretive, angry and political.
He eventually told his mother he was leaving the country to go to Egypt to study to become an imam.
In November, he left, but didn't go to Egypt. Instead, he went to Istanbul and then Syria, where he joined up with an extremist group. His mother would get an occasional text, but as the fighting in Syria worsened, his contact became limited and his anger grew.
"When I last talked to him he was so cold, his biggest thing was, 'Canadians are scum, we're all sinners, we're evil, we don't deserve to be on this Earth.' Where did he get that from?" asked the mother. "Where do you get that from? My son wasn't like that. My son is gone."
CSIS, which had been tracking the young man, and others like him, has no new information on him, she said.