Bible Quotation for today/ Days Of Persecution
Matthew 10/16-20: “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to councils, and in their synagogues they will scourge you. 10:18 Yes, and you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the nations. 10:19 But when they deliver you up, don’t be anxious how or what you will say, for it will be given you in that hour what you will say. 10:20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources/September 11/13

Lebanese Related News

Chances of Iran, Hezbollah retaliation slim: Geagea

Hezbollah, Palestinians urge restraint after dispute kills one

Suspects confess to targeting Hezbollah stronghold

Russia calls on Syria to hand over chemical arms in 11th hour deal

Arrest in n. Lebanon triggers road closure

Embassies in Lebanon on high alert

Lebanon braces for flood of refugees

Syrian army moves to retake Maaloula

Syrian concession raises hopes of last-gasp deal -

ISF explosives division comes under pressure amid rising bomb fears

Diplomats call for distance from Syria

Suspects confess to targeting Hezbollah bastion

ISF explosives division comes under pressure amid rising bomb fears

Miscellaneous News

Timeline of key events in Syrian uprising
Human Rights Watch says evidence suggests Syrian regime troops behind alleged chemical attack
U.S. should 'expect everything' in response to any Syria strikes: Assad
Syrian foreign minister says ready to join chemical arms treaty

Former Israeli Shin Bet chief turned minister Yaakov Peri: Iran, not Syria, is Israel's biggest threat

Israeli report maps Assad's chemical arsenal
Obama says Russian proposal on Syria a potential 'breakthrough'

Syrian concession raises hopes of last-gasp deal

Russia to push Syria to surrender WMDs

Kerry to Lavrov: US not 'playing games'

Obama on Syria vote: 'I wouldn't say I'm confident'; hasn't decided on action if vote fails

Kerry: We're not going to war in Syria, Assad could avoid strike
US says it will consider proposal for Syria to surrender chemical weapons, with skepticism

Assad, a former eye doctor who become Syria's accidental heir, proves brutally resilient

Assad: US 'should expect everything' if it attacks Syria
Canada Concerned by Reports of Forced Conversions of Syrian Christians
Assad warns of retaliation for US strike on Syria
Liberman warns that Israel will topple Assad if he attacks

Russia reportedly reprimands Israel for Mediterranean missile test
Netanyahu, absorbed in Syrian issue, cancelled planned trip to Rome
Peri: Iran, not Syria, is Israel's biggest threat

Iran's Rouhani says time for resolving nuclear dispute limited

Timeline of key events in Syrian uprising
By The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press –
A timeline of some key events in the Syrian uprising:
_March 15, 2011 _ Activists call for a ``Day of Rage'' across Syria, inspired by other popular uprisings across the Arab world. In February, several youths were arrested in the southern town of Daraa for writing graffiti calling for the downfall of the regime of President Bashar Assad.
_March 18, 2011 _ Activists say five people were killed as security forces dispersed crowds in Daraa _ one of several demonstrations across the country _ in the first deadly violence reported in the uprising. Unrest spreads in coming months.
_April 26, 2011 _ Thousands of soldiers backed by tanks and snipers open fire on civilians in Daraa and two other locations, according to witnesses. Armed security agents conduct house-to-house sweeps. Neighborhoods are sectioned off and checkpoints are erected. Electricity, water and cellphone services are cut. At least 11 people are killed and 14 others lay in the streets, either dead or gravely wounded.
_May 18, 2011 _ U.S. imposes sanctions on Assad and senior Syrian officials for human rights abuses.
_June 7, 2011 _ Details emerge of a mutiny by Syrian soldiers in the northern town of Jisr al-Shughour, where 120 troops were killed, according to the government. The loss of control appears to expose cracks in the autocratic regime and its ability to stop ongoing protests.
_Aug. 5, 2011 _ After days of ferocious assault on the city of Hama, the epicenter of anti-regime protests, hundreds are left dead by Syrian security forces backed by tanks and snipers. President Barack Obama calls the reports ``horrifying.''
_Aug. 18, 2011 _ The United States, Britain, France and Germany and the European Union demand that Assad resign, saying he is unfit to lead.
_Oct. 4, 2011 _ Russia and China veto a European-backed U.N. Security Council resolution that threatens sanctions against Syria if it doesn't immediately halt its military crackdown against civilians.
_Oct. 24, 2011 _ U.S. pulls its ambassador out of Syria over security concerns.
_Nov. 8, 2011 _ U.N. human rights office puts death toll for the uprising at 3,500.
_Nov. 12, 2011 _ Arab League votes to suspend Syria's membership, a stinging rebuke to regime that sees itself as bastion of Arab nationalism.
_Nov. 27, 2011 _ Arab League overwhelmingly approves sanctions against Syria to pressure Damascus to end crackdown, an unprecedented move against an Arab state.
_Dec. 12, 2011 _ U.N. rights chief Navi Pillay says more than 5,000 have died in the Syrian conflict.
_Dec. 23, 2011 _ Back-to-back car bombs near Syria's intelligence agencies in Damascus kill at least 44 in first major attack in the heart of the capital. Syria's state-run TV blames al-Qaida militants.
_Dec. 28, 2011 _ Syrian security forces open fire on thousands of anti-government protesters in the central city of Hama, one day ahead of a visit by Arab League observers on a mission to end the crackdown. The government releases 755 prisoners following a report by Human Rights Watch accusing authorities of hiding hundreds of detainees from the observers.
_Jan. 2, 2012 _ An explosion hits a gas pipeline in central Syria, and the government blames terrorists. The opposition accuses the government of playing on fears of religious extremism and terrorism to rally support behind Assad.
_Jan. 28, 2012 _ Arab League halts its observer mission in Syria because of escalating violence as pro-Assad forces battle dissident soldiers in Damascus suburbs.
_Feb. 3, 2012 _ Activists say assault by government forces in Homs kills more than 200 people and wounds hundreds.
_Feb. 4, 2012 _ Russia and China veto a resolution in the U.N. Security Council that backs an Arab League plan calling for Assad to step down. The double-veto outrages the U.S. and European council members who fear it will embolden the Assad regime.
_Feb. 6, 2012 _ Obama administration closes U.S. Embassy in Damascus and pulls out all American diplomats.
_Feb. 26, 2012 _ Syria holds referendum on a new constitution, a gesture by Assad to placate the opposition. The West dismisses the vote as a sham.
_March 1, 2012 _ Syrian troops take control of shattered Baba Amr after a government assault that raged for weeks. The main opposition group, the Syrian National Council, forms a military council to organize and unify all armed resistance.
_March 8, 2012 _ Syria's deputy oil minister announces his defection, making him the highest-ranking official to abandon Assad's regime since the uprising began.
_March 13, 2012 _ Syrian military forces reportedly take control of the northern rebel stronghold of Idlib along the border with Turkey, a major base that army defectors had held for months.
_March 15, 2012 _ On the first anniversary of the start of the uprising, thousands march in a pro-Assad rally in Damascus. Tanks and snipers continue to besiege Daraa. The U.N. secretary-general says more than 8,000 have been killed in the crackdown.
_April 11, 2012 _ Syria promises to comply with a U.N.-brokered cease-fire but carves out an important condition _ that the regime still has a right to defend itself against terrorists that it says are behind the uprising. The agreement ultimately fails to hold.
_June 16, 2012 _ U.N. observers suspend patrols in Syria due to escalating violence.
_July 18, 2012 _ A blast at the National Security building in Damascus kills the defence minister and his deputy, who is also Assad's brother-in-law, and wounds the interior minister. Rebels claim responsibility.
_July 23, 2012 _ Syria threatens to unleash chemical and biological weapons if the country faces a foreign attack, the country's first acknowledgement that it possesses weapons of mass destruction.
_Aug. 2, 2012 _ Kofi Annan announces his resignation as U.N.-Arab League envoy to Syria after failing to broker a cease-fire despite developing a peace plan that the Syrian government initially agreed to but then failed to implement.
_Aug. 15, 2012 _U.N. Human Rights Council releases a report accusing Assad's forces and pro-government militiamen of war crimes during a May bloodbath in the village of Houla that killed more than 100 civilians, nearly half of them children. It says rebels were also responsible for war crimes in at least three other killings.
_Aug. 20, 2012 _ Obama says U.S. will reconsider its opposition to military involvement in Syria if Assad's regime deploys or uses chemical or biological weapons, calling such action a ``red line'' for the United States.
_Nov. 11, 2012 _ Syrian anti-government groups strike a deal to form a new opposition leadership that will include representatives from the country's disparate factions fighting to topple Assad's regime, responding to repeated calls from their Western and Arab supporters to create a cohesive and representative leadership.
_Dec. 3, 2012 _ Speaking of chemical weapons, Obama says Assad should know ``if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable.''
_Jan. 6, 2013 _ A defiant Assad blames ``murderous criminals'' for violence in Syria, ignores international demands to step down and pledges to continue the battle ``as long as there is one terrorist left'' in Syria.
Feb. 12, 2013 _ U.N. human rights chief says Syria's intensifying civil war has probably killed nearly 70,000 people, and blames U.N. Security Council for its failure to end the killings.
April 25, 2013 _ White House says U.S. intelligence indicates Assad has twice used chemical weapons in his country's civil war, but says the information isn't solid enough to warrant quick U.S. involvement in the 2-year-old conflict.
May 27, 2013 _ European Union ends its embargo on sending weapons to help Syrian rebels.
_June 13, 2013 _ Obama authorizes sending weapons to Syrian rebels after White House discloses that U.S. has conclusive evidence Assad's government used chemical weapons on a small scale against opposition forces. U.N. human rights office raises overall death toll in the civil war to nearly 93,000 through the end of April 2013.
Aug. 21, 2013 _ Assad regime is accused of using chemical weapons in the Damascus suburbs to kill large numbers of civilians, including many children as they slept. The government denies using chemical weapons.
_Aug. 30, 2013 _ Obama administration says it has ``high confidence'' that Syria's government carried out the chemical weapons attack that killed more than 1,400 people outside Damascus.
_Aug. 31, 2013 _ Obama says he has decided the United States should take military action against Syria in response to the chemical weapons attack. But the president says he will seek congressional authorization for the use of force.
Sept. 9, 2013 _ A possible diplomatic solution to avoid a U.S. military strike arose when Syria welcomed a suggestion to move all of the country's chemical weapons under international control. Obama said the proposal could be a potential breakthrough but remained skeptical Syria would follow through.
Sept. 10, 2013 _ Obama expresses support for U.N. Security Council talks aimed at a diplomatic breakthrough that would allow Syria's government to avoid U.S. missile strikes if it surrenders its chemical weapons. But the president was still going to Congress to push his original plan of U.S. airstrikes in case the new effort fails.
@YahooCanadaNews

Human Rights Watch says evidence suggests Syrian regime troops behind alleged chemical attack
By Barbara Surk, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – BEIRUT - An international human rights group said Tuesday that evidence "strongly suggests" Syrian government forces fired rockets with warheads containing a nerve agent — most likely sarin — into a Damascus suburb in August, killing hundreds of people. The report by Human Rights Watch was released as the international community weighs how to respond to the attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, which the U.S., France and others also have blamed on President Bashar Assad's forces. The regime blames the rebels. President Barack Obama had been lobbying for targeted military strikes against regime positions, but a Russian proposal to put Assad's chemical weapons arsenal under international control has raised hopes of a diplomatic breakthrough instead. The U.S. administration has insisted that there is very compelling evidence that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against its own people, but it has not been presented to the public.
Human Rights Watch did not have direct access to the affected areas or the victims, but said its conclusions are based on witness accounts, the physical fragments of the weapons used and the symptoms exhibited by victims and documented by medical staff. The New York-based group said it sought technical advice from an expert on the detection and effects of chemical warfare agents, and its experts studied documented medical symptoms of the victims and analyzed activist videos posted on the Internet after the attack. "This evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government troops launched rockets carrying chemical warheads into the Damascus suburbs that terrible morning," said Peter Bouckaert, HRW's emergencies director. Symptoms of the victims from the attack "provide telltale evidence about the weapon systems used," he added.
Three doctors who treated victims told HRW that the exhibited a range of symptoms, including convulsions, frothing at the mouth and dizziness — all of which are consistent with exposure to nerve agents such as sarin.
The most toxic of the chemical weapons, nerve agents affect the nervous system and are hazardous in their liquid and gas states. They can be delivered in missiles, bombs, rockets, artillery shells and other large munitions. The Syrian regime is believed to possess tabun, sarin and VX.
HRW added that evidence related to the type of rockets and launchers used in the attack "strongly suggests" that the weapon systems used are known and documented to be only in the possession of Syrian forces.
The Obama administration also has said that its intelligence indicate that sarin was used in the Aug. 21 attack, which it claims killed at least 1,429 people, including more than 400 children. Other estimates of the death toll are much lower. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Tuesday that his government has accepted the proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control for dismantling in a bid to stave off U.S. military action, while France proposed a U.N. resolution that would enforce the plan militarily if the government failed to follow through. Russia, Syria's most powerful ally, is now working with Damascus to prepare a detailed plan of action that will be presented soon, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said. Russia will then be ready to finalize the plan with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Syria's main opposition bloc, the Syrian National Coalition, dismissed the proposal and urged the West to go ahead with a strike against Assad's regime. The SNC, which is the main political opposition umbrella group, has been cheering for international military action, hoping a blow would shift the bloody war of attrition between rebels and Assad's forces, with more than 100,000 dead in more than 2 1/2 years of fighting. In a statement Tuesday, the coalition said Moscow's proposal "aims to procrastinate and will lead to more death and destruction of the Syrian people." "A violation of international law should lead to an international retaliation that is proportional in size," the group said. "Crimes against humanity cannot be dropped by giving political concessions or by handing over the weapons used in these crimes."

U.S. should 'expect everything' in response to any Syria strikes: Assad
Reuters – WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad warned of possible reprisal attacks if the United States uses military force against Syria, saying that if there were strikes, Americans could "expect every action." Assad, in an interview with CBS television that aired on Monday, denied involvement in a suspected chemical weapons attack near Damascus on August 21.
The United States says more than 1,400 people were killed in the attack, which it blames on Assad's forces. President Barack Obama has threatened military strikes against Syria as punishment.
Assad, who has accused the rebels of the poison gas attack, said that if there were U.S. strikes on Syria, the United States "should expect everything." Repercussions "may take different forms," including "direct and indirect" effects, Assad told CBS in the interview, which was conducted in Damascus. Indirect impacts could include "instability and the spread of terrorism all over the region that will influence the West directly," Assad said.
He said there could be repercussions against the United States from other countries or groups such as Iran or Lebanon's Hezbollah. His comments come as Obama prepares to press his case for military action before the American public and U.S. lawmakers this week. Obama has asked the U.S. Congress to authorize a military strike, and votes could come as early as this week.
In the meantime, Assad said: "We have to expect the worst." Assad repeatedly rejected the idea that there is any evidence linking his government to the August 21 attack, and he blasted U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts to round up international support for military strikes. He also told CBS the Syrian government opposes the use of chemical weapons. "We are against any WMD, any weapons of mass destruction whether chemical or nuclear." Asked if he considers chemical warfare equivalent to nuclear warfare, Assad said: "I don't know. We haven't tried either."To Obama, Assad said: "I will tell him very simply, "Present what you have as evidence ... to the public. Be transparent." Kerry dismissed Assad's denial of involvement in the attack. "We know that his regime gave orders to prepare for a chemical attack," Kerry said at a news conference in London, one of several European stops in recent days to make the U.S. case for military action. Assad said that any U.S. strikes would boost the al Qaeda offshoot in his country: "It's going to be direct support." "It's area where everything is on the brink of explosion. You have to expect everything," Assad said. (Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by David Brunnstrom and Eric Beech) @YahooCanadaNews on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

Syrian foreign minister says ready to join chemical arms treaty
Reuters – MOSCOW (Reuters) - Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said on Tuesday that Damascus was committed to a Russian initiative under which Syria would hand over its chemical weapons and join a convention that prohibits their use. "We want to join the convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons. We are ready to observe our obligations in accordance with that convention, including providing all information about these weapons," Moualem said in a statement shown on Russian state television. "We are ready to declare the location of the chemical weapons, stop production of the chemical weapons, and show these (production) facilities to representatives of Russia and other United Nations member states," said Moualem, who said earlier on Tuesday in Moscow that Syria had accepted the Russian proposal.
(Reporting By Thomas Grove; Editing by Steve Gutterman)

Iran's Rouhani says time for resolving nuclear dispute limited
Reuters –DUBAI (Reuters) - Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in a live interview on state television on Tuesday that the time for resolving Iran's nuclear dispute with the West was limited, and urged the world community to seize the opportunity of his election. "The world must know completely that this period of time for resolving the nuclear issue will not be unlimited. We have a specified period of time," said Rouhani, a centrist cleric who took office last month. "The world must also use this period of time and this opportunity that our people created in this election. We will also use this opportunity. God willing, I am hopeful we can, step by step, solve this problem."
Rouhani, who succeeded Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a conservative known for his bellicose rhetoric on the international stage, has pledged moderation in Iran's foreign and domestic policies and called for "constructive interaction" with the world. Iran has been engaged in negotiations with six world powers that have so far failed to bring about a settlement. Western countries in particular are concerned about Iran's uranium enrichment program and fear it may be developing a capacity to build nuclear weapons. Iran says its program is purely peaceful and designed to meet its energy needs. Rouhani said on Tuesday he would meet with the foreign ministers from some of the six powers - the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany - when he attends the U.N. General Assembly in New York this month. "In the nuclear issue the end of the game must be a win-win game. Win-lose has no meaning," Rouhani said. "We can have a win-win game, we are ready for a win-win game. I think the beginning of this work will start in New York."
(Reporting By Yeganeh Torbati; Editing by Kevin Liffey)
 

Former Israeli Shin Bet chief turned minister Yaakov Peri: Iran, not Syria, is Israel's biggest threat
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Peri-highlights-importance-of-addressing-the-Iranian-threat-325609
By AMISHAI GOTTLIEB 09/09/2013 13/J.Post
Former Shin Bet chief turned minister Yaakov Peri urges world to "remember that Iran is a terrorist state."
Yaakov Peri Photo: Knesset
The main threat Israel faces in the near future is from Iran, and not Syria, Technology and Space Minister Yaakov Peri said Monday, even as the US made its case for military action in Syria.
"We must remember that Iran is a terrorist state, that is willing and ready to support terrorist networks carry out terrorist activities in the world, specifically in the Mediterranean," former Shin Bet chief Peri told the annual World Summit on Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. While highlighting the significance of the Iranian threat to the region, Peri added that Syria is quickly becoming Iran's launch pad for terrorist ideology and activity. "Iran has turned Syria into its playground which will create a security challenge for Israel," Peri said, referring to the many Syrian rebel groups that identify with the global Jihad movement. Although Peri dwelt on the "regional instability" caused by Iran and the conflict with Syria, Peri pointed out that Egypt offers similar threats that must be watched carefully and taken seriously. "The instability in Egypt creates another risk for Israel," he said. "The situation in our region is taking shape as radical Islamic groups leave their hiding places to announce their intentions to attack Western targets and specifically the United States." US army major Brian Farris, who holds a position at the West Point military academy based in New York, also spoke at the conference and noted the importance of creating realistic expectations from the public. "It is important to cultivate realistic expectations for the public regarding what is possible and what isn't possible in the fight on terror," Farris said. "We can't decisively win the war on terror in the same way that it is impossible to cure an incurable disease."
"What you can do, and should do - is to constantly learn how to fight terrorism effectively," he added.

Israeli report maps Assad's chemical arsenal

Report by IDC counter-terrorist think-tank presents inventory of Syria's chemical munitions production, storage facilities, argues Syrian regime has been stockpiling since 1980s, arms could reach Hezbollah, Palestinians
Itay Blumenthal Published: 09.09.13/Ynetnews
New report reveals Syria is the owner of one of the world's largest chemical stockpiles.
The report, presented Monday by the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya's International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, states that as of June 2013, Syrian President Bashar Assad holds one of the world's largest caches of mustard gas, sarin and the lethal nerve gas VX.
The institute's report described the manner in which Assad attained his impressive inventory as well as warning of the possibility the unconventional munitions could fall into the hands of terrorist groups active in Syria.
By the 1980s, the report stated, the Syrian regime had begun storing chemical stockpiles in 50 different towns throughout the country. In case the army is in need of the arsenal, aerial bombs, artillery shells and ballistic missiles and rockets have already been prepared in advance.
The sarin and VX gases, according to the report, is manufactured in five different locations throughout Syria: The main facility in Al-Safir, and the others in Homs, Latakia, Hama and Palmyra. The poisonous gas is transferred to storage facilities at Al Furqus, Dumayr, Khan Abu Shamat as well as in the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center in Damascus.
Different reports show that the Damascus center, which is under Assad's direct control, also houses biological weapons. The chemical arms are held by the Syrian regime or by militias loyal to it. In the areas neighboring major cities, in which the military situation is constantly changing as a result of battles between rebels and government forces, the West is uncertain who controls these storage facilities.
'Hezbollah could use arsenal'
Even before the chemical attack on a Damascus suburb three weeks ago took the lives of some 1,400 people, the report claims there was chemical weapons usage as part of the fighting Homs in December 2012. Between March and May of 2013 the report cites four different incidents of chemical attacks, which left some 150 people dead.
Even if an American attack on the stockpiles was to take place, and even if such an attack would topple Assad's regime, the report stresses that the threat that such weapons would reach the wrong hands still exists. "Hezbollah could use the arsenal under Syrian or Iranian instruction," the report's authors claim.
They further not that "under certain conditions, Assad could decide to provide the arms to Palestinian organizations with whom he is connected, specifically with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine headed by Ahmed Jibril."
A scenario in which these arms reach rebel organizations, or worst, radical Islamist Jihadist organizations is Israel's worst nightmare, the report's authors claim.
Dr. Ely Karmon, a senior research at the institute, claims that the West came to grips with Assad's unconventional capabilities a little to late. "Already in the 80s, states like Russia, France, Switzerland and even the US were supplying ram materials and equipment which now serve as Syria's chemical infrastructure," Karmon claims.
"Only now, when Assad used the weapons, the world has awaken." During his research, Karmon found two plausible explanations for Assad's choice to use chemical weapons. "There are claims that Syrian rebels, who were trained by the US, left Jordan for Syria and reached the outskirts of Damascus." Fearing their abilities, Karmon claims, it is possible that Assad decided to stop them at any price.
The second possible reason, according to Karmon, is that Assad had just survived an assassination attempt and had decided to exact revenge.
According to the senior researcher, it is the responsibility of Israel and the US to prevent these arms from reaching Hezbollah or rebels: "In such a case, the usage (of chemical weapons) would spiral out of control. No one could guarantee that there wouldn't be future usage."

Rocket attack suspects confess to targeting Hezbollah stronghold
September 10, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Suspects charged with firing rockets that hit a power line in Aley in June confessed Monday to belonging to a Syrian rebel group and that the projectiles had been intended for the Hezbollah-controlled southern suburbs of Beirut, a judicial source said. The source told The Daily Star all seven suspects in custody – five Syrians and two Lebanese – made the confessions Monday before Military Judge Fadi Sawwan. The suspects confessed that both rockets in the June operation were aimed at the Beirut southern suburbs, but that one diverted off course and hit a high-tension electricity cable in Aley that supplied 150 kilowatts of electricity from the Jamhour power station. They attributed the failure to a technical error and said the second rocket had failed to launch. The Lebanese Army at the time disabled the second rocket.
The suspects told Sawwan that the rocket attack came in response to Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah’s speech in which he took pride in the fall of the Syrian border town of Qusair and his insistence on fighting alongside Syrian regime forces, the source said. He said the suspects confessed to belonging to the Tal Kalakh Martyrs’ Battalion, a contingent of the Free Syrian Army that is being financed by a Syrian man living in Turkey. Tal Kalakh is located on the border between Syria and Lebanon. The suspects, according to the source, also confessed that later on they tried to fire four rockets from Aramoun into the Hezbollah-controlled southern suburbs, but again the operation failed due to a technical error. The source identified the suspects as Syrians Mohammad Jamal Ismail, head of the Tal Kalakh Martyrs’ Battalion, and his brother Ammar Jamal Ismail, as well as Syrian nationals Mohammad Abdel-Karim al-Dibs, Hashem Ismail Kanj and Mohammad Bashar Mdawwar. The Lebanese suspects were identified as Bassam K. and Abdel-Jabbar D. The judicial source said Army Intelligence arrested Sunday the father of Mohammad and Ammar, Jamal Mustafa Ismail, on charges of belonging to the same terror cell. The source said Ismail, who is still in military custody, will be referred to Sawwan for interrogation. In all, 14 individuals have been charged in the rocket attack case. Seven other Syrian and Lebanese suspects remain at large. Military Prosecutor Saqr Saqr charged all 14 with belonging to an “armed terrorist organization with the aim to carry out terrorist acts.” He also charged them with buying and preparing explosive materials as well as firing rockets.

Embassies in Lebanon on high alert, expect more security incidents
September 10, 2013/By Rayane Abou Jaoude The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Embassies in Lebanon have enhanced protective measures and precautions, in expectation of more security incidents in the country and a potential military strike on neighboring Syria.
The U.S. Embassy also called on American citizens to avoid travel to Lebanon citing security concerns, and stated in its Twitter feed Monday that “U.S. citizens living and working in Lebanon should understand that they accept risks in remaining and should carefully consider those risks.” But it denied giving its nationals living in Beirut a deadline to leave the country, with the embassy also tweeting that “reports that [U.S. Embassy in Lebanon] gave U.S. citizens a deadline to leave Lebanon are false.”The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon is also considering measures to evacuate peacekeepers and their families in the event the region slips into chaos.
Despite repeated denials by the spokesperson for the multinational peacekeeping force, security sources have told The Daily Star that plans have been put in place to evacuate the families of UNIFIL staff based to the south of the Litani River in light of the fragile security situation.
But UNIFIL spokesman Andrea Tenenti told The Daily Star he had no information on the matter and no measures have been issued so far. Italy had dispatched a warship to the eastern Mediterranean that could serve to evacuate Italian troops from Lebanon if the conflict in Syria escalates further and spills over the border, the country’s navy said last week.
Italy has 1,100 soldiers working with the United Nations task force along Lebanon’s southern border.
Tenenti said had he no information on the Italian ship nor on any evacuation measures, and added that all UNIFIL contingents were “firmly committed” to their participation in the mission.
“As far as the mission is concerned, nothing has changed,” he said. The American Embassy in Lebanon withdrew its non-emergency personnel last week amid fears that U.S. interests may be threatened if the American government decided to go ahead with strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime. “The Department of State drew down non-emergency personnel and family members from Embassy Beirut due to threats to U.S. mission facilities and personnel,” a statement on the embassy website said.
Tensions have been simmering in the region after Western powers implied they would launch a military strike against Assad’s regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons following an Aug. 21 attack in the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta.
Lebanon has been suffering from a deteriorating security situation, particularly after twin car bombs ripped through two mosques in the northern city of Tripoli last month, killing 47 and wounding scores more. A car bomb rocked Beirut’s southern suburb of Ruwaiss a week earlier, claiming 30 lives and wounding hundreds.
Late last month, cautionary measures were taken by Cyprus Airways and Air France, which modified their flight schedules to and from Beirut.
Later Monday, caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel met with newly appointed American Ambassador to Lebanon David Hale, and the two discussed the embassy’s decision to withdraw some of its staff, as well as the large influx of Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Charbel stressed that “the Higher Defense Council in Lebanon has taken a series of measures to protect the premises of diplomatic missions and fight terrorism.”
He added that Lebanese authorities had beefed up security forces and increased patrols in order to maintain security. Separately, Hale visited caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel; Kataeb party leader Amin Gemayel; Brig. Ibrahim Basbous, the acting-director general of the Internal Security Forces; and former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Gulf countries have also taken the initiative of issuing travel warnings to their citizens. The press attache at the Saudi Embassy in Lebanon said all embassy personnel were still in the country and had not been asked to leave, but warnings advising nationals not to travel beyond Beirut still stand.
Later Monday, Saudi nationals in Lebanon received a text message from the embassy advising them to leave the country. “In view of recent developments, the embassy sees it best to leave for the kingdom. We urge ... you tomorrow afternoon to be at the Saudi Arabian Airlines counter to leave,” it said. Bahrain has also urged its citizens to leave Lebanon due to the volatile situation. The Kuwaiti Embassy took further measures and began evacuating specific Kuwaiti nationals, and it has so far sent two airplanes to carry out the evacuations this month.
According to Egyptian Ambassador to Lebanon Ashraf Hamdy, the embassy has not taken extra precautionary measures so far, but has advised Egyptian nationals visiting or staying in Lebanon to keep in touch with the embassy. Contingency plans are in place should the security situation further deteriorate, Hamdy told The Daily Star.
Ricardo Simimmo, counselor to the Italian ambassador, said the entire staff at the Italian Embassy was still in the country and would remain for the time being.
“Nothing has changed for us, nothing similar to what the U.S. Embassy did,” Simimmo said.
He added that the embassy had not advised Italian nationals residing in Lebanon to leave the country just yet, but has advised against non-essential travel to Lebanon.
While business goes on as usual, Simimmo said the embassy was “assessing different scenarios,” and has revised its lists of nationals and made sure all of its contacts were in order. “We are on standby so far, and we will decide what to do in the future depending on the situation,” he said. The German Embassy also issued a warning late last month, saying that it was not recommended for its nationals to travel to Lebanon, particularly to the north, including the Tripoli neighborhoods of Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen, the Bekaa Valley, the Palestinian camp of Nahr al-Bared, and southern areas such as Ain al-Hilweh and Mieh-Mieh near Sidon, and Beirut’s southern suburbs. The embassy also called on its citizens to avoid large crowds, especially political demonstrations, and to regularly follow local media coverage.
Germans who are residing in Lebanon were also advised to stay in contact with the embassy.
The French Embassy insisted Monday that it had not renewed travel warnings since it issued a list of precautionary measures for French nationals last week.
The embassy cautioned against all travel within the country except on rare occasions in “the western half of the country.” It urged its citizens not to travel to the southern border with Israel, the border close to Syria or to Beirut’s southern suburbs. Similarly, the United Kingdom advised against all travel to the northern city of Tripoli, Beirut’s southern suburbs, Baalbek, and the borders with Syria. It also asked its nationals to be wary of any “anti-western sentiment” following a potential military strike in Syria, according to its website.
“We have taken a tough call to change our advice temporarily and discourage travel to Lebanon,” British Ambassador Tom Fletcher.

ISF explosives division comes under pressure amid rising bomb fears
September 10, 2013/By Meris Lutz The Daily Star /BEIRUT: The Internal Security Forces’ explosives division has come under increasing pressure as fears stemming from recent attacks spark thousands of reports about suspected car bombs. “We need a lot of time to train, so we can’t [meet the demand] right away,” a source in the division told The Daily Star. The ISF is currently receiving some 1,000 calls a day about suspicious cars since the bombings in Beirut’s southern suburbs and Tripoli which killed over 75 people combined. The ISF has only had the capacity to train bomb squads for the past three years, having previously relied on the Army to carry out investigations. Today, aspiring ISF explosives experts must first pass a six-month academic course before practical training, which lasts another two-and-a-half years. Training is often supported by European countries, the United States and sometimes Arab states such as Jordan. Although the security source would not divulge numbers, he did say that more experts were needed. He also stressed the need for increased decentralization, lamenting that the only explosives division is currently based in Beirut and must be sent out to respond to individual cases outside the capital. The law governing the ISF calls for a division in every governorate of Lebanon.
Most of the time, the source said, authorities are able to track down the owner of a suspicious car using the plate numbers or by asking around the neighborhood where the car is parked. In the event they cannot find the owner, the explosives division is called in to open the car and be ready to defuse a bomb.
Out of the thousands of calls and hundreds of suspected cars over the past month, none of them have contained any explosives, the source said, urging the public to remain vigilant by reporting any suspicious vehicles. Drivers, he added, should place their own contact information in the windshield of their parked cars. Some individuals whose cars were damaged, however, have come forward to complain about the ISF’s procedures. Last week, The Daily Star interviewed a Syrian woman who complained of the authorities’ treatment of her family while investigating her brother’s car.
The security source did not address allegations of misconduct directly, but emphasized that breaking into a car is a last resort.
“A suspicious car is a car that has been left in a certain place and for which no security apparatus can find the owner or sufficient information about it,” explained the source. In addition to running the plate number, he said, authorities also ask neighbors to try and discover the owner of the vehicle. Cars with foreign license plates are not registered in the system, he added, making it more difficult to track down their owners.
He also defended the protocol in place for responding to suspected car bombs, insisting that the area is sealed and personnel are fitted with appropriate protective clothing, despite reports to the contrary.
In addition to investigating suspected bombs, securing venues for events and removing unexploded ordnance left over from internal fighting or war with Israel, the explosives division is also tasked with collecting evidence after an explosion goes off to determine the type of explosive material, the size of the bomb and the method of detonation.
One of the challenges, the source revealed, was the evolving technology at the disposal of bomb-makers, who are able to make more effective devices that self destruct so thoroughly that very little evidence is left to collect.
“They are using more advanced technology,” he said, without going into detail. “We are trying to keep up with the terrorists, because they are always ahead. We can’t always anticipate them, but we are working hard to keep up.” The source said any make or model car could be used, and that concerned members of the public should keep an eye out for cars parked in “unusual” places or vehicles with obscured or altered plate numbers, especially if the trunk appears to be riding especially low, indicating a heavy load. “There is a clear threat, and we must be open about this,” the source said. “This is why [people] should take responsibility by putting their name and number on the car and reporting suspicious vehicles without hesitation

Chances of Iran, Hezbollah retaliation slim: Geagea

September 09, 2013 /The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Syria’s allies Iran and Hezbollah will unlikely retaliate in the event of a U.S.-led military strike against the regime of President Bashar Assad, Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea said in remarks published Monday.
“The response to the strike is likely to come from inside Syria only. I assume that Hezbollah and Iran are wise enough to avoid slipping into a large-scale war,” Geagea told As-Safir newspaper.
He also said that a “regional war” was an unlikely scenario following any U.S. and Western military strike in Lebanon’s neighbor. Geagea said he supported a “balanced foreign intervention” against the Syrian regime, “otherwise we would be partners in the ongoing crimes being committed against the Syrian people.”President Barack Obama is seeking congressional authorization for limited military strikes against Assad’s regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians. Assad has denied the claims. However, the LF leader admitted that any military strike against Syria by the U.S. and West would have an impact on Lebanon – “one way or another.”
“Political affiliations in Lebanon will not change in light of a strike against Syria but that does not mean that Hezbollah will not be affected by any hit against its ally [Syria],” he said. “The internal scene will become exposed to all possibilities,” he warned.
Geagea also said that the current situation required the formation of a neutral Cabinet that excludes political partisans from both the March 8 and March 14 coalitions.
“The political disputes between these two teams have increased since the Syrian crisis which means a neutral Cabinet is urgently needed,” he said.
“A political government would transfer [from the street] the volatile local and regional situation to Cabinet [table].”
Geagea also slammed the Free Patriotic Movement and accused it of exploiting politically the developments in the historic Syrian Christian town of Maaloula, which was recently seized by rebels.
“I sympathize completely with the town but I must express my deep regret that some Lebanese factions have exploited its suffering for political gain,” Geagea said.
“It is shameful that the Movement is allied with a regime that does not hesitate to use chemical weapons against its people,” he said, condemning the FPM for its position on Syria. He also slammed recent remarks by caretaker Energy Minister Gibran Bassil, who claimed that the Maaloula attack was aimed at driving Christians out of the Levant. “Such allegations are a form of propaganda in an effort by dictatorships to portray themselves as being secular regimes that safeguard minorities,” he said. “The only way to save Maaloula and the whole of Syria is through changing the regime and replacing it with an open and democratic one,” the LF leader added.
Bassil Sunday alleged that events in Maaloula represented a genuine signal that a “plot” to displace Christians from the Levant had commenced and warned of the rise of Islamists in the region.
Geagea also said “the talk about Nusra Front being involved in Maaloula were mere allegations ... We cannot pinpoint the identity of the armed opposition groups that are fighting in Maaloula.”
Over the weekend, reports said Syrian opposition forces including jihadists linked to Al-Qaeda had taken control of Maaloula in a battle that left over a dozen rebels dead and more than 100 wounded.

Canada Concerned by Reports of Forced Conversions of Syrian Christians
September 9, 2013 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Andrew Bennett, Canada’s Ambassador for Religious Freedom, today issued the following statement:
“We are concerned by reports of Christians from the village of Maaloula, near Damascus, being forced to convert to Islam by Syrian rebels allegedly led by al Qaeda-linked fighters.
“Threats of violence used to forcibly convert individuals to another faith are completely unacceptable.
“Canada stands by the Syrian people, who deserve the freedom to practise their respective faiths without being persecuted.
“This freedom is essential so that all Syrians, regardless of religion, can contribute to Syria’s future without fear of intimidation and violence.”
 

Assad, a former eye doctor who become Syria's accidental heir, proves brutally resilient
By Zeina Karam, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – BEIRUT - Those who knew Bashar Assad in earlier days say he was uncomfortable being the son of a president and never wanted to lead. A soft-spoken, lisping eye doctor, he enjoyed Western rock music and electronic gadgets — an accidental heir to power.
Yet Assad, who turns 48 on Wednesday, has proven to be relentlessly resilient, branded by opponents a brutal dictator who kills with chemical weapons.
His willingness to do whatever it takes in Syria's civil war, unleashing his military's might against entire towns and cities, has so far succeeded in keeping his regime core in power, even as large swaths of his country fall from his control or turn into devastated killing fields.
Nearly three years into the uprising against his family's more than 40-year-rule, he has defied every prediction that his end is near.
The West once had the impression Assad was weak or incompetent, said David Lesch, professor of Middle Eastern history at Trinity University in San Antonio. "It took this unleashing of violence and bloodshed for people to reassess their view of Bashar."
"There is revision, people saying he's a lot tougher than they thought," said Lesch, author of "Syria: The Fall of the House of Assad," who had unusual access to Assad, meeting him regularly from 2004-2009.
In the eyes of opponents, Assad is a murderous autocrat who would do anything to cling to power. The U.S and its allies accuse him of resorting to gassing his own people, a claim the regime denies.
But for his supporters, he is a nationalist hero fighting Western imperialism and ensuring stable, secular rule in a turbulent region wracked by sectarian wars.
Assad himself appears fueled by an unshakeable belief that Syria would collapse without him, that he is not crushing a popular rebellion but fighting an attack by foreign-backed terrorists. In a televised speech to parliament in June 2012, he likened his crackdown to a doctor trying to save a patient. "When a surgeon... cuts and cleans and amputates, and the wound bleeds, do we say to him, 'Your hands are stained with blood?'" Assad said. "Or do we thank him for saving the patient?"
The question that has always been debated about Assad is whether he leads his regime or is led by it.
The leadership he inherited was meticulously built by his father, Hafez Assad. The Assad family and its minority Alawite sect held the most sensitive positions in the military and intelligence agencies. But they weren't the only ones: Select families from the Sunni majority and from Christian and other minorities were given powerful posts or economic spheres that invested them in the regime, one of the most autocratic in the Middle East.
The son remains as reliant on them as his father did, if not more. "He is not the strongman. How can he be?" an exiled cousin, Ribal al-Assad, told the AP in London. "He didn't come up through the military ranks ... He didn't put these people in, his brother did and his father did. He's more afraid of being assassinated by one of them than he is of Western airstrikes."
Bashar Assad's first months as president after succeeding his father in 2000 ushered in hopes he would loosen his father's iron grip. Even after it became clear he too would not tolerate dissent, he was still portrayed by many as a reformer at heart, fighting against an old guard who restricted his ambitions.
Even some of his strongest critics in the current war once believed he could be a positive factor.
As a senator, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited him repeatedly, dining with Assad and his wife at a restaurant in Old Damascus in 2009. Former French President Nicholas Sarkozy invited him to Bastille Day celebrations in 2008. Even after his forces fired on protesters at the beginning of the uprising against him in March 2011, Hillary Clinton suggested he was different from his father — a "reformer" who should be given a chance.
So how did a purported reformer become a leader who Kerry now compares to Adolf Hitler?
"It's like a Greek tragedy," says Jean-Marie Quemener, whose biography of Assad, "Docteur Bachar, Mister Assad," was published in France in 2011.
"At each step of his existence, he had every chance of choosing the right way. But each time, either the rug was pulled from under him, or he took the wrong decision," he told The Associated Press in Paris. "Each time, his destiny was forced."
Assad came to power by a twist of fate.
The elder Assad was cultivating Bashar's older brother Basil to succeed him. But in 1994 Basil was killed in a speeding car crash in Damascus. Bashar was summoned home from his ophthalmology practice in London, put through military training and elevated to the rank of colonel to establish his credentials so he could one day rule.
When Hafez Assad died in 2000, parliament quickly lowered the presidential age requirement from 40 to 34. Bashar's elevation was sealed by a nationwide referendum, in which he was the only candidate.
"When his father called him, he wasn't ready to take power. He tried to get his younger brother to take his place," said Quemener, referring to Maher Assad, who now heads the powerful Presidential Guard.
"His destiny was forced on him, he never wanted to be leader of Syria."
The Syria that Hafez left his son was moulded by 30 years of hidebound rule, with a Soviet-style centralized economy. The hand over dissent was so stifling that Syrians feared even joking about politics to their friends.
The younger Assad seemed a breath of fresh air.
Lanky with a slight lisp, he talked of his love of computers — in fact, his only official position before becoming president was head of the Syrian Computer Society. Assad enjoyed listening to Phil Collins and British rock group ELO, Lesch recalls.
His wife, Asma al-Akhras, whom he married several months after taking office, was attractive, stylish and grew up in a west London suburb. The young couple, who eventually had three children, seemed to shun trappings of power. They lived in an apartment in the upscale Malki district of Damascus, as opposed to a palatial mansion like other Arab leaders, and made surprise appearances in public, to the delight of their supporters.
The charming first lady provided a counterpoint to Bashar's geeky demeanour. Together they gave the appearance of a power couple who could bring progressive values to Syria.
One of the young female aides in his presidential office even referred to Assad as "the Dude," a familiarity inconceivable with his father, according to a trove of emails purportedly leaked from Bashar and Asma Assad's accounts and made public in late 2011 by London's The Guardian newspaper and WikiLeaks.
Hopes for a political opening dissipated quickly. Early on, Assad reversed a brief loosening of restrictions on political activity. Instead, he opened up the economy. Under free-market reforms, Damascus and other cities saw a flourishing of malls, restaurants and consumer goods. Tourism swelled.
Officials and Western diplomats who met with Assad speak of a vain man, convinced his was the only right way.
Assad sees himself "as a sort of philosopher-king, the Pericles of Damascus," Maura Connelly, then-U.S. charge d'affaires in Damascus, wrote in a June 2009 secret diplomatic cable, released by WikiLeaks.
Assad's gravest challenge came when small protests erupted in the country's drought-stricken south in March 2011 and spread quickly to other areas, at the time of the Arab Spring uprisings.
His response was to use the brutal tactics of his father, hoping to nip the protests in the bud.
Security forces repeatedly opened fire on protesters. But the outrage only caused a snowball effect. As the uprising hemorrhaged into civil war, Assad unleashed his military to blast opposition-held cities, as well as the pro-regime gunmen known as "shabiha," alleged to have carried out mass slayings.
His actions squandered the goodwill of those who still saw him as an instrument of change. Even the first lady was tarnished. The leaked emails showed her splurging on expensive jewelry, bespoke furniture and a vase worth more than $4,000 from Harrods department store in London, even as violence engulfed the country. Assad turned to his family, but now that circle is dwindling. His younger brother, Maher, is still by his side but his elder sister, Bushra, a strong voice in his inner circle, is now said to be living in the United Arab Emirates. Her husband, Deputy Defence Minister Assef Shawkat, was killed in a Damascus bombing last year. One of his closest confidantes, former elite commander Manaf Tlas, defected. Quemener said only two people can reason with him at this point: His mother and his wife. "Like all dictators he's very alone, so he's forced to take decisions, and that tortures him."**Associated Press writers Gregory Katz in London and Greg Keller in Paris contributed to this report.

Obama on Syria vote: 'I wouldn't say I'm confident'; hasn't decided on action if vote fails
By The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is voicing some pessimism about the prospect of Congress approving a use-of-force resolution on Syria, saying, quote: "I wouldn't say I'm confident" about the measure passing. He also says he hasn't decided whether he would launch a military strike on his own if Congress votes down the resolution. He says he is taking the vote and what the American people are saying "very seriously." Obama says he knew there was a risk in asking Congress to approve a military strike. But he says he is confident that lawmakers are taking the issue seriously and "doing their homework."
The president wants Congress to authorize a strike in retaliation for a deadly chemical weapons attack in Syria. Obama spoke Monday in an interview with NBC News

US says it will consider proposal for Syria to surrender chemical weapons, with skepticism
By The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – WASHINGTON - A possible diplomatic solution to avoid a U.S. military strike arose Monday when Syria swiftly welcomed a suggestion to move all of the country's chemical weapons under international control. President Barack Obama said the proposal could be a potential breakthrough but he remained skeptical that Syria would follow through.
The White House pressed ahead with efforts to persuade Congress to authorize a military strike, and Obama said the day's developments were doubtless due in part to the "credible possibility" of that action. U.S. officials insisted that Syrian President Bashar Assad's government must be held accountable for using chemical weapons regardless of what happens to its stocks.
But the diplomatic opening could provide Obama with a way out of a messy political and foreign policy bind. It followed a remarkable chain of events that started with a suggestion from Secretary of State John Kerry, followed by a proposal from Russia and immediate endorsement by the U.N. secretary-general.
Obama told NBC News in an interview Monday that he's taking a statement from Damascus welcoming the idea "with a grain of salt initially." But he said he would "absolutely" halt a U.S. military strike if Syria's stockpiles were successfully secured.
"My objective here has always been to deal with a very specific problem," Obama said in an interview with ABC News. "If we can do that without a military strike, that is overwhelmingly my preference."
Kerry told reporters in London early Monday that Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the use of chemical weapons by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week. Hours later, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov promised to push its ally Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem immediately embraced the proposal.
Then in quick succession, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged acceptance, British Prime Minister David Cameron said the idea was worth exploring and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said it "deserves close examination." Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said any move by Syria to surrender its chemical weapons would be an "important step."
That seemed to raise prospects for avoiding an expansion of the Syrian civil war, and spokesmen said the Obama administration would take a "hard look" at the proposal.
Obama cast Russia's proposal as a direct result of the pressure being felt by Syria because of the threat of a U.S. strike and warned that he would not allow the idea to be used as a stalling tactic.
"I don't think that we would have gotten to this point unless we had maintained a credible possibility of a military strike, and I don't think now is the time for us to let up on that," he said.
White House spokesman Jay Carney sidestepped questions on whether the U.S. and Russia had co-ordinated Monday's proposal, saying only, "There are ongoing conversations on this matter at the highest level."
Obama said he spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week about a potential plan for Syria to turn over its chemical weapons to international control, and that it was a continuation of previous conversations he's had with Putin on the subject.
Obama told PBS' "NewsHour" that he and Putin spoke about it last week during in economic summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. Obama and Putin had an impromptu chat Friday for about 20 minutes.
Kerry spoke by phone with Lavrov shortly after making his comments in London, and officials familiar with the call said Lavrov had told Kerry that he had seen the remarks and would be issuing a public statement. Kerry made clear that his comments were rhetorical and were not meant to be a proposal, according to the officials. They added that Kerry told Lavrov that the U.S. was not going to "play games," but the U.S. would be willing to review a serious proposal. They stressed that he made clear that Lavrov could not present the idea as a joint U.S.-Russian proposal.
The officials commented only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to describe the information publicly.
The State Department sought to tamp down the potential impact of Kerry's comments by calling them a "rhetorical" response to a hypothetical question and not "a proposal."
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the U.S. had "serious skepticism" about Syria's statement because it might be merely a stalling tactic. She said Syria had consistently refused to destroy its chemical weapons in the past. In fact, she said the developments made it even more important for Congress to authorize the use of force against Syria as a means for pushing Assad to actually get rid of chemical weapons stocks.
Obama, who will address the nation Tuesday night, faces a decidedly uphill fight to win congressional backing — and serious doubts by the American public.
A new Associated Press poll shows a majority of Americans oppose a U.S. strike on Syria. Most of those surveyed said they believe even limited strikes would lead to a long-term military commitment. The poll was released Monday and conducted Sept. 6-8.
The U.S. accuses Assad's government of being behind an attack using sarin gas in a Damascus suburb on Aug. 21, killing 1,429 people. Some other estimates of the deaths are lower, but there is wide agreement that chemical weapons were used. In an interview broadcast Monday on "CBS This Morning," Assad denied responsibility, accused the Obama administration of spreading lies without providing a "single shred of evidence," and warned that air strikes against his nation could bring retaliation. Pressed on what that might include, Assad responded, "I'm not fortune teller."
Later Monday, Syria's foreign minister, meeting with his Russian counterpart in Moscow, addressed the idea of getting rid of any chemical weapons.
"Syria welcomes the Russian proposal out of concern for the lives of the Syrian people, the security of our country and because it believes in the wisdom of the Russian leadership that seeks to avert American aggression against our people," said al-Moallem.
Russia's proposal provided confirmation from Syria's most important international ally that the Syrian government possesses chemical weapons, and al-Moallem's welcome was a tacit acknowledgment. Syria's foreign ministry last year retracted a threat to use chemical weapons, saying it was not acknowledging that it had them.
U.S. officials in Washington initially said they were surprised by Kerry's comments, which came at a news conference with British Foreign Secretary William Hague and in response to a question about what, if anything, Assad could do to stop the U.S. from punishing it for the use of chemical weapons.
"He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week," Kerry said. "Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn't about to do it, and it can't be done, obviously."
*Associated Press writers Matthew Lee in Washington, Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow, Zeina Karam in Beirut, Connie Cass in Washington and Edith Lederer at the U.N. contributed to this report.

Syrian concession raises hopes of last-gasp deal

September 10, 2013/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: U.S. President Barack Obama appeared to pull back from the brink Monday, describing as “potentially positive” a Russian offer to work with Damascus to put its chemical weapons under international control.
“I think you have to take it with a grain of salt initially,” he told “NBC Nightly News” in an interview Monday.
“This represents a potentially positive development,” Obama said, adding that Secretary of State John Kerry would explore with Russia how serious the offer is.
Obama is struggling to rally Congress behind military action in Syria, but a throwaway suggestion from his secretary of state led to a dramatic day of rapid diplomatic developments.
Kerry was quick to dismiss as hypothetical his own comment that Syrian President Bashar Assad could avert U.S. strikes by surrendering his chemical arsenal to international control.
But Assad’s ally Russia quickly turned it into a firm proposal that was swiftly welcomed by Damascus and echoed by U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon.
Rebels fighting Assad’s forces on the ground, where hundreds are being killed by conventional bullets and explosives every week, dismissed any such weapons transfer as impossible to police and a decoy to frustrate U.S. plans to attack. Kerry later called Lavrov to tell him that while his remarks had been rhetorical and the United States was not going to “play games,” if there was a serious proposal, then Washington would take a look at it, a senior U.S. official said. Obama has argued that Assad, fighting to continue his family’s four-decade rule in a civil war well into its third year, must be punished for what Washington says was a poison gas attack on rebel areas that killed over 1,400 people on Aug. 21.The president surprised friends and foes alike by turning to Congress for approval, delaying any U.S. response.
Asked by a reporter during a visit to London whether there was anything Assad’s government could do or offer to stop a U.S. military strike, Secretary of State Kerry answered:
“Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week – turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done.”The State Department later said Kerry had been making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility of Assad turning over chemical weapons, which Assad denies his forces used.
Less than five hours later, Lavrov said he had put what sounded like Kerry’s proposal to his visiting Syrian counterpart during talks in Moscow. And Walid al-Moallem said Damascus welcomed the Russian initiative – while not spelling out whether Syria would, or even could, comply.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has blocked U.N. action against Assad and says Obama would be guilty of unlawful aggression if he launches an attack without U.N. approval.
Lavrov said: “If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons ... makes it possible to avoid strikes, then we will immediately get to work with Damascus.”
Lavrov said Russia was also urging Syria to eventually destroy the weapons and become a full member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Shortly afterward, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon took up the same theme, saying that he might ask the Security Council to end its “embarrassing paralysis” over Syria and agree to act.
Asked about Lavrov’s proposal, Ban said: “I’m considering urging the Security Council to demand the immediate transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons and chemical precursor stocks to places inside Syria where they can be safely stored and destroyed.”Ban has warned against any action that lacks the approval of the world security body could worsen the situation in Syria. Syria is believed to have large stocks of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agents – the actual use of which is banned by a 1925 treaty to which Damascus is a signatory.
White House officials made clear their skepticism of the workability of the Russian proposal. Syria is a battleground where access for foreign experts would be dangerous. And it would be very hard to verify whether all sites had been sealed. Years of cat-and-mouse maneuvring between U.N. weapons inspectors and Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq show how difficult it might be to enforce any arms control orders on a timetable that would satisfy Washington in the midst of a war. Qassim Saadeddine, a rebel commander in northern Syria and a spokesman for the Supreme Military Council of Assad’s opponents, said: “It is a trap and deceitful maneuver by the Damascus regime and will do nothing to help the situation.
“They have tons of weapons hidden that would be nearly impossible for international inspectors to find.”
Amr al-Azm, a Syrian opposition figure and professor of history at Ohio State University, told The Daily Star “the opposition are the absolute losers in all of this.”
“The regime gets out of an impending strike, and the Russians will be able to say they were supporting diplomacy all along. The U.S. will try to present this as a personal triumph, they will try and show this was Obama’s initiative all along in talks behind the scenes,” he said.
The Syrian regime, he added, would use this time to consolidate control on the ground. “This smacks of Saddam in 1991. [The Russians] will spin this out for as long as possible. It’s classic Russian politics, reel it out and buy time. The feasibility of removing the regime’s entire chemical weapons stockpile in just one week was also laughable, he said. “You can’t destroy chemical weapons stocks in one week, that’s just absurd.”
But, he added, as long as the threat of a military strike remained, “It could still have an impact in terms of changing the balance of power on the ground,” as it could damage regime morale.
Putin, however, would see major diplomatic advantages to any plan that bolstered Russia’s role in brokering international settlements and thwarted strikes in which Obama may have French military support.
The Russian proposal won a cautious welcome in public from both the British and French governments, Obama’s main European allies in the crisis.
U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken said the United States would take “a hard look” at the idea but that Congress should still approve a military action. “It’s important to note that this proposal comes in the context of the threat of U.S. action and the pressure that the president is exerting,” he said. “So it’s even more important that we don’t take the pressure off and that Congress gives the president the authority he’s requested.”
A Senate vote set for Wednesday was delayed to study the Russian proposal.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Americans’ opposition to a U.S. military strike against Syria was increasing. The poll, conducted Sept. 5 to 9, indicated that 63 percent of Americans opposed intervening in Syria, up from 53 percent in a survey that ended Aug. 30. About 16 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should get involved – down from 20 percent on Aug. 30.
Tapping into concerns in the West about the role of Islamist militants in the rebel forces, Syrian Foreign Minister Moallem said: “We are asking ourselves how Obama can ... support those who in their time blew up the World Trade Center in New York.”
Assad himself warned of reprisals – if he were attacked Americans could “expect every action,” he told CBS television. Repercussions “may take different forms” and could include “instability and the spread of terrorism all over the region that will influence the West directly.”

Syrian Measures to Mitigate the Effects of a U.S. Strike
By: Jeffrey White/Washington Institute
Given the nature of the regime's passive defensive capabilities, a powerful U.S. operation of at least several rounds may be necessary.
As Washington continues to deliberate its response to the Syrian regime's August 21 chemical attacks in Damascus, the Assad regime has taken the opportunity to institute passive defensive measures as a means of protecting high-value assets and forces from outside military action. In general, such measures can include dispersing key units, moving headquarters to densely populated civilian areas, concealing weapons systems, and similar efforts. The regime began implementing some of these steps soon after the chemical attacks and continues to do so.
In the event of a U.S. strike, passive measures would comprise only part of Syria's defensive response -- the regime would also actively defend its airspace with surface-to-air missiles and antiaircraft artillery. Yet these active measures are unlikely to have much effect on U.S. forces, and reporting from inside Syria suggests that regime military personnel have low confidence in them. Passive defenses may in fact be more effective, and their early implementation suggests that a U.S. strike needs to be robust if Washington hopes to deter the regime and degrade its capabilities.
OBJECTIVES OF PASSIVE DEFENSE
By the time a U.S. strike takes place -- assuming it actually does -- the Syrian regime will have had several weeks to prepare its defenses. In-depth public discussion of the means and methods of attack, the long history of similar U.S. and allied operations, and the opportunity to observe President Obama's handling of the conflict have probably given the regime a reasonable perspective on what an attack will look like: namely, a raid of limited scope and duration, not a campaign.
The regime likely hopes that passive defensive measures can reduce the direct effects of a strike, make the United States appear weak, ineffectual, and even irresponsible, and produce civilian casualties and other collateral damage that could be exploited for propaganda purposes. According to this line of thinking, sufficiently bad results could dispel any support for additional strikes -- if not in the United States, then at least among lukewarm supporters elsewhere.
The regime is somewhat constrained in its defensive preparations by the need to continue prosecuting the war. It must keep units deployed in the field, secure key installations and facilities, and exercise command and control over its forces. Yet even this requirement carries some advantages: the regime's ground forces were widely distributed around the country well before the chemical attacks, not concentrated in a few easily targeted locations, and its command and control have been decentralized to a degree, with regional command centers believed to be dictating the day-to-day operations of forces in their areas of responsibility.
TYPES OF PASSIVE DEFENSE
The regime could take three broad types of passive defensive measures in the event of an attack: movement, denial, and deception. First, it could move forces and functions in several ways. It could disperse combat forces to reduce the effects of outside strikes, spreading equipment and personnel more widely while keeping them in roughly the same area of operation. It could also redeploy units to different areas, playing a shell game by moving key assets (e.g., surface-to-surface missiles) from place to place to stay ahead of U.S. intelligence. In addition, headquarters, communications capabilities, and other functions could be moved to locations with which they are not normally associated or where the risk of collateral damage could deter strikes. Although all of these measures would have some disruptive effects on the Syrian military and its conduct of the war, they could reduce its vulnerability to attack. Their effectiveness in mitigating damage would depend on the quality of U.S. intelligence and how quickly targeting could be adjusted.
Second, the regime could use denial to defend its forces. In military terms, denial can be as simple as putting equipment under roof or tree cover or within densely built-up areas. If U.S. intelligence cannot find the equipment, it cannot be hit except by luck. Such measures can be bolstered by reducing electronic emissions and other signatures. The regime could also use its large system of bunkers to shield equipment and personnel. Bunkers can be defeated by certain kinds of munitions, but the types of weapons often employed in limited U.S. strikes (e.g., Tomahawk cruise missiles) cannot carry these munitions. Even if the requisite weapons were used, targeting bunkers puts a premium on knowing which facilities are active and who or what is in them -- another major intelligence issue.
The regime could also place forces and functions in civilian areas and facilities, making them more difficult to find and, more important, putting civilians at risk. This could be augmented by deploying human shields to facilities the regime does not want to move out of, such as major command-and-control facilities.
The third category of passive defensive measures is deception. This can entail the use of camouflage, decoys, and false electronic signals to misdirect attacks. It can also involve generating false effects (blast damage, fires, and smoke) or disseminating false communication signals and messages (e.g., fake videos). These actions could be used to influence the U.S. military's battle damage assessment (BDA) process and exaggerate civilian casualties and collateral damage.
All of these measures are relatively simple to implement, can work synergistically, and are as old as warfare itself. Some have reportedly already been carried out, including dispersal, movement of forces and functions, movement into civilian areas, and deployment of human shields. Those measures that increase the risk to civilians could play to President Obama's sensitivities.
COPING WITH PASSIVE DEFENSE
As mentioned above, much of the U.S. military's ability to offset these measures depends on quality intelligence collection and analysis, and the time to do both. The United States has significant capabilities for both real-time and persistent intelligence collection against enemy forces. If these capabilities were employed in support of a Syria strike, the regime's ability to move its forces without detection would be reduced. Timely and accurate intelligence could also reduce -- though not eliminate -- the risk of collateral damage.
Much also depends on precision of execution. Weapons have to hit their intended targets, especially if there is only one round of strikes. If there is more than one round -- probably a necessary condition for success despite presumably heavy pressure to limit the operation -- the ability to adjust on the fly to updated regime measures would be important. Syrian forces cannot be expected to stand still if attacked. Using enough weapons to provide good target coverage and high levels of damage would be important. The smaller the target sets and the fewer the weapons employed, the more vulnerable the plan would be to passive measures.
BDA and restrike/follow-on strike capabilities must also be in place beforehand. Again, a single round of strikes is unlikely to inflict enough damage, so additional rounds would probably be necessary. In addition, opportunities to strike at new targets may present themselves as the regime reacts to the operation.
Another crucial element is preparing an information strategy to deal with civilian casualties and collateral damage, whether actual or falsified. Even if nothing goes wrong from the U.S. standpoint, the regime is sure to claim widespread loss of civilian life and destruction to civilian facilities, producing "evidence" (videos, eyewitnesses, bodies) to make its case. The United States will need to be ready with a more convincing story, backing it up with credible information and releasing it in a timely manner.
CONSEQUENCES
Although passive defensive measures cannot defeat a U.S. strike, they could reduce its effectiveness and complicate its execution. Some intended targets will be missed, and some unintended or undesirable ones will probably be hit. In a campaign, adjustments could be made based on enemy reactions, U.S. intelligence assessments, and the U.S. military's ability to target adaptively. Yet in a limited strike of one or two rounds, such adjustments are much more circumscribed, and Syria's passive measures would create complications and frictions in the BDA and restrike processes. The regime likely believes that these measures will help it ride out an attack and perhaps give it some opportunities to avoid further attacks. It may well be right.
This argues for a powerful U.S. operation of at least several rounds -- a campaign that provides sufficient opportunity to strike, do the BDA, restrike as needed, and exploit targeting opportunities. The temptation to quickly declare "all bombs on target" should be resisted.
*Jeffrey White is a Defense Fellow at The Washington Institute and a former senior defense intelligence officer.
Between the Political and the Religious
Mohammad el-Ashab/Al Hayat
Monday 09 September 2013
The Egyptian events are being echoed in two different experiences in Tunisia and Morocco. And while the Tunisian street is busy carrying out an action aiming to topple the government of Ennahda and its partners in the troika, the Moroccans are adjusting to a half-bearded government, and whenever it is about to collapse, it is rescued by partisan lifebuoys.
Because the Egyptian crisis is the product of its time at the level of its reasons, backdrops and repercussions, the recognition by some Islamic movements in the North African states of the non-existence of any ties or affiliation with the fundamentalism of the Muslim Brotherhood constituted a noticeable development. Indeed, when the authority fell in the hands of the Islamic movement in Egypt, this was considered a victory for all the Islamic movements revived by the action. But later on, these same movements distanced themselves from the Muslim Brotherhood, after they saw the developments which led to its isolation from power.
Whether this is a political reaction with a pragmatic background or a redrafting of the lines of convergence and divergence between the Islamic movements sharing the same reference, the impact of the Egyptian case will last a longer time, at least in terms of the continuation of the controversy surrounding the limits of political Islam at the level of the failure or success of the experience in power. Just like these movements were able to put forward a convincing and tempting alternative to attract voters who have grown sick and tired of the tyranny and monopolization of the authority, their short-lived experiences in power fueled disgruntlement and revulsion. And because the street is the same, a question is raised in regard to the causes of the failure and the ways to handle the crisis, as long as the exclusionist visions of both sides have failed.
Usually, a political party’s failure in the democratic experience leads to self-criticism, in order to get ready for the upcoming competitions in the context of the peaceful transition of power. And usually, this does not provoke any controversy surrounding the legitimacy of this party’s existence, unless it is adopting ideas opposed to the agreed on social values. However, the manner in which the Egyptian MB was isolated and the insistence of the Freedom and Justice Party on returning to power, do not leave any room for any such transition unless all the sides accept to start over. As for the controversy surrounding the ratification of a consensual constitution, it only reflects a need for a higher law by which everyone would abide.
Only then can power transition have a meaning. However, the problem at the level of the constitution in Egypt – but also in Tunisia – is that its preamble, clauses and content are still the object of controversy, just like the causality of which came first, the chicken or the egg. This is happening although the constitution is not a law imposed by the victor, but rather a consensual document drawn up by all the parties, especially when it comes to issues related to identity, principles, the distribution of powers, and these powers’ autonomy. And just like its drafting cannot be monopolized by a party or movement enjoying the widest influence, as the latter could become a minority following any new elections, no partner can be kept from contributing to its ratification. The executive power is one of the components of the remaining powers, and its monopolization of such a decision is not a solution.
In Tunisia, the discussion is revolving around the priorities of the current stage. And while the opposition is demanding the government’s departure, the government is responding by saying it will not succumb to this demand until after the ratification of the constitution. But what guarantees that a constitution drawn up this way will please all the sides? Should the constitutional issue not be distanced from the influence of whichever power, especially during transitional stages? The Islamic movements that monopolized power – although based on the results of the ballot boxes – are probably blamed for having practiced power with a non-consensual mentality, or at the very least for having allowed the prevalence of a religious tendency over political measures and decisions.
In light of these developments, it was no surprise to see the emergence of the dilemma surrounding the relationship between what is religious and what is political. In the Western countries, there are parties with religious references, but they distinguish between religious conservatives and political officials at the level of their practices. And some parties that allowed the prevalence of racist and radical tendencies saw the annulment of the electoral results. There is a great difference between changing societal structures and providing the conditions of change at the level of the economic, social and cultural structures. And those who rebelled against the Islamic movements did not do so because they shifted away from a purely religious course, but because they could not implement reformatory plans that would revive the hopes and rebuild the lost trust.
In Egypt, the Islamists were excluded from power, while in Tunisia the demonstrations to topple the government are proceeding. In the meantime, Moroccan opposition parties and dignitaries are supporting the stay of the Islamists in power, not with the aim to block the way before any complaints regarding the importation of the Egyptian experience to affect the status of the Islamists in the country, but to separate between what is religious and what is political. If Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane’s government is sustained, this would be due to the support of a parliamentary majority, while if it stops halfway, this would be due to the disintegration of the majority. And this is the safest way to exit the tunnel of the struggle over power.

The Muslim Brotherhood: An Ordeal And A Gift
Mohammad Salah/Al Hayat
There are differences between the experience of the Afghan Mujahideen, as well as the Taliban movement, and that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This is especially true in terms of the geographical distance and the nature of the environment between Egypt and Afghanistan, as well as in terms of time span. Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood boasts a history of more than eighty years, while the Mujahideen and the Taliban only lasted a limited number of years. Yet the result is the same: failure to manage the state followed by removal from power. The Mujahideen became divided and fought against one another, while the Taliban defied the Americans and led them to invade Afghanistan, topple them and establish the government they wanted. As for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members considered their rule of Egypt to represent a gift from God, it is a different matter, and its fate will be a different one as well. Indeed, it is only natural for the group to be preoccupied with its own future, and for the international organization – as well as its branches in different countries around the world, its supporters and the other groups and organizations that orbit around it – to discuss the fate that awaits the original group in Egypt, after it failed to manage the affairs of power for a year, entered into a struggle against the new government as well as Egyptian society, and lost the sympathy of broad segments of the Egyptian population on which it had long relied to obtain votes in elections, gain support for its social and economic activities, and gather participants for its marches, protests and demonstrations. The Brotherhood so far does not seem to have an alternative plan to that which it has followed since Morsi was toppled and deposed, neither in terms of domestic nor foreign affairs. Nor does it seem to have alternatives in terms of its methods and mechanisms, neither regarding the issue of its protests and marches, despite the fact that people have stopped joining them, nor the issue of the violence practiced by other Jihadist groups, who do not hide the fact that they are taking revenge for the fact that Morsi was deposed and the Brotherhood excluded from the political scene. And it is only natural for voices to rise from within the Brotherhood, criticizing Morsi’s methods of governance or the policies of the Guidance Bureau, such as in the article written by leading Brotherhood figure Hamza Zawbaa in the Freedom and Justice Newspaper two days ago. Yet this is something that falls under the framework of role distribution. What matters is that the Muslim Brotherhood has reached the conviction that Morsi will not be reinstated.
Yet the fall of the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood and the removal of Morsi, as well as the lack of influence of the protests organized by members and supporters of the group and their diminishing number of participants, does not mean that the Brotherhood is finished in Egypt. This is not just because it has reserves of leaders, cadres, followers, supporters and backers abroad, whether from among rulers and governments or institutions and parties. It is also because a movement with a history such as that of the Muslim Brotherhood does not usually meet with a sudden death, but can rather become infected with a virus or bacteria that causes it to suffer a chronic illness it battles for many more long years until it is healed and recovers, or loses the fight and dies a slow death. Another reason is that the group’s organizational structure may be affected or damaged by security measures that would involve hunting down, harassing and besieging its members, but its ideas, convictions and beliefs remain and will be passed on to future generations, especially among families and members of the Brotherhood who have been brought up on the principle of obeying without question. Thus, waning reactions to Morsi’s removal, the dispersal of the protests in the Rabia Al-Adawiyya and Al-Nahda squares, and the arrest of the group’s leaders and cadres cannot be interpreted to mean the death of the Muslim Brotherhood, or even that its leadership has lost control over its base or that the movement of the street will subside in the coming phase, after the group and its members have been exhausted in the different provinces. Limited, or let us say meager, protests will continue to take place for a while, held in neighborhoods far from the centers of cities, as will marches in narrow streets and neighborhoods, and will not vanish with the passing of time. What matters for the Brotherhood now is to send messages to its branches abroad, its allies inside the country and its backers in the West and in the East, signifying that the group is still there, and that excluding it from any political solution to the Egyptian crisis is out of the question. Furthermore, bringing about the failure of the new government – whether the current government or the one that will be formed in the future following presidential and legislative elections – is considered to represent a strategic goal for the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not just out of motives of vengeance, but also more importantly in order to convince the group’s popular base that Morsi did not fail because he was incompetent, but rather because resolving Egypt’s problems lies beyond the abilities of any president or of any group!
Follow up on the Muslim Brotherhood’s reactions to the steps being taken to draft the constitution, or even to the terrorist attacks in the Sinai, or to the attack against the Interior Minister. Examine its promotion of rumors about the situation of banks, illegal drugs and the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel, or the behavior of its activists on social media websites. You will find that the group and its members have accepted to go through the ordeal, and have in fact become fully engrossed in it, believing that being oppressed might not just attract sympathy, but also ensure that their brothers and sisters in the group will become preoccupied with surviving the ordeal, instead of looking into their mistakes and trying to correct them, or even turning against the group’s leaders and holding them to account.
Afghanistan’s Mujahideen are nearly finished, and so is the Taliban movement, save for some scarce activity and weak presence. As for the Muslim Brotherhood, it will be going through this ordeal for years, and will not emerge from it until it changes from within.

Oil in a Week - Syria's Oil and War
Walid Khadduri/Al Hayat
The spark of the civil war in Syria started in March 2011. The petroleum sector (oil and gas) incurred its share of the devastation that hit the country since the beginning of the uprising. The Syrian Minister of Petroleum said in October 2012 that the direct and indirect losses in the oil sector to date was estimated at $2.9 billion, mostly as a result of export losses following the imposition of a Western ban on Syrian oil exports, the overwhelming majority of which went to the European market. There are, of course, also the losses resulting from the destruction of infrastructure such as railways, oil pipelines, and refineries. According to the latest report issued by the Syrian government, the value of these losses until the end of October 2012 was estimated at $220 million, including $146 million as a result of the devastation in the electricity sector and more than $ 70 million in losses in oil infrastructure.
Of course, these are only preliminary figures, and only a part of the long series of losses in this vital sector. The experiences of Middle Eastern countries that were recently blighted by wars and embargos, especially Iraq, Iran, and Libya, indicate that chaos affects the petroleum sector for years after the end of hostilities and embargos, with militias taking over oil facilities and production suffering huge setbacks, as is the case in Libya and has been gradually the case in Iran: In the latter, the Revolutionary Guard took over the petroleum sector, controlling and manipulating contracts without accountability or transparency to speak of. Iran could also not restore its previous oil output levels, while corruption and blatant theft, in addition to the exodus of engineers and national cadres, has severely damaged one of the most important sectors in neighboring Iraq.
There are also undeclared losses with geopolitical dimensions. Indeed, some Syrian oil ministers in the past few years tried to turn their country into a transit hub for oil bound to international markets, with the country’s strategic location in mind. But these attempts were undermined by the presidency’s belligerent policies, which adversely impacted the country’s credibility. Though the oil ministers’ attempts to achieve this goal continued, the experiences of some exporting countries with Syria were not encouraging at all. To be sure, Damascus linked its transit policy to its regional policy, meaning that the Iraqi pipeline carrying oil to the European markets through the Mediterranean had to be closed in the early 1980s, with the eruption of the Iraq-Iran war.
In the past two years, Syria proposed transit projects, but as a result of their obvious political nature, it is unlikely that they will be implemented. A tripartite agreement was signed among Iran, Iraq, and Syria in May 2011, which on the surface aims to export Iranian gas through Iraq to Syria. International oil experts believe that the real aim of the pipeline, if ever built, is to act as a first step towards exporting Iranian gas to Europe. However, since Europe is taking part in the oil embargo on Iran, it is not expected that the pipeline will be built, and indeed, no part of it has yet been constructed.
There is also an agreement for the construction of two pipelines to transport crude oil from Iraq to Syria, as well as a third pipeline for natural gas. These pipelines are important economically and strategically to Iraq, especially if Iraq decides to export gas from the Okaz field in the west of the country, to avoid repeated attacks on its northern Turkey-bound pipelines, as well as the export of gas to Europe via the Arab gas pipeline that transports Egyptian gas to Europe via Syria and Turkey. Since there is a shortage in Egyptian gas supplies, Iraqi gas can compensate for this shortage.
Proven Syrian crude oil reserves are estimated to be in the vicinity of 2.4 billion barrels. Before the conflict erupted in 2011, output was about 330 thousand barrels per day. Domestic consumption before the war was about 258 thousand barrels per day. This data indicates that reserves declined in recent years from the level of 2.4869 billion barrels, as no new reserves could be discovered.
The decline in the reserves was accompanied by a significant decrease in production, with output peaking at 595 thousand barrels per day in 1995. Production began to decline steadily since then, down to 330 thousand barrels per day in early 2011. Syria was able to hit this level by increasingly producing heavy oil (Suweidaa crude) instead of its depleting light oil.
Available data indicates that production decreased during the war to about only 153 thousand barrels per day in October 2012. The major problem experienced by the country before the war was the decrease in oil production and increased consumption, which means that the government had to import fuel to supply the local market, or convert the largest number of power plants to use gas, and this is what happened.
In 2007 and again in early 2011, Syria tried to begin exploration in offshore areas in line with neighboring countries in the eastern Mediterranean that had discovered gas. But no agreement was concluded with international oil companies so far. Negotiations were held with two foreign companies in 2007 without results. The licensing round launched in March 2011 also failed to attract companies due to the start of the conflict and the Western oil embargo.
Meanwhile, Syrian gas reserves are estimated to be around 6.99 billion cubic meters, mostly in the form of associated gas. It is worth noting that there have been no discoveries to corroborate the rumors that circulated in Arab circles during the Syrian war, about mega gas discoveries in Syria.
It is as of yet unknown what the nature of the looming U.S.-led military strike on Syria will be. Will it be limited to targeting military facilities and bases, as the bills before Congress suggest, or will it target infrastructure, under the pretext that it supports the Syrian war effort, as happened in Iraq when refineries and pump stations were bombed? Or will the scope of the strike be expanded to include non-military targets, as is always possible in wars, despite denials in official U.S. statements?
Syria will face immense challenges in rebuilding its oil industry. It will rebuild it with time, but at great expense. Although Syria is not a major oil producing country, it can at least build on what has been discovered so far, and what future discoveries would offer. There is another petroleum opportunity for Syria, other than exploration and development, in benefiting from oil and gas transit operations, as Turkey has been doing. But the primary condition for transit operations is not to breach signed agreements, as well as stability, and ensuring the safety of oil supplies.
* Mr. Khadduri is a consultant for MEES Oil & Gas (MeesEnergy)

Geagea à « L’OLJ » : Si Damas et sa chorale du 8 Mars se soucient des chrétiens, qu’ils réclament la protection internationale de Maaloula
Sandra NOUJEIM
Les combats pour la prise de Maaloula, village à majorité chrétienne situé au nord-est de Damas, alimentent depuis mercredi des informations non vérifiées sur le massacre de ses habitants par des rebelles jihadistes. Pourtant démenties par des dignitaires présents géographiquement à proximité du site, ces informations confortent la théorie de l’alliance des minorités, que le chef des Forces libanaises Samir Geagea a veillé à discréditer depuis le début de la crise syrienne.
Dans une entrevue à L’Orient-Le Jour, le leader chrétien rappelle la teneur de l’approche qui défend la présence des chrétiens au Moyen-Orient à travers un angle exclusivement humaniste, dépouillé des épouvantails susceptibles d’alimenter une frilosité contraignante et oppressive chez les minorités de la région.
« Ce qui se passe à Maaloula est une transposition identique de la guerre qui secoue toutes les contrées syriennes, souligne dans ce cadre M. Geagea. Maaloula, chrétienne, subit ce que Homs, sunnite, endure. » Précisant d’abord ne pas détenir de données, jusque-là, ni sur le nombre de victimes parmi les habitants de cette contrée ni sur l’ampleur des dégâts, il restreint toutes les informations concrètes qu’il détient dans une phrase, dont la teneur est incontestable : « Le combat bat son plein, à l’heure actuelle, entre les forces régulières, d’une part, et l’opposition, d’autre part. » S’il relève qu’aucune précision supplémentaire ne se dégage des médias locaux et régionaux reconnus, il ne manque pas de citer la déclaration de mère Pélagie Sayyah, l’abbesse du couvent Mar Takla à Maaloula, et du patriarche grec-orthodoxe Mgr Youhanna X Yazigi, qui ont démenti tout massacre dans la localité.
En tout état de cause, et en dépit du manque d’informations vérifiées, les politiques et médias du 8 Mars, en l’occurrence « la chorale du 8 Mars et les alliés du régime syrien, s’érigent en protecteurs des chrétiens en stigmatisant un soi-disant massacre ». « S’ils tiennent ce discours, ce n’est ni pour des raisons liées à quelque souci pour les chrétiens ni même par élan humanitaire, mais uniquement pour un investissement politique en faveur du régime de Damas », déplore-t-il, assimilant toute la campagne menée par « les cors du 8 Mars » à une tentative de « consolider un prétexte » qui leur bénéficierait politiquement. « La soi-disant protection des chrétiens est un commerce politique par excellence, un commerce qui se nourrit de la mort et de la tragédie des peuples », affirme le leader des FL.
Si, par hypothèse, les informations sur un massacre à Maaloula sont vérifiées, Samir Geagea estime que « la seule solution dans ce cas serait de protéger ce village et son patrimoine religieux historique ». Il revient sur les refuges troglodytiques et les églises datant des premiers siècles dans ce village, où la langue araméenne continue d’être parlée par certains habitants. Dès lors, si le régime syrien et ses alliés au Liban sont mus par une authentique volonté de protéger les chrétiens de Syrie et de la région, « la seule solution, et la plus efficace, qui se présente est de réclamer une protection internationale du site de Maaloula ». « Que la Syrie profite de son siège de membre non permanent au sein du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU pour réclamer cette protection le temps que se termine la crise. L’opposition syrienne ne la contestera certainement pas », propose le chef des FL.
Indépendamment de sa pertinence, cette initiative ne se rallie-t-elle pas à la logique qui différencie le sort des chrétiens de celui du peuple syrien dans son ensemble ? Samir Geagea répond à cette question par la négative, et explique que la solution qu’il propose n’est qu’une réponse à « une situation dont nous avons connaissance à l’heure actuelle ».
S’il interprète la position du Vatican pour la paix en Syrie comme le « prolongement naturel de la position pacifique traditionnelle de l’Église catholique, exprimée même à l’époque hitlérienne », il dénonce toutefois le prosélytisme d’acteurs politiques chrétiens régionaux qui « sortent les chrétiens de leur contexte naturel ». « Il n’est pas normal de détacher cette partie du tissu qui l’a toujours couvé, à l’heure où ce tissu s’insurge pour réclamer la liberté, souligne M. Geagea. Quelle théorie de déplacement forcé des chrétiens peut-elle toujours tenir dans ce schéma ? »
« La pire chose que l’on puisse infliger aux chrétiens de la région est la crainte », ajoute le leader des FL, rappelant que le régime syrien a toujours été le parrain des fondamentalistes, citant le cas de Fateh el-Islam et celui des takfiris d’Irak « biberonnés par les services de renseignements syriens », relève-t-il.
 l"orient le jour
ا