Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Iranian Nuclear Stalemate's End/By: Patrick Clawson/Foreign Policy/Washington Institute/22 September/13
Rouhani Launches His ‘Charm Offensive/By P. David Hornik /FrontPage/September 22/13
Opinion Opinion: Turkey needs to rethink its regional policy/Seyed Hossein Mousavian/Asharq Alawsat/September 22/13
A kinder, gentler Iran/By Ray Takeyh/los Angeles Times/September 22/13
Syria, savagery, and self-determination: what those against military intervention are missing/By: Nader Hashemi /Open Democracy/September 22/13

Pope Francis message heralds change of tone on gays, abortion
By Philip Pullella and Tom Heneghan |
VATICAN CITY/PARIS (Reuters) - A landmark interview by Pope Francis will force conservative members of the Catholic Church to re-calibrate how they deal with gays, abortion and contraception but is not expected to be the precursor to seismic changes in doctrine, papal experts say. Pope Francis sent a clear message to officials from the highest reaches of the hierarchy down to the most remote parish that they should not be obsessed with structures, rules and regulations and not put people in moral ghettos. But Church sources and commentators believed Thursday's long interview, while radical in tone from a man whose humility and popular touch marks him out from his predecessor, did not herald rapid change in teachings on homosexual activity, contraception and abortion that have threatened to split the church.
In fact on Friday, Francis, with little fanfare, re-stated the Church's opposition to abortion in a speech to Catholic doctors, speaking of those "unjustly condemned to abortion".
But the interview with the Argentine pontiff, released six months into the first non-European papacy in 1,300 years, will force pastors who have stridently condemned homosexuality or women who have had abortions to change their tone. The confessional, Francis warned them, is "not a torture chamber"; without mercy, he said, "even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards".
"To be sure, this is very challenging to everyone who has been so heavily and thoroughly invested in the former perspective," a senior Vatican prelate said. "Everyone, especially bishops and bishops' conferences will feel the need to re-calibrate their priorities, their style, their tone."
MERCIFUL AND WELCOMING
In the interview, Francis, 76, said the Church must shake off an obsession with teachings on abortion, contraception and homosexuality and be merciful and welcoming with those not able to live up to some rules. Homosexual acts, aborting foetuses or artificially preventing conception remain sins worthy of damnation - but sinners may still hope for God's forgiveness.
"We have often put moral issues ahead of faith instead of the opposite," conceded another official, a monsignor who is the deputy head of a major Vatican department. "What the pope is saying is that rules are a consequence of faith. Faith is not a consequence of rules. You can't substitute faith with moralism." In other words, another figure in the Vatican said, Catholics can expect to hear sermons condemning abortion but not sermons excoriating women who may have felt obliged to terminate a pregnancy because of their economic or social situation. Francis, who has already distinguished himself by shunning the rich trappings of papal palaces and by his empathy for the world's poor, said the 1.2 billion-strong Church must find a "new balance" between upholding rules and demonstrating mercy. This may well disorient conservative Catholics, notably in rich countries like the United States, where the Catholic Church has become very polarised on issues such as abortion, and has also been buffeted by sex abuse scandals and controversies over priestly celibacy and calls for the ordination of women.
Marking the contrast with Benedict XVI, an austere German theologian who broke with tradition by resigning in February, U.S.-based theologian Massimo Faggioli said: "Until six months ago, the conservative side felt invulnerable, completely safe. "Now they understand the whole picture has changed. There's a big process of adjustment ahead."
RELIEF, OR REBUKE
The pope, he said, was telling conservative Vatican bureaucrats, as well as bishops and priests around the world, that they could not automatically shun gays, the divorced, and women who have had abortions from the Church's embrace. "He's saying 'What we have been doing hasn't worked, it has turned people away from the Church. It's my responsibility as pope and bishop to see that this does not happen'," said Faggioli, who teaches at St. Thomas University in Minnesota. John Thavis, an American writer on Church affairs, said: "The pope's words represent a challenge to Vatican officials, who for years have focused on rules and non-negotiable teachings in order to strengthen 'Catholic identity'." Francis also had an eye on bishops in the United States and elsewhere who have engaged heavily in domestic political debates: "He's also taking issue with local bishops who have put abortion and gay marriage front and centre in almost any public discussion, especially during election years," Thavis said. While bishop in Buenos Aires, the then Jorge Maria Bergoglio made a vocal, but vain, attempt to prevent same-sex marriage. But in this week's interview, Francis said the Church had "locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules" and that its priests should be welcoming, not dogmatic bureaucrats.
A Vatican official said he expected the hierarchy to be more tolerant of, for example, efforts to welcome gay parishioners - something for which some U.S. priests have been disciplined.
"The Church can no longer be a kept institution, kept by legal establishment or cultural habit," said George Weigel, theologian, papal biographer, and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.
"People who have never heard the gospel are not likely to be terribly interested in what the Church has to say about moral life. To get people to hear the moral message, it has to be in the context of conversion, mercy and compassion."Yet however great the pope's notional power to command the vast Church hierarchy his new message may face resistance.
David Gibson, an American Catholic author who blogs for the Religious News Service, said that while many in the clergy would embrace them, his words might "lose something in translation" as they filter down through the ranks of the priesthood: "Some officials will view his remarks with the same sense of relief that so many other people do. They didn't get into Church work to push paper and make the faithful jump through bureaucratic hoops to be Catholics in good standing," he said. "Others will see Francis's remarks as a kind of rebuke, and the pope - like any leader - needs his bureaucracy on board if his programme is to be successful."

(Writing by Philip Pullella; Editing by Alastair Macdonald)

Pope's blunt remarks pose challenge for bishops
Associated PressBy RACHEL ZOLL | Associated Press –NEW YORK (AP) — In recent years, many American bishops have drawn a harder line with parishioners on what could be considered truly Roman Catholic, adopting a more aggressive style of correction and telling abortion rights supporters to stay away from the sacrament of Communion. Liberal-minded Catholics derided the approach as tone-deaf. Church leaders said they had no choice given what was happening around them: growing secularism, increasing acceptance of gay marriage, and a broader culture they considered more and more hostile to Christianity. They felt they were following the lead of the pontiffs who elevated them. But in blunt terms, in an interview published Thursday in 16 Jesuit journals worldwide, the new pope, Francis called the church's focus on abortion, marriage and contraception narrow and said it was driving people away. Now, the U.S. bishops face a challenge to rethink a strategy many considered essential for preserving the faith. "I don't see how the pope's remarks can be interpreted in any other way than arguing that the church's rhetoric on the so-called culture war issues needs to be toned down," said John Green, a religion specialist at the University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics. "I think his language calls for less stridency on these issues." The leadership of the American church is composed of men who were appointed by Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI, who made a priority of defending doctrinal orthodoxy. Over the last decade or so, the bishops have been working to reassert their moral authority, in public life and over the less obedient within their flock.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops warned Catholics that voting for abortion-rights supporters could endanger their souls. Church leaders in Minnesota, Maine and elsewhere took prominent roles in opposing legal recognition for same-sex marriage in their states. Bishops censured some theologians and prompted a Vatican-directed takeover of the largest association for American nuns by bringing complaints to Rome that the sisters strayed from church teaching and paid too little attention to abortion. Terrence Tilley, a theologian at Fordham University, said Francis wasn't silencing discussion of abortion or gay marriage, but indicating those issues should be less central, for the sake of evangelizing. But he noted that bishops have independence to decide how they should handle local political issues. "Although Francis is sending a clear signal that he's not a culture warrior, that doesn't mean the bishops will follow in lockstep," Tilley said. Few of the U.S. bishops who have commented so far on Francis' interview indicated they planned to change.
Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, head of the bishops' religious liberty committee, said in a phone interview, "Issues do arise and we cannot always control the timing." However, he added, "Every time I make a statement about one of these things I will certainly take another look at it and ask, 'Does this really lead people back to the heart of the Gospel?' "That's what he's asking us to do. I think that's a fair question. "
Lori said he expected no changes in the bishops' push for broader religious exemptions from the contraception coverage rule in the Affordable Care Act. Dozens of Catholic charities and dioceses, along with evangelical colleges and others, are suing the Obama administration over the regulation. The bishops say the provision violates the religious freedom of faith-based nonprofits and for-profit employers.
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, head of the bishops' defense-of-marriage committee, said in a brief statement, "We must address key issues and if key issues are in the minds of those who are talking with us we will address them.""In San Francisco, these issues are very relevant to daily life for the people of this archdiocese," said Christine Mugridge, a spokeswoman for Cordileone. "As long as the people of the archdiocese have particular talking points that are pressing upon them, the archbishop will respond to those talking points."
Francis, the first Jesuit elected pope, said in the interview, "We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods." He said the church should instead act like a "field hospital after battle," to "heal wounds and to warm the hearts" of people so they feel welcome in the church. The day after the article appeared, Francis denounced abortion as a symptom of a "throw-away culture," in an address to Catholic gynecologists. He encouraged the physicians to refuse to perform abortions. But in the interview last month, conducted in Rome by the editor of the Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica, Francis said "it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time." New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the bishops' conference, said he thought the pope was telling everyone — inside and outside the church — to focus less on polarizing debates on sex and morals. "I don't know if it's just the church that seems obsessed with those issues. It seems to be culture and society," Dolan said on "CBS This Morning." "What I think he's saying is, 'Those are important issues and the church has got to keep talking about them, but we need to talk about them in a fresh new way.' If we keep kind of a negative, finger-wagging tone, it's counterproductive. "
During the 2004 presidential election, then Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis launched what was dubbed "wafer watch" when he said he would deny Communion to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Catholic who supported abortion rights. Other bishops followed suit or suggested that abortion-rights supporters refrain from the sacrament. (Benedict later appointed Burke head of the Vatican high court and elevated him to cardinal.) By 2007, the bishops revised their moral guide for Catholic voters to put a special emphasis on the evil of abortion, so the issue wouldn't be lost amid other concerns such as poverty or education. The document, called "Faithful Citizenship," warned voters that supporting abortion rights could endanger their souls. In the 2012 campaign season, it was much more common to hear bishops warning Catholics that voting for a particular candidate would amount to "formal cooperation in grave evil." Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Ill., compared the policies of President Barack Obama to those of Hitler and Stalin. At Mass on the Sunday before the presidential election, Jenky instructed his priests to read a letter saying politicians who support abortion rights reject Jesus. Theologically conservative Christians disagree over how much, if anything, needs to change in response to Francis' comments. Mark Brumley, chief executive of Ignatius Press, a theologically conservative publishing house that Pope Benedict XVI chose as his English-language publisher, was among those who said, "I don't see a major shift." Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., just last week had said in an interview with his diocesan newspaper that he was "a little bit disappointed" that Francis hadn't spoken out about abortion. On Friday, in a statement responding to the pope's remarks, Tobin said he admired Francis' leadership. "Being a Catholic doesn't mean having to choose between doctrine and charity, between truth and love. It includes both. We are grateful to Pope Francis for reminding us of that vision," Tobin said.
Lisa Leff contributed from San Francisco.

Pope's blunt remarks pose challenge for bishops
Associated PressBy RACHEL ZOLL | Associated Press –NEW YORK (AP) — In recent years, many American bishops have drawn a harder line with parishioners on what could be considered truly Roman Catholic, adopting a more aggressive style of correction and telling abortion rights supporters to stay away from the sacrament of Communion. Liberal-minded Catholics derided the approach as tone-deaf. Church leaders said they had no choice given what was happening around them: growing secularism, increasing acceptance of gay marriage, and a broader culture they considered more and more hostile to Christianity. They felt they were following the lead of the pontiffs who elevated them. But in blunt terms, in an interview published Thursday in 16 Jesuit journals worldwide, the new pope, Francis called the church's focus on abortion, marriage and contraception narrow and said it was driving people away. Now, the U.S. bishops face a challenge to rethink a strategy many considered essential for preserving the faith. "I don't see how the pope's remarks can be interpreted in any other way than arguing that the church's rhetoric on the so-called culture war issues needs to be toned down," said John Green, a religion specialist at the University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics. "I think his language calls for less stridency on these issues." The leadership of the American church is composed of men who were appointed by Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI, who made a priority of defending doctrinal orthodoxy. Over the last decade or so, the bishops have been working to reassert their moral authority, in public life and over the less obedient within their flock. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops warned Catholics that voting for abortion-rights supporters could endanger their souls. Church leaders in Minnesota, Maine and elsewhere took prominent roles in opposing legal recognition for same-sex marriage in their states. Bishops censured some theologians and prompted a Vatican-directed takeover of the largest association for American nuns by bringing complaints to Rome that the sisters strayed from church teaching and paid too little attention to abortion.
Terrence Tilley, a theologian at Fordham University, said Francis wasn't silencing discussion of abortion or gay marriage, but indicating those issues should be less central, for the sake of evangelizing. But he noted that bishops have independence to decide how they should handle local political issues. "Although Francis is sending a clear signal that he's not a culture warrior, that doesn't mean the bishops will follow in lockstep," Tilley said.
Few of the U.S. bishops who have commented so far on Francis' interview indicated they planned to change. Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, head of the bishops' religious liberty committee, said in a phone interview, "Issues do arise and we cannot always control the timing." However, he added, "Every time I make a statement about one of these things I will certainly take another look at it and ask, 'Does this really lead people back to the heart of the Gospel?' "That's what he's asking us to do. I think that's a fair question. "
Lori said he expected no changes in the bishops' push for broader religious exemptions from the contraception coverage rule in the Affordable Care Act. Dozens of Catholic charities and dioceses, along with evangelical colleges and others, are suing the Obama administration over the regulation. The bishops say the provision violates the religious freedom of faith-based nonprofits and for-profit employers.
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, head of the bishops' defense-of-marriage committee, said in a brief statement, "We must address key issues and if key issues are in the minds of those who are talking with us we will address them.""In San Francisco, these issues are very relevant to daily life for the people of this archdiocese," said Christine Mugridge, a spokeswoman for Cordileone. "As long as the people of the archdiocese have particular talking points that are pressing upon them, the archbishop will respond to those talking points."
Francis, the first Jesuit elected pope, said in the interview, "We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods." He said the church should instead act like a "field hospital after battle," to "heal wounds and to warm the hearts" of people so they feel welcome in the church.
The day after the article appeared, Francis denounced abortion as a symptom of a "throw-away culture," in an address to Catholic gynecologists. He encouraged the physicians to refuse to perform abortions. But in the interview last month, conducted in Rome by the editor of the Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica, Francis said "it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time."
New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the bishops' conference, said he thought the pope was telling everyone — inside and outside the church — to focus less on polarizing debates on sex and morals.
"I don't know if it's just the church that seems obsessed with those issues. It seems to be culture and society," Dolan said on "CBS This Morning." "What I think he's saying is, 'Those are important issues and the church has got to keep talking about them, but we need to talk about them in a fresh new way.' If we keep kind of a negative, finger-wagging tone, it's counterproductive. "
During the 2004 presidential election, then Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis launched what was dubbed "wafer watch" when he said he would deny Communion to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Catholic who supported abortion rights. Other bishops followed suit or suggested that abortion-rights supporters refrain from the sacrament. (Benedict later appointed Burke head of the Vatican high court and elevated him to cardinal.)By 2007, the bishops revised their moral guide for Catholic voters to put a special emphasis on the evil of abortion, so the issue wouldn't be lost amid other concerns such as poverty or education. The document, called "Faithful Citizenship," warned voters that supporting abortion rights could endanger their souls. In the 2012 campaign season, it was much more common to hear bishops warning Catholics that voting for a particular candidate would amount to "formal cooperation in grave evil." Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Ill., compared the policies of President Barack Obama to those of Hitler and Stalin. At Mass on the Sunday before the presidential election, Jenky instructed his priests to read a letter saying politicians who support abortion rights reject Jesus. Theologically conservative Christians disagree over how much, if anything, needs to change in response to Francis' comments. Mark Brumley, chief executive of Ignatius Press, a theologically conservative publishing house that Pope Benedict XVI chose as his English-language publisher, was among those who said, "I don't see a major shift." Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., just last week had said in an interview with his diocesan newspaper that he was "a little bit disappointed" that Francis hadn't spoken out about abortion. On Friday, in a statement responding to the pope's remarks, Tobin said he admired Francis' leadership. "Being a Catholic doesn't mean having to choose between doctrine and charity, between truth and love. It includes both. We are grateful to Pope Francis for reminding us of that vision," Tobin said. Lisa Leff contributed from San Francisco.

Analysis: UN may see big action on Syria, Iran
Associated PressBy STEVEN R. HURST | Associated Press –
WASHINGTON (AP) — After years of estrangement, the United States and Russia are joined as partners in a bold plan to rid Syria of chemical weapons. More surprising yet, American and Iranian leaders — after an exchange of courteous letters — may meet in New York for the first time since the Islamic revolution swept Iran nearly 35 years ago. Hopes are unusually high as world leaders gather at the United Nations this week. While the results are far from certain, all players in the delicate diplomacy confronting them in the coming days could even come out winners in a world increasingly fraught with zero-sum outcomes.
It begins with the U.N. Security Council scrambling to put together a resolution that is sweeping enough to ensure that Syrian President Bashar Assad surrenders all his chemical arms, and with sufficient penalties to discourage him from reneging. The five permanent members of the Security Council — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — all hold veto power, and Russia has not shied from blocking a council resolution that would punish Syrian behavior in the civil war. The Russians were especially vigorous in promising to veto air strikes to punish Syria for the Aug. 21 chemical attack that killed hundreds of people in a Damascus suburb. The U.S. blames Assad's regime for the attack; Russia says there is no proof that the regime was responsible and suggests it may have been the rebels who carried it out.
Lacking U.N. approval, U.S. President Barack Obama — who had warned last year that Assad's use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" — was nevertheless about to wage a limited air offensive against Syria but pulled up short and sought U.S. congressional approval. It then quickly became clear that Obama would not get that backing, with polls showing the American public solidly against any further military involvement in the Middle East. At that point, Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped in and strong-armed Assad into agreeing to turn over his chemical arsenal to international control and destruction. Obama, faced with the prospect of attacking Syria against the will of both the U.S. Congress and the U.N. Security Council, jumped to accept the Russian gambit. "Putin has put himself on the line. This was not done lightly. This was not done to embarrass Obama," said Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus at New York University. "This was done for what Putin and (Foreign Minister Sergey) Lavrov think is Russia's national interest."
James Collins, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, offered a similar assessment.
"Putin has put his neck way out in terms of responsibility for seeing this happen," he said. "If the Americans can resist the idea they have to micromanage everything and have it done only our way," the Russians will force Assad to rid himself of chemical weapons. Washington contends that the Russians jumped in with their plan only after Obama pushed military action, a threat the American leader says will remain on the table regardless of the outcome at the United Nations. As a result, Obama will probably not insist that the coming U.N. resolution on Syrian chemical disarmament include such a threat should Assad fail to live up to the deal. The Russians would balk at anything stiffer than sanctions anyway.
And it will be impossible to deal with Syria without at least acknowledging Iranian interests. Tehran has big stakes in backing Assad, who rules Syria as a member of the minority Alawite sect that has close ties to the Shiite Islam of Iran's ruling clergy. Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters are helping Syrian government troops in their war against a diverse group of rebels, who appear increasingly dominated by al-Qaida-linked jihadists. Iran provides Assad with military and financial aid and uses him as a counterweight to powerful Sunni Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that dominate the Middle East.
Iran's deep historic ties with Syria and the election of new President Hasan Rouhani puts the Islamic Republic under a bright light during the U.N. General Assembly, particularly because of his moderate statements and exchange of letters with Obama. That has raised hopes of renewed talks on Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Tehran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and that it is enriching uranium to levels needed for medical isotopes and reactor fuel. But Western powers, including the U.S., fear Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. Distrust of the Iranians has led the United States, with wide agreement from key allies and even Russia and China, to impose economically crippling sanctions on Tehran. Rouhani is determined to work his way from under the damaging penalties and has suggested he's ready to deal and has the authority to do so from the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Any direct exchange between Obama and Rouhani at the United Nations would be largely symbolic, with substantive negotiations on Iran's nuclear program almost certainly reserved for later talks with officials from both governments. But with that carrot hanging in front of both the U.S. and Iran, Tehran also is likely to have a significant, if behind-the-scenes, role in wider attempts to end the Syrian civil war. It's possible that Security Council action to disarm Assad of chemical weapons could breathe new life into U.S.-Russian attempts to bring the parties to a peace conference in Geneva. With Russia — Syria's main sponsor for decades — getting tough with Assad, the Iranians could well join in to work toward a settlement. Assad will likely be a winner as well. Tehran, like Washington and Moscow, is frightened of the increasing power of radical Islamist fighters flooding into Syria. The interests of the United States, Russia and Iran, to one degree or another, all point toward heavy pressure on Assad to sign on to an agreement, where his survival is the least bad outcome.
"The only reason the Russians and Syrians are playing along is to ensure Assad's survival. The idea that this is going to lead to a diplomatic solution that leaves Assad out is just not in the cards. I don't think this process is going to lead to Assad's demise. Quite the contrary," said Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. EDITOR'S NOTE — Steven R. Hurst, The Associated Press' international political writer in Washington, has covered foreign affairs for 35 years, including extended assignments in Russia and the Middle East.

Pope keeps cleric who leads nun crackdown in job
Associated PressBy FRANCES D'EMILIO | Associated Press –
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis on Saturday effectively demoted a highly conservative Italian cardinal who led the Vatican's department on clergy, while keeping in place a German prelate who wages the Catholic church's crackdown on liberal U.S. nuns and helps craft its sex-abuse response.
After six months on the job to study the workings of the Vatican's curia, or bureaucracy, Francis has now put his imprint on several key positions which help administer the Roman Catholic church's worldwide flock. His management picks will likely both please and disappoint both conservatives and liberals alike, perhaps in line with his fledgling papacy, which has often defied labels in either camp.
Francis removed Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, with a reputation for being highly traditional on matters of liturgy and the question of priestly celibacy, from the important post of prefect of the congregation for clergy. Piacenza had only held that post since 2010, when he was appointed by Francis' predecessor, Benedict XVI, whose retro tastes in papal vestments and preference for traditional ceremonies found a supporter in the Italian prelate.
The pope transferred Piacenza to a decidedly lower command post, that of head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, a little-known Vatican tribunal that deals with confessions of sins so grave only a pope can grant absolution, such as the case of a priest who violates confessional secrecy.
Piacenza will be replaced by another Italian, Beniamino Stella, already serving in the Vatican's bureaucracy. His office faces many challenges, including how to reverse a priest shortage in much of the developed world and respond to persistent calls from within the rank-and-file faithful as well as some clergy that the pope consider allowing priests to marry.
In another important decision, Francis left Archbishop Gerhard Mueller in the powerful role of prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Mueller, originally appointed by Benedict XVI, directs the Holy See's crackdown on nuns suspected of undermining Catholic teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality. His office also shapes policy dealing with clergy who sexually abuse minors.
Under Mueller's tenure, critics of the Vatican's strategy have so far been frustrated in their lobbying for Vatican and other church hierarchy to be held accountable for policy that for decades left pedophile priests in their ministry, merely shuffling them from parish to parish when complaints emerged.
In another watched appointment, Monsignor Nikola Eterovic, who was the official in charge of bishop synods, the occasional gatherings that bring bishops together to discuss important policies or regional problems, was transferred to the Vatican's diplomatic corps. He will now serve as papal ambassador to Germany.
Just how much influence the conclusions of these synods should have at the Vatican has long been debated. By putting a new man in charge of that office, Francis, who was archbishop of Buenos Aires when elected pope, has the opportunity to apply his vision to the role of bishops in the church's decision-making policy.
Francis picked Monsignor Lorenzo Baldisseri, who had long served in Vatican diplomatic posts in South America, to lead the synod office. In appointing new Vatican managers, the pope, who has said repeatedly he likes to be in touch with ordinary people, has now turned to several diplomats, whose careers have taught them to be closely attuned to local sensibilities in their posted countries.
In the wide-ranging interview he gave to fellow Jesuits over the summer, and which was published earlier in the week, Francis indicated he would like to see structural reforms at the synod level and in other church areas. But more than concrete detail, the pope is stressing a need for attitude change. If his vision of a church more embracing of its flock takes root, that could mean greater influence in Vatican policy-making by church's bishops, who deal with the wide variety of issues and circumstances often particular to their churches.
In a separate development, the Vatican confirmed that Francis would lead an assembly of cardinals on Sept. 30 in the Apostolic Palace to announce the much-awaited date for the ceremony to make both Pope John XXIII and John Paul II saints. Thousands of faithful are expected to flock to St. Peter's Square the day of the announcement.
A first plan to hold the solemn ceremony for both widely beloved pontiffs envisioned holding the canonization on Dec. 8, when the Church celebrates a feast day in honor of the Virgin Mary. But that date soon was deemed as impractical, since great numbers of Poles from John Paul's homeland would risk driving or taking buses on what could be dangerously icy roads to come to the ceremony. Sometime in spring 2014, when weather is milder, is considered the likely choice.

American Catholics like what they're hearing from Pope Francis
Pope Francis said in an interview this week that the Catholic Church's emphasis needs to turn from sexual issues to the ‘freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.’ Polls show most American Catholics agree.
Christian Science MonitorBy Brad Knickerbocker | Christian Science Monitor –
Pope Francis shook up the Roman Catholic world this week with his comments about abortion, contraception, and gay marriage, saying such moral and doctrinal issues should not be overemphasized at the cost of “losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel."
In the United States, many Catholics hailed what the pope had to say in a lengthy interview in a Jesuit publication, which may not be surprising given attitudes here seen as more liberal than official church doctrine from Rome.
• By 55-43 percent, most American Catholics say abortion should be legal in “all or most cases,” according to a Washington Post/ABC poll in July.
• Eighty-two percent of Catholics in the US say birth control is morally acceptable, Gallup found last year – not much less than the 90 percent approval among all adults polled.
• In March, a Quinnipiac University National Poll found that most Catholic voters (54-38 percent) support same-sex marriage – higher than the 47-43 percent general approval rate. "Catholic voters are leading American voters toward support for same-sex marriage," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
• Also, according to the Quinnipiac Poll, most American Catholics say priests should be allowed to marry (62-30 percent), say the church’s ban on contraception should be relaxed (64-28 percent, including 68-24 percent among women), and support Present Obama's position that religious-based institutions, such as hospitals and universities, must arrange for their insurance companies to provide birth control coverage for employees (51-41 percent).
RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the Catholic Church? Take our quiz!
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods," Francis said in the article published Thursday in Jesuit journals in 16 countries. "We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel." In a move no doubt intended to answer those church members and clergy – including some bishops – holding to a more traditionally conservative view, the pope on Friday spoke out on abortion. Speaking to Catholic doctors at the Vatican, Pope Francis condemned the “throwaway culture” abortion promotes, saying, “Our response to this mentality is a ‘yes’ to life, decisive and without hesitation.” “Every unborn child, though unjustly condemned to be aborted, has the face of the Lord, who even before his birth, and then as soon as he was born, experienced the rejection of the world,” he said. Still, liberal Catholics in the US welcomed the pope’s message in the earlier interview.
“This message resonates with so many Catholics because it reflects our personal experiences—Catholics are gay and lesbian; Catholics use birth control and Catholics have abortions,” Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, said in a statement. “We truly hope that this is just the start; that Pope Francis doesn’t only talk the talk, but also walks the walk,” Mr. O’Brien said. “We hope he takes steps to ensure that his more open view of how the church should deal with people trickles down to his brother bishops around the world, who oversee large numbers of hospitals and medical centers.”“We also hope that this attitude starts to take effect immediately at the United Nations, where the Vatican continues to take extreme positions against contraception, abortion and sexual and reproductive rights, having a very negative impact on the lives of Catholics and non-Catholics throughout the world,” he said. As the Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project pointed out last week, the pope has made headlines by condemning the use of chemical weapons, leading a prayer vigil for peace in Syria, vowing to reform the Vatican bureaucracy, washing the feet of young prisoners (including two women) during a Holy Thursday ceremony, and taking a humble approach to the trappings of the papacy, including his decision to reside in a modest residence rather than more spacious accommodations.  A Pew poll taken Sept. 4-8 shows that 79 percent of US Catholics view Pope Francis favorably. “Francis receives his strongest support from those who say they attend Mass at least once a week, with 86% of this group expressing a favorable view of the pontiff,” Pew reported.
The pope’s evident popularity is not lost on the church hierarchy in the United States. Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, last week said in an interview with his diocesan newspaper that he was "a little bit disappointed" that Francis hadn't spoken out about abortion. On Friday, in an official statement responding to the pope's remarkable interview in La Civilta Cattolica, Bishop Tobin said he admired Francis' leadership.
"Being a Catholic doesn't mean having to choose between doctrine and charity, between truth and love. It includes both. We are grateful to Pope Francis for reminding us of that vision," Tobin said.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who as head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has taken a lead role in voicing the U.S. church's opposition to contraception and gay marriage, said the church isn't the only one obsessed with such issues – today's culture is. "Every pope has a different strategy," Cardinal Dolan told "CBS This Morning." ''What I think he's saying is, those are important issues and the church has got to keep talking about them, but we need to talk about them in a fresh new way. If we keep kind of a negative finger-wagging tone, it's counterproductive.” “I think what he’s saying is those are important issues, but we need to talk about those issues in a fresh, new way,” Dolan said. “Instead of talking about these hot-button issues, why don’t we talk about tenderness and mercy and the love we have for one another?”
To which most American Catholics evidently say, “Amen.”This report includes material from the Associated Press.

Assad harvests support from Druze in Israel - with apples
The Syrian Druze living under Israeli control in the Golan Heights are loyal to President Assad because they consider him an economic lifeline and a protector of minority rights.Every fall, tractors in this Druze village in the Golan Heights ferry 55,000 tons of golden apples from orchards abutting Israel’s ceasefire line with Syria to nearby warehouses, where they wait to be shipped down to central Israeli markets or over the border to Syria.
These orchards, cordoned off from Israeli minefields by barbed wire, are an economic mainstay for some 25,000 Syrians living here under Israeli control since 1967 and an important link back home to Syria.
In the spring, despite a raging civil war that almost led to a closure of the supply routes through the Quneitra border crossing, Syria still managed to import 18,000 tons of surplus Golan apples at a premium, making up for weak prices on the saturated Israeli market. With Israel and Syria technically still in a state of war dating back to Israel's founding in 1948, the International Committee of the Red Cross coordinates the export between the Golan and Syria, which began in 2005. The trade benefits both parties, with the farmers receiving a new market for their apples and President Bashar al-Assad winning ongoing loyalty from a community that sits on a regional geopolitical fault line.
RECOMMENDED: Briefing Chemical weapons 101: Six facts about sarin and Syria’s stockpile
The apple shipment earlier this year "gave the feeling that the situation in Syria is good – that the regime is still strong and in control," says Ata Farhat, a Druze journalist from Buqata who reports for the Syrian state television news. "It was very significant for the people – for them, the regime is helping support them make a living."
ASSAD THE PROTECTOR
Said Farhat, a Buqata apple farmer who coordinates the export shipments among the Golan Druze, says that he wants to prepare another shipment this year, even though the latest harvest is weak. The export will be symbolic – maybe 1,000 tons – but it will preserve commercial ties between the Golan Druze and Syria.  "We are connected to our land…. We have a dream of returning to Syrian rule," he says. However, Mr. Fahat pauses when asked for his thoughts on returning to a Sunni-led Syria. "The Sunnis never brought democracy, in Egypt or in Saudi Arabia. They destroyed Lebanon. We hope Assad stays." The Druze of the Golan Heights have permanent residency status in Israel – which formally annexed the territory in 1981 – and can request citizenship. They get social welfare benefits from Israel and their produce is marketed through Israeli distributors, but many say their hearts remain tied to Syria and hope that the Golan Heights will one day be restored to Syrian sovereignty. And while they have ties to Druze communities inside Israel that send soldiers to serve in the Israel Defense Forces, they consider Syria’s regime, dominated by members of the Alawite minority, a protector of all of Syria’s minorities.  "They have a common interests with the [Assad] administration," says Salman Farkhir Aldeen, a human rights activist from the Druze village of Majdal Shams who is part of a vocal minority that opposes the regime crackdown. "They don’t care about democracy or human rights. They consider Assad as a shield."
As this year's harvest season gets underway, fears of a regional war are on the rise.
"We fear a US attack will cause a third world war,’’ says Farhat, the apple farmer. "We support progress and reform for Syria, but not the way [the rebels] want to do it. The opposition has gathered up all the terrorists in the world, and gets money from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The goal is not to topple Assad but to destroy Syria and divide it."
SURROUNDED BY WAR
When the US seemed poised to strike Syria earlier this month, residents here stocked up on food while the Israeli army beefed up its presence in and around their villages. The concern about a potential flare up has eased, but not entirely dissipated. While Mahdi Abu Awad, the owner of apple orchards and a restaurant near the main entrance to the town, serves up Middle Eastern barbecue to Israeli tourists, his son studies medicine in Damascus thanks to subsidies from the Syrian government. Asked if he feared for his son’s safety, he shrugged, saying that explosions from the fighting are no further away from his son's Damascus neighborhood than from Buqata.
In recent weeks, Buqata residents say the Israeli military has stepped up its patrols and exercises, including tank maneuvers nearby. "We live in the middle. The missiles will go over our heads’’ says Samih Abu Awad, a café owner who displays a 50 Syrian dinar note just under his Israeli-tax authority business certificate.  The café owner says friends joke on Facebook about President Barack Obama’s hesitancy to attack Syria. When a friend at the café makes a rare allegation against the Syrian president for using chemical weapons, Mr. Awad comes to the Syrian leader’s defense, calling him a "good person who has done good for Syria. He studied in Europe. He’s not from the street." RECOMMENDED: Briefing Chemical weapons 101: Six facts about sarin and Syria’s stockpile

Syria, savagery, and self-determination: what those against military intervention are missing
Nader Hashemi /Open Democracy
Military intervention, as regrettable and complicated as it may be, is the only way to stop Assad’s killing machine. This is what most Syrians are demanding from the international community. If we truly believe in the right to self-determination, then we are morally obligated to listen to them.This essay is reprinted by kind permission from the book The Syria Dilemma, edited by Nader Hashemi and Danny Postel.
There is a wide body of opinion against arming the Syrian rebels. These voices, especially those on the left, argue that pursuing a military defeat of the Assad regime is mistaken and misguided because it increases civilian suffering and prolongs the conflict. Stephen Zunes, for example, has argued that “it is critical to not allow the understandably strong emotional reaction to the ongoing carnage to lead to policies that could end up making things worse.” In response to the question of what should be done about the nightmare in Syria, he has written that the “short answer, unfortunately, is not much.”[i] Alternatively, it is suggested that negotiating with Damascus and engaging Russia and Iran in diplomacy offer the only way out of the Syrian predicament.[ii]
While these arguments appeal to our best Gandhian impulses, upon closer examination they represent a fundamental misreading of Syria. If pursued they will not end the conflict but will likely prolong it, mainly because these prescriptions ignore two key elements at the core of this dispute: 1) the nature of the Assad regime and 2) the right to self-determination of the Syrian people.
The Assad regime’s criminal enterprise
The revolution in Syria was born out of the 2011 Arab Spring. It began nonviolently and for the same reasons as the other uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. The core aspirations of the protesters were the same: hurriya (political freedom), adala ijtima’iyya (social justice) and karama (dignity). What was different, however, was the nature of the regime they faced.
A comparison of the human rights records of member states of the Arab League places Syria at the extreme end of a spectrum of repression. Arguably, only Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was worse. While the 1982 massacre in Hama is frequently cited to highlight the viciousness of the Assad regime, less well known are the horrors of Syria’s prison system. Tens of thousands have passed through its doors. Untold numbers never made it out. A 1996 Human Rights Watch report on the notorious Tadmor prison describes “deaths under torture” and “summary executions on a massive scale.” One former inmate described the place as a “kingdom of death and madness” whose emaciated prisoners were compared to “survivors of Nazi concentration camps.”[iii]
But this was just one jail in a veritable archipelago. The full story of Syria’s prison system and internal human rights nightmare under the Assads has yet to be properly told. When the full truth emerges it will evoke the horrors Alexandr Solzhenitsyn chronicled in The Gulag Archipelago. Pieces of the truth, however, are slowly emerging. A recent Human Rights Watch report, revealingly titled Torture Archipelago, provided new details on the scale, breadth and depth of Syria’s human rights nightmare. These abuses are so enormous that they constitute, according to Human Rights Watch, “crimes against humanity” and have earned Assad a referral to the International Criminal Court.[iv] Given this background, Damascus’ ruthless response to peaceful demands for change in March 2011 were entirely predictable.
In the first few months of the uprising - well before the creation of the Free Syrian Army and before there was an Al Qaeda presence on the ground - more than two thousand Syrian civilians were killed. Over ten thousand more were arrested during the same period and taken to notoriously ghastly detention centres.[v] By the first anniversary of the revolution Assad had crossed the proverbial Rubicon. All the leading human rights organizations -Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN Human Rights Council’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic - unanimously and unambiguously charged the Syrian government with a state-sanctioned policy of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.”[vi] As the carnage continued, according to the UN, more than 60,000 people had been killed by early 2013.[vii] The Assad regime is now in the same moral category as the Bosnian Serb war criminal Radovan Karadzic and Rwanda’s Hutu generals.
Syria is unlike other countries that have experienced civilian revolts during the Arab Spring. The level of regime-orchestrated violence - replete with cluster bombs, Scud missiles, sexual violence, indiscriminate attacks on bread lines, hospitals, universities, homes, and children, and now apparently chemical weapons—is on an order and magnitude that is incomparable with other regional countries that have been shaken by the Arab Spring.[viii] Thus what arguably worked in Yemen’s “managed transition” does not apply to Syria. The cases are qualitatively different from a human rights perspective. If the history of ending massive state-sanctioned atrocities is any guide - Tanzania’s intervention in Uganda, India’s in East Pakistan, Vietnam’s in Cambodia, the Rwandan Patriotic Front’s in Rwanda, NATO’s in Bosnia and Kosovo - massive bloodshed constituting war crimes and crimes against humanity are not brought to an end by negotiating with the perpetrating regime, nor by engaging in diplomacy with allied countries that are complicit in these events. Military force is required.
Dignity and self-determination
The theme of dignity, or its converse, indignity, and it relationship to modern Arab politics is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It exists at both the individual and the collective levels. Syrians immediately identified with the self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi in Tunisia, whose martyrdom ignited the Arab Spring.[ix] His economic plight was theirs. His frustration, humiliation, and anger under the crushing weight of dictatorship resonated and struck a deep personal chord. But the theme of “Arab indignity” also exists on a collective level, and it is associated with a set of common historical experiences, which partly explains why it is such a potent force in the politics of the region.
For the Arab-Islamic world, in which Syria figures centrally, the twentieth century was an extremely bitter one. European colonialism and imperialism thwarted the aspirations for self-determination of millions of Arabs. The desire to create one pan-Arab state from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire’s Arabic-speaking provinces was dashed at the altar of British and French ambition. The state system that emerged after World War I reflected the economic and geostrategic interests of London and Paris more than it did popular preference on the streets of Cairo or Damascus. The birth of the modern Arab world thus engendered bitter memories and poisoned relations between Muslim societies and western ones. This was compounded by western support for the national rights of Jewish settlers in Palestine over those of the indigenous Palestinian population - the legacy of which continues to afflict the region and indeed the world to this day.
The aftermath of World War II saw the gradual loosening of European control of the Arab world and the emergence of a brief moment of optimism. Many thought that an opportunity had finally arrived for the realization of meaningful self-determination. But this opening did not last long. The region soon found itself awash in military coups and single-party states. Syria got the Ba’ath Party. Within the span of a couple of decades, a new post-colonial elite came to power and a familiar political landscape took shape. Yes, the new rulers were na- tive to the soil and had Muslim-sounding names, but they behaved in ways that were eerily familiar. A new chasm between state and society developed that replicated the old colonial one, only this time the ruling elites were Arabs rather than Europeans.
The term neocolonialism is an apt description for this state of affairs. The Syrian writer Rana Kab- bani has used the phrase “internal colonialism” to describe the authoritarian rule of postcolonial elites in the Arab world. She explains that 42 years of one-family rule in Syria is “much like the external colonialism of the past, [it] has robbed them and bombed them and impeded them from joining the free peoples of the world.”[x] The Syrian human rights activist and opposition leader Radwan Ziadeh has similarly argued that we “need a second independence in Syria. The first was from the French and the second will be from the Assad dynasty.”[xi]
Commenting on this core feature of Arab political life, the historian Ilan Pappé has referred to the Arab Spring as the “second phase of decolonization.” What recent events have demonstrated, he notes, is the collective “assertion of self-dignity in the Arab world” after decades of humiliation, despotism, and despair.[xii]
This is what the Syrian revolution is fundamentally about and why Assad and his mafia state must go. The Syrian intellectual Burhan Ghalioun picks up on this point that negotiations with Damascus are futile. The “existence of the [Assad] regime is like an invasion of the state, a colonisation of society” where “hundreds of intellectuals are forbidden to travel, 150,000 have gone into exile and 17,000 have either disappeared or been imprisoned for expressing their opinion . . . It is impossible (for President Bashar al-Assad) to say (like Mubarak and Ben Ali) ‘I will not prolong or renew my mandate’ like other presidents have pretended to do - because Syria is, for Assad, his private family property, the word ‘country’ is not part of the vocabulary.”[xiii]
It is precisely this point that the anti-interventionists are missing. This is a fascist regime embodied in the oft heard slogans: “God, Bashar, Syria, and Nothing Else” and “Assad or we burn down the country!” It is not amenable to compromise or negotiation. For them it is a zero-sum game and a fight to the finish. It cynically manipulates sectarian identity and anti-imperialism to maintain its criminal enterprise. Military intervention, as regrettable and complicated as it may be, is the only way to stop Assad’s killing machine. By doing so it may also open the door for the people of Syria to exercise, arguably for the first time in their modern history, their right to self-determination.
But there is a further compelling reason why military intervention in Syria is required: this is what most Syrians are demanding from the international community. The most inclusive and representative body of Syrians is the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (the Syrian Coalition, for short). While far from a perfect group, it harbors the best prospects for leading Syria to a democratic future. It includes Syrians both inside and outside the country and spans the religious-secular divide. More than 110 countries have officially recognized it as “the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.”[xiv]
The Syrian Coalition has been pleading for a Libya-style intervention (no boots on the ground, a no-fly/no-kill zone, arming the moderate elements of the Syrian rebels). On April 24, 2013 they issued the following clarion call to the world:
The Syrian Coalition finds it tragic that NATO has the power to stop further loss of life in Syria, but chooses not to take that course of action....The international community must rise to its great moral and ethical responsibilities and put an end to this bloodshed. History will not only condemn the murderous crimi- nals, but also those who had the power to intervene but chose to be idle.[xv]
Today, Syria is a litmus test for the left, which has long championed the rights of oppressed peoples in the developing world. If we truly believe in the right to self-determination for these people - the Syrian people included - then we are morally obligated to listen to them. We must follow their lead when it comes to deeply divisive issues such as military intervention. In the end, their needs - at this critical moment in their history - are far more important than our preferences and need for ideological purity.
Conclusion
Putting Syria back together again will take a long time. There are no quick fixes or easy answers. The trauma and devastation wrought by the Assad years will take generations to overcome. Populations that have lived under a police state for decades rarely emerge from the experience with liberal sensibilities. New political habits and social mores will have to be cultivated.
And the legacy of the current war and its wounds will take a long time to heal. A formidable challenge that lies ahead is accommodating the legitimate fears of minority communities, especially the Alawites and Christians, and assuring them that they will have a secure future in a post-Assad Syria. This challenge is compounded by the rise of radical Salafist and jihadi groups, who will have to be confronted and disarmed. The policies of regional powers - Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel - pose a further challenge. For different reasons, none of them wants to see a prosperous and democratic Syria emerge.
But the first step required in getting Syria on the path toward stability and self-determination is the removal of the Assad regime. This is what the Arab Spring is about; this is what most Syrians want. It is a precondition for a lasting peace; without it the war will continue and both Syria and the rest of the Middle East will plunge even deeper into this nightmare of bloodshed and chaos.

Suleiman Says Local, Regional Tension Wake up Call for Political Leaders
Naharnet/Lebanon's political crisis and the conflicts in the region should jolt politicians into joining hands to form the new government and return to the all-party talks, President Michel Suleiman said Saturday.
“Lebanese leaders should be aware of the concept of instability in their country … and join efforts to form a government and return to the national dialogue to resolve (the country's) problems,” Suleiman said in a statement on International Peace Day. Such efforts would help “Lebanon steer clear of the repercussions of the crises around it and overcome this pressing stage particularly that the friendly countries and states of influence are holding a meeting in New York on Sept. 25 to back its stability,” he said. The meeting will be held on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly to discuss ways of helping Lebanon cope with the Syrian refugee influx. The crisis in Syria has placed enormous strain on Lebanon, politically and economically. Suleiman said in his statement that “the U.N. and Security Council should work to resolve crises and conflicts through dialogue and peaceful measures.”
He hoped for peace in the world and for strong efforts by the international community to achieve stability away from wars and conflicts so that humanity could live in security.Also on International Peace Day, caretaker Premier Najib Miqati hoped for stability in Lebanon and the Middle East. “We hope that peace prevails in Lebanon and the region and that wars stop for people to live in peace and stability,” he said on twitter.

Nawaf Salam: 5 Permanent Members Agree to Distance Lebanon from Regional Crises
Naharnet /A Sept. 25 meeting of an international support group for Lebanon at the United Nations General Assembly will be based on a presidential statement issued by the Security Council this month, Lebanon's permanent representative to the U.N. said. Ambassador Nawaf Salam told An Nahar daily published on Saturday that the meeting, which will be headed by U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon and President Michel Suleiman, will take as its starting point an international call for a strong support to Lebanon to confront the challenges that are threatening its security and stability.
The foreign ministers of the five permanent Security Council members, the head of the World Bank, in addition to officials from different U.N. agencies such as the UNDP and UNHCR will attend the high-profile conference.
“The five countries totally agree on distancing Lebanon from the crises of the region,” said Salam. “The Lebanese government is also fully committed to the dissociation policy which has no other alternative to protect Lebanon and preserve its stability ad unity.”The World Bank has prepared an assessment report for the New York meeting. Spillover from the Syrian war has cost Lebanon billions of dollars, deeply damaged its economy and harshly strained social services such as health, education and electricity, the World Bank has reportedly said in the report. The report, which hasn't been released yet, estimates that the total costs of spillover will shave close to 3 percentage points off gross domestic product growth per year between 2012 and 2014. Unemployment will double to more than 20 percent and about 170,000 additional Lebanese will be plunged into poverty on top of some 1 million currently living below the poverty line. For the three years 2012-2014, the report estimates $1.5 billion in government revenues will be lost while simultaneously, government spending will have to increase by $1.1 billion because of the surge in demand for public services. That will bring the total negative impact on the Lebanese budget to $2.6 billion. "Across all key public services, the surge in demand is currently being partly met through a decline in both the access to and the quality of public service delivery," the report said. It estimates that Lebanon will have to spend another $2.5 billion to bring access and quality of public services back to their pre-Syrian conflict level. A day before the conference, Suleiman will meet with U.S. President Barack Obama to discuss the influx of Syrian refugees to Lebanon, Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said Friday.

Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam Hopes Politicians Would Not Put Red Lines for Cabinet
Naharnet/Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam hoped on Saturday that Lebanon's political parties would not set red lines to his cabinet formation efforts despite the “pressure” that they are exerting on him.
“I hope there wouldn't be red lines but there is pressure and insistence by everyone,” Salam said following talks with President Michel Suleiman at Baabda Palace. “More than 5 months have passed (since my appointment) but the circumstances prevented the formation of the cabinet,” lamented Salam. He hoped he would keep his promises to the people, saying he would not give up his mission and “continue to confront all obstacles.” “The formation of governments is not an easy task,” he said, adding that the tension among the rival parties in addition to several other problems have complicated his task. “I had hoped to see a line-up before Suleiman's trip to New York but there were several obstacles that prevented” the cabinet formation, the PM-designate said. Salam reiterated that the formation of the government is part of the constitutional authority of the premier-designate in cooperation with the president. His remark came in response to a question by a reporter on an initiative made by Speaker Nabih Berri to call for a five-day conclave at Baabda Palace under Suleiman with the attendance of Salam to discuss several controversial issues, including the form and policy statement of the cabinet. Salam warned he would “resort to his options at the appropriate time.” He wished Suleiman luck in his meetings in New York and said the president will follow up the issue of the cabinet formation after his return.

Report: Last-minute Cabinet Proposal Faces Several Obstacles
Naharnet /A 24-member cabinet line-up was set to be announced before President Michel Suleiman's trip to New York on Sunday but several obstacles prevented the formation of the new cabinet, As Safir daily reported.
According to the newspaper published Saturday, Premier-designate Tammam Salam proposed to give eight ministers to the March 8 alliance – four Shiites and four Christians. The line-up was also based on giving the March 14 coalition another eight ministers divided as follows: Three Sunnis and five Christians. As for the centrist camp, President Michel Suleiman would get three ministers (a Maronite, an Orthodox and a Shiite), Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat would have two Druze and one Christian, while Salam himself would be represented in the government by a Sunni minister. The proposal also included naming Mohammed al-Mashnouq (a Sunni) to be within the share of both Salam and the March 14 alliance, and allowing Suleiman to name Naji al-Bustani (a Maronite) as part of a share with March 8, As Safir said. Jumblat was the most enthusiastic with this line-up but Suleiman insisted not to share with any side any of the three cabinet ministers he is entitled to, the newspaper said. Another obstacle lied in Speaker Nabih Berri's insistence to name as a first step along with Hizbullah the ministers who are part of their share in the cabinet, it said. It quoted him as saying that Suleiman and Salam should assume their responsibilities, warning them that any minor mistake would take the country to the unknown. “It would be better to keep the vacuum then taking the country towards a bigger crisis,” Berri, who is also the head of the Amal movement which is part of the March 8 alliance, said.

UNIFIL Marks International Day of Peace, Serra Hails Cooperation with Army
Naharnet/UNIFIL Commander Maj. Gen. Paolo Serra stressed on Saturday that the success in maintaining peace in southern Lebanon is due to the strategic partnership with the Lebanese army. “I am very grateful for their support and cooperation and I remain firmly committed to conduct all our activities in close coordination with them,” Serra said during a speech at a ceremony in UNIFIL headquarters in the southern town of Naqoura to mark the 32nd International Day of Peace. The U.N. official expressed deep appreciation also to the religious and political authorities and the residents of the South for their “support.”
He pointed out that the “UNIFIL's presence in southern Lebanon is a testimony to the fact that concerted efforts can be successful in maintaining the cessation of hostilities and creating the conditions for peace.” “Since 2006, our area of operation has enjoyed stability and security,” he added. The ceremony was held in presence of Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji's representative, peacekeepers representing the 37 national contingents in UNIFIL, who were joined by representatives of local authorities, officers of the army and the Internal Security Forces and the international community. The ceremony was held under the theme of “Education of Peace.”Serra and Qahwaji's representative laid wreaths at the UNIFIL Cenotaph in memory of the 298 peacekeepers who lost their lives in the service of peace in southern Lebanon. During the ceremony, 89 military staff officers were awarded with the U.N. Peacekeeping Medal. The International Day of Peace was established by the U.N. General Assembly in 1981. It is dedicated to cease-fire and non-violence and it is an occasion during which all promote tolerance, justice and human rights. Each year on this day, the United Nations invites all nations and people to honor a cessation of hostilities and to commemorate the day through activities that promote peace.

Senior Israeli minister: Iran is on course to develop a nuclear bomb in 6 months
http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Senior-Israeli-minister-Iran-is-on-course-to-develop-a-nuclear-bomb-in-6-months-326668
By REUTERS, JPOST.COM STAFF
09/20/2013/ White House says US ready to engage in talks with Iran on its nuclear program "on the basis of mutual respect" after Rouhani's overtures, but Israeli minister says time has run out for further negotiations. Iran is on course to develop a nuclear bomb within six months and time has run out for further negotiations, a senior Israeli minister was quoted as saying by Reuters on Friday.
The comments came as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has launched a "charm offensive" in recent days, expressing a willingness to negotiate on Iran's nuclear program.US President Barack Obama has cautiously welcomed Rouhani's overtures. The positive tone in US-Iranian relations, which have been fraught since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, worries Israel. It is warning the Obama administration not to be seduced by Rouhani's charm offensive.
Jerusalem urged the world on Thursday not to be fooled by Rouhani’s smiles and to intensify sanctions against the regime until he takes concrete steps toward dismantling Tehran’s nuclear program.
“One should not be taken in by Rouhani’s deceptive words,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement. “The same Rouhani boasted in the past how he deceived the international community with nuclear talks, even as Iran was continuing with its nuclear program.”However, a White House spokesman said on Friday, that the US is ready to engage in talks "on the basis of mutual respect" with Iran about its disputed nuclear program as long as Tehran is willing to demonstrate that its program is for civilian purposes, "We have had a number of engagements with the Iranians and we'll continue to have conversations on the basis of mutual respect," Josh Earnest, the deputy White House spokesman, told reporters aboard Air Force One. "And over the course of those conversations there will be an opportunity for the Iranians to demonstrate through actions the seriousness with which they are pursuing this endeavor," Earnest said. Obama and Rouhani will be in New York next week for a meeting of the UN General Assembly. The White House has said that an encounter between the two leaders is possible.
Earnest said there was no meeting scheduled between Obama and Rouhani next week. His comments were the latest signal from the White House that it views Rouhani as potentially someone with whom it can do business.
The New York Times reported on Friday that Iran sought a "swift agreement" over its nuclear program with the goal of ending sanctions that have devastated its economy.
Earnest, responding to that story, said the White House welcomed the new tone from Tehran after Rouhani's election in June and said sanctions had had their desired effect.
"These sanctions have tightened around the Iranian regime, further isolated them from the international community, taken a significant toll on their economy and put pressure on them to come back to the bargaining table," he said.
"The president has demonstrated a willingness to engage with the Iranians, and has done that for some time now," he added, noting that Obama and Rouhani had exchanged letters. Herb Keinon contributed to this report.

Lebanese Police, Army to secure southern suburbs
September 21, 2013/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanese authorities said Friday they would dispatch government forces to Beirut’s Hezbollah-controlled southern suburbs next week to carry out security checks, replacing the party’s new checkpoints erected to stop threats after a spate of attacks. “Starting Monday, security agencies will almost certainly be in Beirut’s southern suburbs to preserve security on their own,” caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel said during a news conference. The heavy deployment is expected to reduce tensions caused by checkpoints manned by Hezbollah members who on occasion have detained civilians citizens for questioning. Speaking to The Daily Star, Charbel said Hezbollah was eager to have the state restore and preserve security in these areas. “Hezbollah cannot wait to have the state deploy in these places and their members will certainly retreat and allow us to take over,” he added. Nabatieh MP Mohammad Raad, a Hezbollah official, said last week residents of the capital’s southern suburbs had repeatedly urged security agencies to protect the areas but appeals for help had fallen on deaf ears.
Hezbollah began implementing the securitymeasures in its Beirut strongholds and south Lebanon after two car bombs ripped through the southern suburbs, killing and wounding dozens.
Several officials, including Charbel, have said the state is incapable of deploying security forces nationwide given security concerns on the border with Syria and domestic tensions over the ongoing political deadlock. In response to a question, the minister said south Lebanon would not be part of next week’s plan, and commented that “the southern suburbs of Beirut face major security problems.” Charbel said the government forces to deploy in southern Beirut would include members of the police, the Army and General Security and that he had called for instating 2,000 additional policemen from the Internal Security Forces’ reserve. Hezbollah has come under fire from its rivals in the March 14 coalition who say the party’s independent security policies defy the state’s authority and are an attempt to control the country. Critics say such measures could spur other armed groups to carry out their own security plans given the volatile conditions in the country. Charbel also reiterated his rejection of Hezbollah’s measures, saying: “In principle, ‘private security’ is rejected and these are issues that we are working on resolving.”A security source told The Daily Star that authorities were mulling a plan to deploy a security team to replace that of Hezbollah’s while Al-Akhbar newspaper reported Friday that there were several proposals on the table. The Lebanese Army said Friday that it was maintaining its own security measures to combat bombings in Beirut including street patrols, checkpoints, and monitoring movements of cars and people. The Army also said it had taken a series of measures in coordination with other security agencies and officials in greater Beirut areas. These measures would see the governor’s office issue identification cards to vehicle owners, deploy private security firms at commercial complexes to inspect vehicles and coordinate with religious figures to prevent vehicles from parking near churches and mosques.

As Lebanese Cabinet efforts sink, focus returns to Dialogue
September 21, 2013/By Hussein Dakroub
The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Now that all attempts have failed to resolve the six-month-long Cabinet crisis, efforts will be refocused on resuming National Dialogue between the rival factions in a bid to facilitate the government formation, a senior March 8 source said Friday. “Efforts this time will be geared toward reviving National Dialogue between the March 8 and March 14 camps the before the formation of a new Cabinet,” the source told The Daily Star.
“The planned Dialogue would seek to explore ways for resolving the crisis over the shape and role of the new government,” the source added. Discussing the government crisis at the Dialogue table is the crux of Speaker Nabih Berri’s latest political initiative aimed at breaking the Cabinet deadlock by prodding the rival leaders into talking to each other. The last National Dialogue session held under President Michel Sleiman at Baabda Palace was in September 2012.
Sources at Baabda Palace said Sleiman was adamant on reconvening National Dialogue despite a lukewarm response from the rival political leaders. “All the parties have welcomed the president’s repeated calls for Dialogue, but they’ve set down conditions for attending,” a Baabda Palace source told The Daily Star. The source referred to March 14 demands that any Dialogue session should only discuss the remaining topic on the agenda: a national defense strategy and Hezbollah’s arms. Hezbollah and its March 8 allies refuse to see the agenda restricted to these items.
March 14 parties have long urged Hezbollah to surrender its arsenal of weapons to the Lebanese Army, something which the party has staunchly rejected, arguing that its arms were needed to defend Lebanon against a possible Israeli attack. Following a string of security incidents linked to the conflict in Syria and Hezbollah’s involvement in that conflict, Sleiman has stepped up his calls to distance Lebanon from the repercussions of the war raging next door by urging the rival parties to be committed to the “Baabda Declaration.” He also renewed his call for the resumption of National Dialogue and the formation of an all-embracing government to meet security challenges.
However, the chances of restarting all-party talks appeared to be slim. The Future Movement bloc has said priority should be given to the formation of a new Cabinet. It has repeatedly called for the Cabinet formation to be coupled with National Dialogue.
Last month, Berri proposed a five-day conclave of Dialogue sessions attended by March 8 and March 14 leaders, in addition to Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam, to address contentious issues, including the makeup and policy statement of a new Cabinet and a national defense strategy. A delegation from Berri’s parliamentary bloc has briefed leaders and officials from both sides of the political divide on the speaker’s initiative, which has won praise from Hezbollah and its March 8 allies, caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati and MP Walid Jumblatt, but sparked criticism and reservations from the rival March 14 camp.
Some Future Movement and March 14 politicians have rejected Berri’s proposal, on the grounds that it infringed on the prerogatives of the president and the prime minister-designate.
Berri said in remarks published Friday that he would meet with Sleiman before the latter leaves for New York Sunday to attend the U.N. General Assembly to brief him on the outcome of the delegation’s talks, so that the president could decide on whether to reconvene National Dialogue. Berri said most parties had accepted his initiative, except for the Lebanese Forces, which rejected it, and the Future Movement, which voiced several reservations. Media reports said that a meeting would be held soon between Berri and former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, head of the Future Movement’s parliamentary bloc, to discuss these reservations. Siniora was skeptical that Berri’s initiative would be able to break the political stalemate. In an implicit rejection of Berri’s initiative, Salam said the Cabinet formation should not be discussed at any Dialogue session.
“The formation of the government cannot wait for the Dialogue table. The Dialogue table is not the [right] place,” Salam told Al-Akhbar newspaper. “The only place to discuss a government formation is with the prime minister-designate and the president. Anything other than that would be deemed unconstitutional,” he said.
Jumblatt, who visited Sleiman and Salam Thursday as part of his calls on top officials to thank them for their condolences over the death of his mother, counseled against going ahead with Salam’s proposal for a 24-member Cabinet divided equally among March 8, March 14 and centrists, arguing that this would further complicate the Cabinet crisis, political sources said. Hezbollah and its March 8 allies have rejected the 8-8-8 proposal, which denies them veto power and calls for key portfolios to be rotated among major blocs. Separately, Berri called Friday for three consecutive sessions of Parliament starting Monday to discuss 45 draft laws listed on the agenda, the National News Agency said. However, Monday’s session is unlikely to secure a quorum, after Minyeh MP Ahmad Fatfat, from the Future Movement, and Metn MP Salim Salhab, from the Free Patriotic Movement, said their blocs would continue to boycott legislative sessions. Mikati, the Future bloc and its March 14 allies have refused to attend Parliament sessions to discuss a host of draft laws under a caretaker Cabinet.

Lebanese scientists hope for breakthrough against leukemia
September 21, 2013/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Scientists in Lebanon have developed a drug cocktail that they hope could cure a rare form of leukemia, in a milestone for cancer research in the region.
The drug combination targets Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML), a blood cancer that affects 1 in 100,000 people in Lebanon but whose prevalence is rising as patients use expensive drugs to live longer with the symptoms.
The researchers at the American University of Beirut Medical Center tested a combination of arsenic and interferon in mice injected with leukemic cells. A paper on the research was published this month in the International Journal of Cancer, a peer-reviewed publication. Current treatments for CML are expensive, reaching up to $4,000 a month, and patients have to remain indefinitely on treatment because the primary drug in use, known as imatinib, does not cure the disease. While imatinib targets the bulk of the tumor in CML, it does not affect the cancer stem cells, which can self-renew and generate new cancer cells if the treatment stops. The existing medication therefore controls the growth of the cancer, but does not cure it. “I’m not from a rich family, I have sick people in my family and understand how it is important to have the money,” said Rihab Nasr, assistant professor of medicine in the Department of Anatomy, Cell Biology and Physiological Sciences at AUB and the project’s leader. “I wanted to find a treatment that cures.” Both interferon and arsenic are used separately for cancer treatment. Arsenic is a toxin, but can be used in cancer treatment and may be instrumental in degrading the proteins that are central to cancer stem cell growth.
Nasr first tried the combination on cancer cell cultures that were collected from patients and kept alive in incubators in the lab, some of which were resistant to the current treatments.
The drug cocktail worked, and so Nasr moved on to try it on mice. First, the scientists injected the mice with cells infected with a DNA fragment that carries a specific “oncogene,” which is a gene that can transform into a cancer cell that causes CML.The mice developed leukemia within a few weeks. Then they were treated with the drug. “And it worked,” Nasr said.
But to make sure the treatment was targeting the cancer stem cells that can multiply and renew the cancer, Nasr took the experiment one step further. She took samples from the bone marrow of the treated mice, where the cancer stem cells would have remained if they were not eradicated, and injected them into a second set of mice. Most of the mice that received the treated bone marrow did not develop the cancer, and lived on to die essentially of old age. “This tells me that the combination of arsenic and interferon is eradicating this small population of cancer stem cells,” she said. Nasr and her fellow researchers will now look into why the interferon and arsenic combination works on the leukemia cells, a process that is not fully understood. Nasr thinks the combination might be targeting a chain reaction that allows cancer stem cells to replicate, breaking down the cycle and causing them to die off. Nasr said that advances in cancer research and technology are allowing the development of more advanced treatments. She would like to eventually carry out clinical trials to test the efficacy of the drug on humans, but she would need to do that in combination with other clinics and research centers abroad as the population with the disease in Lebanon is too small to prove whether the cure could work.
The disease is more common among older adults, between 40 and 50 years of age. Still, she is hopeful because the combination could also mean an easier life for patients. Many cancer patients do not take well to interferon, for instance, but a drug combination would have a lower concentration of it, thus reducing side effects. Nasr presented her findings in Europe and Qatar, where the foundation created by the country’s former emir funded part of her research. She said that a major challenge for cancer researchers in Lebanon and the Middle East was often a lack of resources, and that scientists in Lebanon had the knowledge to make significant contributions to cancer research. “We have the human resources, we have excellent scientists, the only thing needed is resources,” she said.
 

U.S. says open for Iran talks based on 'mutual respect'
By Roberta Rampton and Jeff Mason
| Reuters – By Roberta Rampton and Jeff Mason
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is ready to engage in talks "on the basis of mutual respect" with Iran about its disputed nuclear program as long as Tehran is willing to demonstrate that its program is for civilian purposes, the White House said on Friday."We have had a number of engagements with the Iranians and we'll continue to have conversations on the basis of mutual respect," Josh Earnest, the deputy White House spokesman, told reporters aboard Air Force One during President Barack Obama's flight earlier in the day to Missouri. "And over the course of those conversations there will be an opportunity for the Iranians to demonstrate through actions the seriousness with which they are pursuing this endeavor," Earnest said. Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani will be in New York next week for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. The White House has said that an encounter between the two leaders is possible. Earnest said there was no meeting scheduled between Obama and Rouhani, but his comments were the latest signal from the White House that it views Rouhani potentially as someone with whom it can do business. Western powers believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Tehran says its nuclear program is peaceful and aimed at power generation.
The positive tone in U.S.-Iranian relations, which have been fraught since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, worries Israel. It is warning the Obama administration not to be seduced by Rouhani's charm offensive.
A senior Israeli minister said on Friday that Iran is on course to develop a nuclear bomb within six months and time has run out for further negotiations. But in a call with reporters to preview Obama's U.N. speech, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said Washington believed there was time to pursue diplomacy with Iran. "We've always made clear that there's not an open-ended window for diplomacy, that we need to be moving forward with a sense of urgency," Rhodes said. "We do believe ... that Iran has not taken steps, for instance, to break out and weaponize its nuclear program. So even as we move with a sense of urgency here, we do believe that there's time and space to pursue diplomacy." The New York Times reported on Friday that Iran is seeking a "swift agreement" over its nuclear program with the goal of ending sanctions that have devastated its economy.
Earnest, responding to that story, said the White House welcomed the new tone from Tehran after Rouhani's election in June and said sanctions had had their desired effect. "These sanctions have tightened around the Iranian regime, further isolated them from the international community, taken a significant toll on their economy and put pressure on them to come back to the bargaining table," he said. "The president has demonstrated a willingness to engage with the Iranians, and has done that for some time now," he added, noting that Obama and Rouhani had exchanged letters.
(Reporting by Roberta Rampton and Jeff Mason; Editing by Alistair Bell and Eric Beech)
@YahooCanadaNews on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

Syria details part of chemical arsenal, more to come
By Anthony Deutsch and Oliver Holmes |
THE HAGUE/BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syria gave details of some of its chemical weapons to the OPCW arms watchdog at The Hague on Friday but needs to fill in gaps by next week to launch a rapid disarmament operation that may avert U.S. air strikes.At the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the U.N.-backed agency which is to oversee the removal of President Bashar al-Assad's arsenal, a spokeswoman said: "We have received part of the verification and we expect more." She did not say what was missing from a document one U.N. diplomat described as "quite long". The OPCW'S 41-member Executive Council is due to meet early next week to review Syria's inventory and to agree on implementing last week's U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate the entire arsenal in nine months.
The timetable was set down by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a week ago in Geneva when they set aside sharp differences over Syria to agree on a plan to deprive Assad of chemical weapons and so remove the immediate threat from Washington of launching military action. That plan set a rough deadline of Saturday for Syria to give a full account of the weapons it possesses. Security experts say it has about 1,000 tonnes of mustard gas, VX and sarin - the nerve agent U.N. inspectors found after hundreds were killed by poison following missile strikes on rebel-held areas on August 21.
Kerry said he had spoken to Lavrov by telephone on Friday. They had agreed to continue cooperating, "moving not only towards the adoption of the OPCW rules and regulations, but also a resolution that is firm and strong within the United Nations", Kerry told reporters in Washington. One Western diplomat warned on Friday that a failure by Assad to account for all the suspected stockpile would cause world powers to seek immediate action at the U.N. Security Council to force Damascus to comply. If there were gaps in the documentation, the diplomat said, "this matter is going to go straight to the Security Council".
The United States and its allies said the U.N. inspectors' report this week left no doubt Assad's forces were responsible for the August 21 killings. Assad, however, has blamed the rebels and Moscow says the evidence of responsibility is unclear. The Syrian government has accepted the plan and has already sought to join the OPCW. For Assad, the Russian proposal to remove chemical weapons provided an unexpected reprieve from the military action which President Barack Obama had planned after the August 21 attack. For Obama, it solved a dilemma posed when he found Congress unwilling to support war on Syria.
Once the OPCW executive has voted to follow the Lavrov-Kerry plan in a meeting expected early next week, the Security Council is due to give its endorsement of the arrangements - marking a rare consensus after two years of East-West deadlock over Syria.
However, Russia, which has as veto, remains opposed to attempts by Western powers to have the Security Council write in an explicit and immediate threat of penalties - under what are known as Chapter VII powers. It wants to discuss ways of forcing Syrian compliance only in the event Damascus fails to cooperate.
Obama has warned that he is still prepared to attack Syria, even without a U.N. mandate, if Assad reneges on the deal.
REBEL TROUBLES
Syria's rebels, who have been fighting to end four decades of Assad family rule since 2011, have voiced dismay at the U.S.-Russian pact and accuse their Western allies of being sidetracked by the chemical weapons issue while Assad's forces use a large conventional arsenal to try to crush the revolt.
That may see the official opposition look more to its Arab and Turkish supporters for help [ID:nL5N0HF1BW].
It may also hamper Western - and Russian - efforts to bring the warring parties together for a peace conference. Moscow and Washington have said progress on removing chemical weapons could pave the way for a broader diplomatic effort to end a conflict that has killed well over 100,000 and destabilized the region. The increasing bitterness of the fighting, especially along sectarian lines, and also a fragmentation into rival camps, particularly on the rebel side, will also hamper negotiations.
On Friday, al Qaeda-linked fighters and a unit of Syrian rebels declared a truce after two days of clashes in the town of Azaz near the Turkish frontier that highlighted divisions in the opposition, in which hard line groups are powerful.
Assad's army, backed by Shi'ite regional power Iran and dominated by officers from Assad's Alawite religious minority, has mobilized militia and fighters from the Lebanese Shi'ite militant group Hezbollah. Alawites are a Shi'ite offshoot.
Most rebels are from Syria's Sunni Muslim majority. But factions have split as foreign fighters driven by jihad have flocked to the country, often at odds with local Syrians. Ethnic Kurds in the north have fought both sides.
Fighters from an al Qaeda affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant had fought with the Northern Storm Brigade, a group that controls the border.
The Syrian National Coalition, a council of political exiles who work with the Western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA), accused the jihadist group on Friday of "aggression towards Syrian revolutionary forces and its indifference to the lives of the Syrian people". "ISIS no longer fights the Assad regime. Rather, it is strengthening its positions in liberated areas, at the expense of the safety of civilians.
"ISIS is inflicting on the people the same suppression of ... the Assad regime," it said in a statement, attacking the group for this week's fighting at Azaz. While some tensions stem from contrasting ideological outlooks, most rebel-on-rebel fighting is more about control of territory and the spoils of war.
In other parts of Syria, al Qaeda-affiliated forces have enticed rebels to join them. Hundreds of rebels, including entire brigades, have pledged allegiance to ISIS and its domestic branch the Nusra Front in northern and eastern Syria, activists and Islamist sources said on Friday.
Washington says the chemical weapons deal has restarted talk of a second peace conference in Geneva. The first round of peace talks in June 2012 failed to end hostilities, but its supporters say it created the framework for an eventual settlement. Last year's Geneva agreement aimed to create a transitional government with full executive powers agreed by both the Damascus administration and the Syrian National Coalition (SNC). But the plan leaves out major players on the ground whose role has grown since. Pro-Assad militias, Kurdish militant groups, al Qaeda-linked rebels and other Islamist brigades that do not pledge allegiance to the FSA are not part of the deal.
"Let's be clear on this, Geneva 2 will not stabilize Syria," said Lebanon-based political scientist Hilal Khashan. "It will open a new chapter in the Syria conflict."
He said that even if the SNC and the government agreed on a transition government, jihadist groups will continue to fight and Kurdish militants will seek autonomy.
Khawla Mattar, spokeswoman for U.N. Syrian envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, said that the onus is on the SNC to be representative of Syrian society: "The Coalition ... have to bring the widest representation of Syrian society."
(Additional reporting by Lesley Wroughton in Washington, Sami Aboudi in Dubai, Erika Solomon in Beirut, Sara Webb in Amsterdam, Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva and Michelle Nichols at the United Nations; Editing by Alastair Macdonald and David Stamp)

Syrian opposition accuses al-Qaida militants of going against principles of revolution
By Bassem Mroue, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – BEIRUT - Syria's main Western-backed opposition group warned on Friday that the expanding influence of al-Qaida-linked militants in the rebel movement is undermining its struggle for a free Syria.The warning came as a cease-fire ended fighting near the Turkish border between the mainstream rebels and fighters belonging to the al-Qaida offshoot known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. During the battle, the jihadis overran the town of Azaz. As the cease-fire took hold, al-Qaida militants fought heavy street battles against Kurdish gunmen in northern Syria.
The infighting was some of the worst in recent months between forces seeking to bring down President Bashar Assad, and it threatened to further fragment an opposition movement outgunned by the regime.
The Syrian National Coalition, the main opposition group, condemned ISIL in a strongly worded statement, saying the jihadis' push to establish an Islamic state goes against the principles of the Syrian revolution.
"ISIL no longer fights the Assad regime. Rather, it is strengthening its positions in liberated areas at the expense of the safety of civilians," the statement said. "ISIL is inflicting on the people the same suppression of the Baath party and the Assad regime." Al-Qaida-linked fighters in Syria have been some of the most effective forces on the battlefield, fighting alongside the rebels' Free Syrian Army against government forces. But the two factions have turned their guns on each other, and turf wars and retaliatory killings have evolved into ferocious battles that have effectively become a war within a war in northern and eastern Syria, leaving hundreds dead on both sides.
Late Thursday, fighters from ISIL and the Free Syrian Army agreed on an immediate cease-fire in Azaz, activists and opposition groups said. The two sides also agreed to free fighters captured by each side, according to the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The deal calls for setting up a checkpoint between the two sides. They also agreed to take disputes before an Islamic council that would soon be established.
The fighting in Azaz and the prospect of al-Qaida militants so close to the frontier prompted Turkey to close a nearby border crossing.
Veteran opposition figure Kamal Labwani said the international community's disregard for Syrian lives has strengthened extremists in Syria, adding that the ISIL has become a force that the FSA is unable to deal with.
ISIL "invaded Azaz in one hour. Nobody can confront such extremists. They know how to work, they know how to plan," he said.
Labwani said the FSA had no choice but to agree to a truce because it cannot afford to open another front. The extremists' presence "has spread like a disease that cannot be stopped," he said.
But as the fighting in Azaz died down, ISIL fighters fought against Kurdish gunmen in in heavy streets battles in the northern province of Raqqa, the Observatory said. Such battles between the two groups have been common in the past months. Kurds are the largest ethnic minority, making up more than 10 per cent of the country's 23 million people, and were long oppressed by Assad's regime. When the revolt began in March 2011, some Kurds joined the peaceful protests against Assad's rule. But as the revolt shifted into an armed rebellion, many remained on the fence, suspicious of an opposition that was becoming increasingly dominated by Muslim extremists seeking to impose a strict interpretation of Islam. Syria's Kurds also find themselves enjoying near autonomy in the northeast after overstretched regime forces pulled back, ceding de facto control to armed Kurdish fighters.
But clashes have erupted in the Kurdish-controlled areas with increasing frequency in recent months, pitting Kurdish militias against rebels from two al-Qaida-linked factions - Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. Following the killing of a prominent Kurdish leader late last month, a powerful Kurdish militia said it was mobilizing to expel Islamic extremists.
ISIL members in Raqqa also publicly shot to death an army officer they had captured earlier because he belongs to Assad's minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, said Rami Abdul-Rahman, who heads the Observatory. Abdullah Hassan, official spokesman for the local council in Raqqa, said via Skype that "all armed battalions and fighters, as well as civilians, are opposed to ISIL."
"These people do not have the same goals as us. We didn't liberate Azaz for them to come and occupy it again only this time with the rule of Islam," he said referring to the town that was among the first areas in northern Syria to fall into the hands of rebels. Also Friday, state-run news agency SANA said Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil was misquoted in an interview with the Guardian in which he said that neither side in Syria was strong enough to win the conflict and that the government will call for a cease-fire at a planned peace conference in Geneva. Associated Press writer Yasmine Saker contributed to this report.

Iranian Nuclear Stalemate's End?
Patrick Clawson/Foreign Policy/Washington Institute
Forget Rouhani -- Iran's hardline Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei might actually be open to a nuclear deal with America.
The moment of truth is coming. All the optics from Tehran -- even from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei -- indicate that Iran is gearing up for a new attempt at a nuclear deal. If a deal can't be made in the next few months, it's hard to see another opportunity when the chances would ever be this good again. And yet skepticism about the ability of Iran's new president, Hasan Rouhani, to cut a deal is certainly warranted. Iranian presidents have much less power -- especially on foreign and security affairs -- than the supreme leader. And yes, Khamenei's recent public statements remain full of suspicion and enmity toward the West. But even Khamenei seems to be signaling his desire to find an end to the nuclear stalemate. On Sept. 17, in a meeting with senior Revolutionary Guard commanders, he addressed them on the question of "flexibility": "A wrestler can even show flexibility sometimes, but he does not forget who his rival is and what his main goal is."
Indeed, the supreme leader has been less than his usual vitriolic self when it comes to U.S. policy toward Syria. In a Sept. 11 speech, he was downright complimentary: "If [U.S. leaders] are serious about their recent outlook, this means that they have turned back from the wrong path which they have been taking during the last few weeks."
Meanwhile, ever since he took office, Rouhani has been on a public relations offensive aimed at the West and reformists within his country. His most recent salvo was an interview with NBC News in which he said he had full authority to conclude a nuclear deal with the West. He has also recently exchanged letters with President Barack Obama, overseen the release of 11 political prisoners, and cautiously warned the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps about getting involved in the political arena. When he travels to New York City next week to attend the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, Rouhani will have a chance to transform this thaw in relations into a real diplomatic opportunity.
If Iran's recent political history holds true, Rouhani has a unique window of opportunity to win sanctions relief. The last three Iranian presidents before him were able to influence policy in their first year before their powers faded. Each came into office with a strong agenda: Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's goal was economic liberalization; Mohammad Khatami aimed for a cultural opening, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad peddled a populist message. And all three were successful in making progress at the start of their terms -- though they all ran into strong resistance from the supreme leader as their tenure dragged on, which reversed their policies.
Rouhani is even better placed than his predecessors to have real influence. He enjoys support from a broad swath of the Iranian political spectrum -- from hard-liners to reformists -- in no small part because of the lessons each camp is drawing from developments across the region. Hard-liners realize that the "resistance policy" advocated by the previous team has not worked well. Resistance has brought Iran only more sanctions, led Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the brink of disaster, and lost Hezbollah the broad public support it once commanded across the region. They see Rouhani's strategy as a new approach toward the same goals, and they are willing to give it a try. As for Iran's reformers, they look to Cairo and see what happened to deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy as a sobering lesson for what could have happened in Iran had they prevailed in 2009. A sharp confrontation with the old system and the security forces it controls, in other words, could have quickly brought about a de facto coup.
Rouhani has also made good use of the support he commands. Though his election was as much a surprise as that of his two immediate predecessors, he has quickly assembled an impressive team of like-minded, effective technocrats -- most of whom are acceptable to the hard-liners. His style is the smile, not the snarl, which disarms critics used to the previous crowd's exaggerated rhetoric.
Iran's new president does not needlessly pick fights like Ahmadinejad did, whether with foreigners over the Holocaust or young Iranians over Twitter. Rouhani's Rosh Hashanah greeting from a semiofficial Twitter account was just his style -- crafted to impress foreigners, but also framed in religious terms that gave hard-liners eager to criticize little to grab on to. Rouhani's book, National Security and Nuclear Diplomacy -- which made the case that the deals negotiated with European powers in 2003 and 2004 preserved Iran's options while forestalling international pressure -- may serve as a blueprint for his current strategy.
It would be a smart move by Khamenei -- indeed, smarter than his usual practice -- to send Rouhani out to see what kind of a nuclear deal he can get from the United States. From Khamenei's perspective, it's a win-win scenario: If his president can get a good deal which preserves Iran's nuclear options, fine. If no deal is reached, Iran will still have gained many months in which its nuclear program can progress.
It is hard to know how the recent developments about Syria have influenced Khamenei's thinking. It is possible he had already discounted the possibility of a U.S. strike on Iran, in which case the obvious U.S. reluctance to use force against Syria may come as no surprise to him. On the other hand, he has long insisted that the nuclear issue is only an excuse used by the United States to pursue its real objective of regime change in Iran, and he has similarly argued that the West's professed humanitarian concerns about Syria are a cover for its true objective of displacing Assad. Perhaps Khamenei will recalculate in the face of the evident willingness of President Barack Obama's administration to concentrate so exclusively on controlling weapons of mass destruction that it was prepared to sacrifice the Syrian opposition, and to largely ignore human rights concerns.
In his Sept. 17 speech, Khamenei referred to a passage in a book he translated 40 years ago on the revered second Shiite Imam Hassan's peace treaty with Muawiyah, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty -- a treaty the likes of which Khamenei had once vowed Iran could never be pressured into again. The treaty was entered into under great duress: Hassan agreed to it when faced with superior forces on the field of battle. Its outcome was at best mixed: The line of descent was preserved (Hassan was the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed), but Hassan gave up rule over the Muslim community to Muawiyah and was years later almost certainly poisoned on Muawiyah's orders. But speaking on Sept. 17, Khamenei took a rosier view of the seventh-century peace deal: "I agree with what I called 'heroic flexibility' years ago, because such an approach is very good and necessary in certain situations, as long as we stick to our main principles."
Perhaps in this newfound respect for Hassan's treaty, Khamenei was signaling that another Hassan -- Hasan Rouhani -- may need to be equally supple in the face of superior forces, even if the results are mixed.
**Patrick Clawson is director of research at The Washington Institute.

Rouhani Launches His ‘Charm Offensive’
September 20, 2013 /By P. David Hornik /Frontpage
It doesn’t take a genius to game the West. The West—and particularly its elite people who make or influence policy—wants to be gamed, to be convinced that there is never a need for military operations and one’s easy, luxurious life can continue undisturbed. So the Rouhani charm offensive has begun. Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president since August 3, on the way to address the UN General Assembly in a few days, coos to the West and, especially, President Barack Obama: We have time and again said that under no circumstances would we seek any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, nor will we ever….
This government enters with full power and has complete authority. I have given the nuclear negotiations portfolio to the Foreign Ministry. The problem won’t be from our side. We have sufficient political latitude to solve this problem…. We do not seek war with any country. We seek peace and friendship among the nations of the region….
And his recent exchange of letters with Obama, says Rouhani, was “positive and constructive….It could be subtle and tiny steps for a very important future….”
The charm offensive comes at a time when Iran is hurting economically from the West’s sanctions, its monthly revenues from oil sales having dropped 58 percent while the rial plummets and inflation and unemployment soar. Could the charm offensive have something to do with a desire to ease the sanctions while making creaky promises to the West that it would be all too eager to accept?
No, it couldn’t be that. It must be that—after investing well over $100 billion in a nuclear program that provides less than 2 percent of its energy needs, voluminously proclaiming its intention to destroy Israel, sponsoring worldwide terrorism at a level unseen in decades according to the U.S. State Department, and installing at least 7000 new centrifuges since Rouhani was elected—Iran has changed!
To believe that it has changed one has to, of course, tune out some less pleasing notes than those Rouhani has been singing. For instance, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—who, as anyone with minimal Iran knowledge knows, is in charge of things no matter what nonsense Rouhani speaks about “complete authority”—told members of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard on Tuesday:
Heroic flexibility is very useful and necessary sometimes but with adherence to one main condition…. A wrestler sometimes shows flexibility for technical reasons. But he does not forget about his opponent nor about his main objective. For those who say Iran is gaming the West and hasn’t changed, those words about an “opponent” and a “main objective” appear to be a smoking gun—that is, unless one is determined to ignore the odor of gun smoke. And there were also these words from the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Ali Jafari:
the arrogant enemy [America] suffered defeat in Syria in all things related to military intervention as well as with the rest of its plans. They did not succeed with anything concerning Syria. We have nothing to fear from them here in Iran….Not much charm there either, and again, it seems to bear out those who say Obama’s acquiescence to a transparently flawed deal on Syria’s chemical weapons has only boosted Tehran’s confidence and contempt for the West. Unless, of course, one is determined that the words of those who say such things will not be borne out no matter what.
For that matter, to be sweet-talked by Rouhani one has to ignore some things about him, too.
Such as his being a dyed-in-the-wool, lifelong follower of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; the fact that he chaired Iran’s National Security Council during the years of the Jewish Community Center bombing in Buenos Aires and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia; the fact that he boasts of having already gamed the West as Iran’s nuclear negotiator in 2003; and the fact that Iran’s June presidential elections were transparently manipulated by the regime to give Rouhani—the faux “reformer”—the win.
Obama, for his part, says:
There are indications that Rouhani, the new president, is somebody who is looking to open dialogue with the West and with the United States, in a way that we haven’t seen in the past. And so we should test it.
Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, too, will be addressing the UN on Iran, and on September 30 will be meeting with Obama in Washington. On the Iranian issue Netanyahu has acted as Obama’s better angel, trying to apprise him of the reality of a deeply ideological, anti-Western regime that is working hard to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the U.S.
It is, though, no secret that Israeli officialdom’s belief—or hopes—in Obama were hardly encouraged by his bungling of the Syrian issue. Situated where it is, Israel lacks the West’s latitude for being beguiled by Tehran. As Israeli Middle East expert Martin Kramer told the Wall Street Journal: “The chance that Israel may need to act first against Iran has gone up.”

A kinder, gentler Iran?
Its new president, Hassan Rouhani, speaks softly but still carries a big stick.
By Ray Takeyh/los Angeles Times
In an autumn ritual, an Iranian president is once more coming to New York for the United Nations' annual meeting of the heads of state. Media frenzy is likely to follow, as the smiling visage of President Hassan Rouhani dominates the airways next week. Beyond vague pledges of cooperation and lofty rhetoric about turning a new page, the question remains how to assess the intentions of the new Iranian government. The early indications are that Rouhani has put together a seasoned team that seeks to both advance and legitimize Iran's nuclear program. One of the peculiarities of the Islamic Republic is that at times it seemingly floats its strategies in the media. On Sept. 3, a long editorial titled "A Realistic Initiative on the Nuclear Issue" appeared in Bahar, an Iranian newspaper with ties to the more moderate elements of the country's elite.
The article stressed that former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's confrontational policies and reckless rhetoric had caused the international community to perceive Iran as threatening and dangerous. In that context, Iran's quest for nuclear empowerment was bound to be resisted by the great powers. And cleverly manipulated by the United States and Israel, the United Nations censured Iran and imposed debilitating sanctions on its fledgling economy. The editorial went on to say that to escape this predicament, Iran had to change its image. A state that is considered "trustworthy" and "accountable" is bound to be provided with some leeway. Iran can best achieve its nuclear aspirations not by making systematic concessions on the scope of its program but by altering the overall impression of its reliability as a state.
It appears that Rouhani is carefully following this script. One of his first acts as president was to appoint as his foreign minister Javad Zarif, an urbane diplomat unwisely purged by Ahmadinejad. Zarif's superb skill as a negotiator, his easy access to Western power-brokers and his pragmatism are bound to impress Iran's skeptical interlocutors.
The most contentious issue that has crossed Rouhani's desk thus far is Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons against unarmed civilians. In the past, the ideological compulsions of the Islamic Republic would lead it to deny the charges, defend Syrian President Bashar Assad and accuse his detractors of fabricating the evidence. This time around, Rouhani and his functionaries have subtly distanced themselves from Assad, condemned the use of chemical weapons and welcomed Russia's efforts to resolve the issue through the United Nations.
Along with tweets commemorating the Jewish High Holy Days, Rouhani has managed to reverse some of the reputational damage that the theocratic regime had suffered under his impetuous predecessor.
The new government's soothing words have not lessened its determination to forge ahead with its nuclear program. Rouhani has stressed, as reported on state radio this month, that Iran "will not withdraw an iota from the definite rights of people." That message was reinforced by the appointment of Ali Shamkhani to the powerful position of secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.
Shamkhani is a creature of the security services, one of the founding members of the Revolutionary Guard and a former defense minister. Throughout his career, Shamkhani has been involved with the nation's nuclear program, procuring technologies for it and defending it. During his time as defense minister, he even subtly suggested the utility of nuclear arms in Iran's contested regional environment.
"We have neighbors who, due to international competition, have gained nuclear weapons…. We have no other alternatives but to defend ourselves in view of these developments," Shamkhani said in 2000.
If Zarif's appointment is designed to placate the international community, Shamkhani's selection is a signal to the hard-liners at home that Rouhani intends to preserve Iran's nuclear prerogatives.
Rouhani's attempt to refashion Iran's image and temper its rhetoric should be welcomed. After eight years of Ahmadinejad provocations that often unhinged the international community, a degree of self-restraint is admirable. However, judge Tehran by its conduct and not its words.
It is not enough for Rouhani to condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Is he prepared to withdraw the Revolutionary Guard contingents that have done much to buttress Assad's brutality?
It is not sufficient for Rouhani to speak of transparency; he must curb Iran's troublesome nuclear activities and comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions.
And it is not enough for Rouhani to speak of a tolerant society unless he is prepared to free his many former comrades and colleagues who are languishing in prisons under false charges.
Rouhani's reliability has to be measured by his actions, not by his speeches or tweets.
Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright © 2013, Los Angeles Times

U.S. nearly detonated atomic bomb by accident in 1961: file
September 21, 2013/Agence France Presse
LONDON: The U.S. Air Force came dramatically close to detonating a huge atomic bomb over North Carolina in 1961, according to a newly declassified document published by Britain's Guardian newspaper on Saturday.
Two hydrogen bombs were accidentally dropped over the city of Goldsboro, North Carolina on January 23, 1961 when the B-52 plane carrying them broke up in mid-air, according to the file.
One of the bombs began to detonate -- a single switch was all that stopped it from doing so. The three other safety mechanisms designed to prevent an unintended detonation failed.
The US government has acknowledged the accident before, but the 1969 document is the first confirmation of how close the United States came to nuclear catastrophe on that day.
"It would have been bad news in spades," wrote its author, US government scientist Parker F. Jones.
The bomb was 260 times more powerful than the one that devastated Hiroshima in 1945, according to the Guardian.
The accident happened at the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.
The declassified report was obtained by US investigative journalist Eric Schlosser under freedom of information legislation.
"The US government has consistently tried to withhold information from the American people in order to prevent questions being asked about our nuclear weapons policy," said Schlosser.
"We were told there was no possibility of these weapons accidentally detonating, yet here's one that very nearly did."
Jones jokingly titled the report "Goldsboro Revisited, or: How I Learned To Mistrust the H-Bomb", a reference to Stanley Kubrick's classic 1964 film about nuclear armageddon, "Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb".

Opinion Opinion: Turkey needs to rethink its regional policy
Seyed Hossein Mousavian/Asharq Alawsat
Turkey, a regional powerhouse with a grand history and civilization, plays a crucial role in the stability and security of the Middle East and Central Asia. Under the leadership of Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdoğan, in the past decade the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has steered the country toward socioeconomic and political stability. During this time, economic growth has averaged 7.5 percent annually, inflation has fallen to record levels, per capita income increased from USD 2,800 in 2001 to current levels of around USD 10,000, and the tourism industry has flourished, rising from 12 million visitors to over 31 million today. Turkey’s regional politics also shifted drastically—ending a century-old policy of alienation from the Middle East. The Erdoğan’s government instead introduced a “Zero Problems with Neighbors Policy” with its neighbors to bring about peace both domestically and regionally. The “Arab Awakening,” however, has tested this policy, and with the latest developments there are indications that Ankara has failed as a reliable partner to its allies and regional neighbors.
Ankara has lent full support to the anti-regime terrorist rebels in the Syrian conflict and even permitted them to use Turkish soil. Turkey has even jeopardized its close relationship with Washington by voicing dissatisfaction with the US branding Jabhat Al-Nusra a terrorist group and an Al-Qaeda sympathizer. Turkey’s support for the Al-Qaeda-led Syrian uprising has also taken a toll on its relationship with Iraq. Al-Qaeda is behind major violence and terrorism throughout the region, specifically in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, making it the major national security threat to the stability and security of both Iraq and Syria. Practically, Ankara has contributed toward terrorist forces aspiring to tear Iraq apart. The Kurdish issue, a traditional security dilemma for both Iraq and Turkey, has risen once again to the forefront. With deteriorating Iraqi–Turkish relations, Ankara has forged closer ties with Iraqi Kurds, raising the ire of Baghdad. The Turkish and Iraqis were previously cooperating on the Kurdish issue, but the change in Ankara’s position will further heighten bilateral tensions, with increased instability on multiple fronts. Turkey’s role in the Syrian conflict and its forging closer relations with Iraqi Kurds are seen by Baghdad and Damascus as signs of interference in their domestic affairs and will only lead to further mistrust and animosity.
Turkey’s relations with Egypt have also reached an all-time low in the months since the Egyptian military took power by overthrowing Mursi’s government. Mursi was strongly supported by Ankara and the Muslim Brotherhood. A sobering sign was the cancellation of planned naval exercises scheduled for October 2013 and recalling their respective ambassadors. Prime Minister Erdoğan condemned what he called the “massacre” of peaceful protesters in Egypt and characterized the military takeover as a “coup”—words that infuriated the interim government in Cairo. Such comments led to Cairo recalling its ambassador in protest against Turkey’s “clear interference” in Egypt’s domestic affairs.
Turkey’s position on Syria has also strained its vital relations with Iran. Turkey’s bilateral trade with Iran has increased significantly, from USD 1 billion in 2001 to USD 16 billion in 2011. The close ties with Iran had previously enabled Ankara to play a prominent role in resolving the disputed Iranian nuclear file with the West. Erdoğan and with Lula da Silva of Brazil were able to secure Tehran’s signature in the trilateral nuclear deal aimed at ending the nuclear quagmire. The Syrian conflict, however, has highlighted the two governments’ opposing positions: Turkey has fully backed the rebels to bring regime change in Syria and Iran has intensified its efforts to bolster the Assad government. The Syrian conflict has revived Iranian–Turkish regional rivalry, which has a history dating back centuries, from the days of the Ottoman and Safavid empires.
Turkey’s relations with Saudi Arabia and majority of Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf soured once they refused to back Egyptian president Mohamed Mursi. Turkey’s deputy prime minister, Bekir Bozdağ, claimed that “it is clear that there are monarchic structures disturbed by the change in Egypt around the axis of democracy, human rights and people’s will. One must be blind not to see it. It is that clear.” Turkey and Saudi Arabia may be in tune when it comes to bringing about regime change in Syria, but they clearly differ on Egypt. “Whether Bashar [Al-Assad] or [Egyptian army chief Abdel Fattah El-Sisi], there is no difference between them. . . . I am saying that state terrorism is currently underway in Egypt,” is how Erdoğan described the recent developments in Egypt.
Erdoğan, referring to a 2011 video of former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni and French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy discussing the Arab Spring, accused Israel of orchestrating a coup in Cairo. The White House was quick to criticize Erdoğan’s statement: “We strongly condemn the statements that were made by Prime Minister Erdoğan today. Suggesting that Israel is somehow responsible for recent events in Egypt is offensive, unsubstantiated, and wrong,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a briefing to reporters. Former Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman replied that “everyone who hears [Erdoğan's] hateful words and incitement understands beyond a doubt that he follows in the footsteps of Goebbels.” An Egyptian government spokesman slammed Erdoğan as a “Western agent.”
Turkey’s “zero conflict” policy with its neighbors has failed, and Ankara is on the verge of full conflict with the region. Relations have deteriorated with Iran, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Armenia, Cyprus, Hezbollah and Lebanon. Moreover, through to its policies toward Greece, Cyprus, Armenia and Israel, Ankara has also undermined its relations with the West. In an effort to avert a new war in the Middle East, President Barack Obama welcomed the deal reached with Russia on Syria’s chemical weapons. Ankara, going against the grain, expressed skepticism and criticized the initiative. This move highlights the degree to which Ankara has deviated from playing a constructive role in managing regional crises through peaceful means.
The Middle East is on fire and the constructive role of Turkey is essential. Ankara should try to revive the Zero Problems Policy with its neighbors. To achieve this urgent objective, Ankara should consider the following:
1) Turkey should not throw all its weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood based on the wrong assumption that the future of the region rests with this party.
2) The Arab Awakening should not lead Turkey to abandon its policy of non-interference.
3) Turkey should maintain a position of neutrality, enabling Ankara to play a credible role in regional crisis management.
4) It must determine which direction its foreign policy is heading. Iranian foreign policy following the 1979 revolution was based on ideology and national interest. Turkey, as a secular state, is essentially acting more ideologically than Iran on its foreign policy.
5) Turkey should not harbor ambitions of reviving the Ottoman past, as it would have grave consequences for Turkey and the region. Turkey’s recent policies have made some countries think Ankara is after reviving the former Ottoman hegemony in the region, believing that the “zero problems policy” was just a cover for Ankara’s “neo-Ottoman” ambitions.
6) The country should not forget its internal challenges. Turkey’s credibility in the region and the world took a beating this summer with Erdoğan’s decision to put down the demonstrations with riot police, tear gas and water cannons leading to the arrest and injury of hundreds of demonstrators in about 50 cities.
7) Turkey should attempt to cooperate with regional powers, mainly Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt, to manage the crisis arising from the Arab Awakening. Such a policy should be based on non-interference, mutual respect and peaceful settlement.