Study reveals domestic abuse is

LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
APRIL 26/2006

Below news from the Daily Star for 26/04/06
Solidere, Hariri family face fresh criticism
Brammertz holds first meeting with Assad
Spats loom over next round of Lebanese talks
Workshop trumpets dialogue's state-shaping potential
Security Council mulls tough stance on 1559
Is freedom enough? For some, maybe not
'Good riddance:' Uneasy former neighbors recall chilling tales of torture
Nation takes stock of storm wreckage
A country that reads is a country that lives
Lebanon's competitive political process needs a referee
Better mainstream Islamists than Al-Qaeda.By Rami G. Khouri
Below news from miscellaneous sources for 26/04/06
UN team interviews Assad over Hariri killing-Swissinfo
Al-Qaeda jihad vs US 'long war'-BBC News - UK
Syria to admit nearly 200 Palestinians stranded on the Iraq-Jordan-Reuters
Nasrallah says Israel will soon release el-Kunter-Jerusalem Post
ANALYSIS-A year after pullout, Syria looms large in Lebanon-Reuters
Study reveals domestic abuse is widespread in Syria-Christian Science Monitor -
Hezbollah: No accord among Lebanese to draw borders with Syria-Monsters and Critics.com -
It's the border, stupid-Pittsburgh Tribune
Eye of the beholder-Washington Times
Iran Flexes Diplomatic and Military Muscles-(JINSA
Head of Hariri Probe Travels to Syria-FOX News - USA
Syria to take 181 stranded Palestinian refugee -UN-Reuters
Jordan says Hamas leaders in Syria ordered attacks-Reuters
On Fouad Siniora and his Policy-By: Hazem Saghieh Dar Al-Hayat
Bombshell presentation to launch DC terror symposium-WorldNetDaily

Head of Hariri Probe Travels to Syria
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
BEIRUT, Lebanon — The chief U.N. investigator into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri went to Syria under heavy guard Tuesday to interview President Bashar Assad, who has been accused of threatening the Lebanese leader months before he was killed. It will be the first time that Assad answers questions about Hariri's assassination from the commission appointed by the U.N. Security Council to investigate. The council has accused Damascus of failing to cooperate fully with the probe into the February 2005 truck bombing that killed Hariri and 20 others on a Beirut street.
Assad declined two previous requests for interviews filed last year by the commission, which is based in Beirut. Chief U.N. investigator Serge Brammertz said in March that Assad had agreed to meet with him. In a television interview last month, Assad said that while he expected "a meeting, not an interrogation" with Brammertz, no question would be off-limits. "They can ask whatever they like," he said. Senior Lebanese security officials said that Brammertz traveled by land to Damascus is a heavily guarded convoy of 10 bulletproof vehicles. Syrian officials had no immediate comment on the visit and a spokesperson for the U.N. investigation in Beirut declined any comment.
Brammertz will also talk to Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa about Syria's alleged involvement in the assassination, the Lebanese security officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
Many Lebanese blame Syria for Hariri's assassination and for a series of mysterious bombings that have targeted Lebanese politicians and journalists opposed to Syria in the last 14 months. Syria denies involvement in all the attacks.
According to testimony to the U.N. commission by Hariri's political allies and family members as well as a former Assad vice president who defected, the Syrian leader threatened Hariri when they met in Damascus in 2004. Assad allegedly said he wanted the term of Lebanon's pro-Syrian president to be extended, a move Hariri was known to oppose but later went along with. Assad has said in interviews that Hariri was a friend of Syria and denied he threatened him.
In an interview last month, Assad suggested that Hariri may have lied about the threats against him to deflect criticism for siding with Syria in supporting the extension of President Emile Lahoud's term.
"We heard later that he (Hariri) said that somebody from the Syrian Intelligence put a gun to his head, but Hariri himself told me that some officials in the West told him that they were angry with him because he stood by Syria. He told me that, but maybe he told them he did that for this reason," Assad told PBS television.
"Actually, neither me nor anybody else in Syria threatened him," Assad added.
The death of Hariri was a turning point in Syria's relations with Lebanon. As he was seen as a quiet opponent of Syrian domination of Lebanon, Hariri's killing provoked mass demonstrations against Syria which, combined with international pressure, forced Damascus to pull its troops out of its neighbor in April last year, ending a 29-year military presence.
Four top Lebanese generals — key figures in Syria's domination of Lebanon — have been arrested and charged with involvement in Hariri's killing; top Syrian officials have been implicated, but not charged.
Tuesday's visit is Brammertz's second to Syria since he took over the U.N. investigation from Detlev Mehlis in January. In February, Brammertz, a Belgian prosecutor, went to the Syrian capital and discussed Syrian cooperation with Foreign Minister Walid Moallem. In his report to the U.N. Security Council last month, Brammertz said there are encouraging signals from Syria. The report noted that after two high-level meetings Syria agreed to a deal that will give the commission access to "individuals, sites and information."

GLOBAL JIHAD
'Tangible proof' al-Qaida deploying nukes
Bombshell presentation to launch D.C. terror symposium
Posted: April 25, 2006-© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A terrorism symposium featuring leading experts will begin with presentation of "tangible proof" al-Qaida not only has developed an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons but also has begun to deploy them for use in its jihad against the United States and Israel. Paul L. Williams, author of "The Al Connection" and "The Dunces of Doomsday," will present his findings at the National Press Club in Washington at the conclusion of a public debate with Wall Street Journal correspondent Richard Miniter on al-Qaida's nuclear weaponry. The debate, Friday at 10 a.m., will be moderated by Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard and regular contributor to the Fox News Channel. The public is invited to attend.
The organizers say the event is timely, "with increased anxiety over demands for a pullout from Iraq, the nuclear developments in Iran and North Korea, the failure of our government to secure the borders and our country's fledgling, incomprehensive effort at homeland security."
Epstein believes the majority of Americans disapprove of both the "cut-and-run policy" proposed by many leading Democrats and the "compassionate conservative" approach of the Bush administration, favoring instead a "firm and decisive military action with no apologies to Russia, China, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia or the United Nations."
"I am convinced that the threat we are currently facing from radical Islam greatly surpasses that which was posed by the Third Reich," Epstein said. Anyone interested in attending, Epstein added, should contact America's Truth Forum at its website or by calling 866-709-3474.
The event offers the following speakers:
James Woolsey, who previously held presidential appointments in two Democratic and two Republican administrations, served as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1993 to 1995.
Kenneth Timmerman, author of "Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran," has been nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and a prize-winning columnist for the New York Sun and The Jerusalem Post. Pipes was one of the few analysts who warned of the threat of radical Islam to the U.S. before 9-11, writing in 1995, "war has been unilaterally declared on Europe and the United States." The Boston Globe stated, "If Pipes's admonitions had been heeded, there might never have been a 9-11."
Robert Spencer, director of the weblog Jihad Watch, is an author and researcher who has studied Islam for more than 20 years. His book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades)" spent four months on the New York Times best-seller list. Spencer is an adjunct fellow with the Free Congress Foundation and has written a selection of critically acclaimed books on Islam. He has appeared on CNN and Fox News and has been heard on Vatican Radio.
David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture is the author of "Unholy Alliance," which contends America's Left is giving aid and comfort to its enemies in the terror war, and "The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America."
Richard Miniter, author of two New York Times best-selling books, "Losing Bin Laden" and "Shadow War," and an internationally recognized expert on terrorism.
Walid Phares, a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, professor of Middle East Studies and author of several books on Middle Eastern affairs including the most recent "Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America." Phares' research and analysis of the Jihadi ideology, strategies and movements goes back to the early 1980s. He conducts briefings to governments, international organizations and appears frequently in the media. Phares is called by many as "the one expert who understands the minds of Jihadists best."
Walid Shoebat, a former Palestinian Liberation Organization terrorist, converted to Christianity and now warns of the imminent threat of radical Islam to Western civilization.
Harvey Kushner, noted author, lecturer, professor and internationally recognized authority on terrorism. Kushner has advised and provided training to numerous agencies, including the FBI, FAA, INS and U.S. Customs. He is a frequent guest of all major television networks and often is quoted by news media worldwide.
Dr. Andrew Bostom, editor of the newly released book "The Legacy of Jihad," a compendium of writings, both modern and ancient, on the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad. Bostom is a physician specializing in epidemiology. Since 1997 he has been part of the full-time medical faculty at two hospital affiliates of Brown University.
Bruce Tefft, founding member of the CIA's Counter Terrorism Center, has trained more than 12,000 law enforcement officers and first responders and has served as the New York Police Department's counter-terrorism and intelligence adviser since 9-11.
Brigitte Gabriel, a former anchor for world news in the Middle East and a prominent Arab-American journalist, survived a bombing in which her family's home was reduced to rubble by radical Muslim forces.
Laura Mansfield, an author and counter-terror analyst, uses her knowledge of the Arabic language and Islamic culture to investigate jihad and jihadis in the U.S. and abroad.
Joe Kaufman, chairman of Americans Against Hate. He also is an investigative journalist for Frontpage Magazine and host of "The Politics of Terrorism" radio show.
Paul Williams, award-winning journalist and author of "Al Qaeda Connection," "Osama's Revenge: The Next 9/11," and "The Dunces of Doomsday," has served as a consultant for the FBI, editor, adjunct professor of humanities at the University of Scranton and correspondent for WorldNetDaily.

On Fouad Siniora and his Policy
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat - 25/04/06//
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is a special case for the Lebanese, in general, and the Sunnis, in particular. If PM Rafik Hariri reminds us of Riyad al-Solh in terms of laying the foundations of the Lebanese patriotism and its phases. PM Siniora also reminds us of Sami al-Solh in terms of rejecting the blackmail exerted on Lebanon in the name of 'Arabism' and 'fraternity'.
This is how many judges are moved in the 'inquisition' once Siniora moves, or rather, publicly declares a fact that is wanted to remain under covers of lies. Even when he attempts to move toward an Israeli withdrawal or obtain international aid, those judges shower him with warnings that are rather insults.
In fact, Siniora's 'Harirism', both in politics and economy, is more of an inlet to him rather than an outlet. Indeed, the 'Harirism' he embodies is the product of a lesson learnt from a long political experiment to which was added a lesson learnt from the tragedy of late PM Rafik Hariri himself.
The Lebanese Sunnite leadership went through many phases, the first of which ended in 1950-1951 with the death of Abdel-Hamid Karame, and the assassination of Riyadh al-Solh in Jordan by operatives from the Syrian Nationalist party. Since Israel was recently established and the region began living on the pace of military coup-d'états, a phase of relatively successful adjustment with the Lebanese political entity came to a close with the departure of al-Solh and Karame. This phase was followed by many difficult and various attempts that were associated with the names of Saeb Salam and Rashid Karame. However, the heated Arab situation and, eventually, the Palestinian arms issue, helped complicate such adjustment, i.e. what seemed congruous with the Fouad Shehab-Rashid Karame tandem - stipulating a Nasserism control of a major part of Lebanon's decision-making process - ended in an explosion with the Suleiman Franjieh-Saeb Salam duo. This dragged Lebanon into direct conflict with Israel, synchronized with the retreat of the Maronite 'political class' represented by Franjieh. Hence, the two parties seemed to be a revengeful response to the other part of the equation. After the miserable experiment of Amin al-Hafez, through which President Franjieh tried to replace the Sunnite representation, emerged a new experiment embodied by Salim al-Hoss during the mandates of Elias Sarkis and his successors. Again, and after an ephemeral optimism about the end of the 'two-year war', the adjustment attempt reached a dead end, a situation that was apparently and verbally expressed by a militant rhetoric in demonstrations and in the numerous 'Arabism and Islam' forums in Beirut.
With PM Rafik Hariri, a kind of circumvention took place regarding the issue that was prohibited and safeguarded by the Syrian forces. This circumvention was meant to transfer the issue from the political to the economic field. This change was not straightforward. It was implied, in an evasive manner; revealing that the Lebanese Sunnite problem was no longer with their Christian compatriots and that the proposed adjustment was no longer being submitted to Lebanese patriotism, but rather to the Arabism in its military uniform.
The brutal response to Hariri took place when he sought to politicize his economic patriotism, imposing these implications on his friend PM Fouad Siniora and giving them a public attribute.
In this sense, Siniora went far in addressing the Christian "partner", even though many Christians were not receptive to the message, due to their many years of frustration. Thanks to the versatile buildup of the past - the Arab Nationalist Movement, Sidon overlooking both Shiites and Palestinians, and his academic track in the American University of Beirut - Siniora was bound to bear the colors of moderate and open-minded Lebanese patriotism. More importantly, as evident in the assassination of PM Rafik Hariri, such colors can only blend in a flexible and multicolored Lebanese patriotism.
Keeping pace with Arab moderation, which is growing in circles that have been scourged with the radicalism phase and its experiments, PM Siniora acts as if the State comes first and last. He adds to the political body a new blood, accentuated by the fact that he does not stem from the class of notables prone to replace the State with the sect.
At this point, we can perhaps understand why some 'physicians', well-versed in the art of hating and destroying the State, insist on 'testing the blood' of Siniora. How could Siniora be so much in tune with his environment and milieu - thanks to Hariri's blood - as was case with Sami al-Solh?!

ANALYSIS-A year after pullout, Syria looms large in Lebanon
BEIRUT, April 25 (Reuters) - Syrian troops, a familiar sight for almost 30 years, are gone from Lebanon's streets. Anjar, the village that hosted Syria's intelligence base, has sunk back into obscurity. Many old Syrian allies sit on the sidelines.
But a year after the last Syrian soldiers left under global pressure after the murder of former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri, the widespread euphoria has vanished. Few doubt the pullout was a blow for Damascus, but cracks in Lebanon's ruling anti-Syrian bloc and concern over its economic record have since given new life to Syria's local allies.
No events are even planned to mark the April 26 withdrawal."Syria's presence is not as oppressive as before, not as direct and controlling as before, but it is still there," said Osama Safa, head of the Lebanese Centre for Policy Studies.
"After 30 years in Lebanon, Syria still has many strong points of influence through traditional Lebanese political leaders... This has always been the case and it always will be."Pro-Syrian Lebanese President Emile Lahoud remains in power despite pressure by the anti-Syrian bloc for him to step down.
The anti-Syrian groups see Lahoud, whose term was extended in 2004 under Syrian pressure, as the last vestige of its tutelage. But they have failed to agree on any replacement, and national talks to end a debilitating political crisis look set this week to leave Lahoud in the presidential palace for now.
TENSE RELATIONS
Relations between Syria and the government have been tense, with Damascus rejecting calls to exchange embassies or mark a disputed border area occupied by Israel. Meanwhile the Hizbollah guerrilla group, which is backed by Syria and Iran, has managed to hold onto its arms, even though the same U.N. Security Council resolution that demanded Syrian troops leave Lebanon also calls for militias to disarm. Lebanon's only armed group, it has teamed up with another Shi'ite Muslim group, Amal, for joint leadership of the largest religious community in the country's delicate sectarian mosaic.
An understanding with the Maronite Christian general Michel Aoun, an unlikely bedfellow who fought a battle with the Syrians at the close of the 1975-1990 civil war, has reduced the main anti-Syrian bloc's dominance in the 128-seat parliament.
Syrian-backed politicians who stayed out of elections last May and June have been popping up on television again.
In the north, Suleiman Franjieh, whose family has old ties to the ruling Assad family in Syria, is forming a front with Omar Karami, the pro-Syrian prime minister who resigned amid protests in the aftermath of Hariri's death.
They appear to have taken their cue from the anti-Syrian coalition's loss of momentum and internal divisions. Hopes that the economy would take off after the Syrian exit have faded and an international debt aid meeting has been delayed for months.
SECURITY VACUUM
The Syrian withdrawal also left a security vacuum, with a string of bombings and the assassination of two anti-Syrian journalists and a politician in the ensuing months. Many Lebanese blamed Syria, saying the attacks were meant to prove the Lebanese could not govern themselves. Syria has denied any role in the death of Hariri or the ensuing instability. A U.N. investigator last year implicated Syrian officials in the murder and said Damascus was impeding the inquiry, but a follow-up report in March said the groundwork had been laid for better cooperation. Much of the anti-Syrian coalition's credibility now hangs on that inquiry; if Syria is cleared they will suffer a blow.
In the meantime, no one knows if Syria still maintains undercover agents in Lebanon or how many there might be, though one thing is certain -- the borders are porous and smugglers cross daily without going through the official customs points. Truckloads of arms have come in for Hizbollah. "The Syrians played a central role in creating the deadlock from which their Lebanese allies have benefited," said Michael Young, opinion editor of Lebanon's Daily Star newspaper.
"That doesn't mean their allies are in a position to return to where they were a year ago, but they still have influence."

Study reveals domestic abuse is widespread in Syria
The first study of its kind in the country shows 25 percent of women may be victims of violence.
By Rhonda Roumani | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
World > Middle East
from the April 25, 2006 edition
DAMASCUS, SYRIA – This country's only shelter for abused women is largely a secret. Victims learn about it through local churches, aid agencies, or lawyers. It has just 10 beds for the 22 people who were recently staying there.
But a new study released earlier this month that says as many as 1 in 4 Syrian women may be victims of physical violence is beginning to reveal just how widespread a problem domestic abuse is throughout the country.
The study, funded by the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) and conducted by the state-run General Union of Women, is the first of its kind to try to quantify and explain the types of violence Syrian women face.
"Violence is in every home in the Arab world," says a woman who works at the shelter and asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of their work. "The number of abused women is more than 1 in 4. We hope that with a hotline we'll be able to help the largest number of women possible. We hope we can provide these women with a type of hope so they can know themselves and can rebuild their self-esteem," she says.
The shelter is currently working on acquiring a larger home and is trying to set up a hotline for domestic abuse. There are no domestic abuse hotlines in Syria.
Women's rights activists pin the problem of violence against women on societal shame associated with divorce, a lack of education on what exactly abuse entails, a shortage of shelters, and weak laws that fail to protect women who face abuse.
"There is a type of traditional thinking that it's [shameful] to go to the police with such problems," says Maen Abdul-Salam, who heads Etana Press, a publishing house dedicated to women's issues. "Families usually feel ashamed. They don't want to talk about it. There needs to be more education to change the mentality."
The study of nearly 1,900 families found that violence against women was more prevalent in the countryside than in cities, that domestic abuse was more likely to happen in homes facing economic hardship and in homes where men were less educated or where women married at very young ages. Yahya Aous, the editor of Thara.com, a website dedicated to women's issues, says a major problem is that many women are not even aware that they may be victims.
"Women start to feel like abuse is a normal part of life," says Mr. Aous. "She no longer believes it is violence. And if a woman is facing violence, there is no place she can go where they will help her with the law and with her situation."
While activists hailed the report as a first step in tackling the problem of abuse, they also said that discrepancies in the numbers and the wording of the report pose real concerns. "This is a good report because it is the first time there is an official recognition that women are facing violence, especially to this extent," says Bassam Kadi, an activist who heads the Syrian Women's Website. "But the language in the report is not objective. In one way or another, it holds the same biases that are available on the ground."
The report says that violence often takes place because of "mistakes" made by the women or because they neglected their household duties or because they asked too many questions.
In one segment of the report, the statistics show that nearly a quarter of Syrian women are victims of physical violence. But elsewhere in the study, statistics used show that the number of women who have been beaten is closer to 1 in 10, leading to confusion about the actual number. Like many other Arab countries, statistics on domestic abuse are hard to come by because few studies are done on the subject. Activists blame the statistical discrepancies in this newest report on a lack of professional statisticians trained to conduct such studies. Mr. Kadi and others also say that the report fails to address the root of the problem by tackling the inadequacies in the Syrian law.
"They say the Syrian laws are good, but they are not," says Kadi. "A woman needs to have her nose broken before she can really do anything. The laws do not deal with all types of violence, like mere beating. There should be details on the role of the laws in promoting violence. They needed to ask for new laws that protect women from all types of violence."

Hezbollah: No accord among Lebanese to draw borders with Syria
Apr 24, 2006,
Beirut - The Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah said Monday that there is no agreement among the Lebanese to draw Lebanon's shared border with Syria because a key southern zone remains occupied by Israel.
'It is not true that there is an accord among the Lebanese that we should delineate the border of the Shebaa (Farms area), because it is occupied,' Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said during a rally in Beirut's southern suburbs. He called it 'an issue of controversy among the Lebanese political factions,' which started roundtable talks on March 2 to resolve the political crisis that has gripped the country since the February 14, 2005 assassination of former premier Rafik Hariri. The talks are due to resume Friday. Last week, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said in an interview on al-Jazeera television, 'Syria is prepared to demarcate its border with Lebanon from the north, down to Shebaa, which is occupied and whose border we cannot draw.'
UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen last week urged the two neighbours to agree on demarcating the border in the small, mountainous territory at the convergence of the Lebanese-Syrian-Israeli borders.
Israel captured the Shebaa Farms area from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war, and it is now claimed by Lebanon with Damascus' consent. Israeli troops have retained control of the area despite their withdrawal in May 2000 from south Lebanon after two decades of occupation. It remains the scene of clashes between Israeli forces and the Hezbollah militia.
The United Nations regards Shebaa Farms as Syrian territory.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora indicated in remarks published Monday during his visit in the US that the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Shebaa Farms border area could lead to disarmament of the radical Islamic group Hezbollah.
'If the US and friendly countries help us achieve the withdrawal of Israel from Shebaa Farms, this would make it possible for the Lebanese forces to be the sole owner of weapons and arms in the country,' Siniora said in an interview with the Washington Post newspaper and Newsweek magazine.
Siniora said he had discussed his proposal concerning the Shebaa Farms with US President George W Bush last week in Washington. 'Let me put it this way - as far as my request for Shebaa Farms, the president and his aides showed great support, but they did not really commit themselves,' he said. © 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Eye of the beholder
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
April 24, 2006
At least three unofficial Iranian emissaries have been in Washington this spring with the same recommendation: Send a high-ranking current or former U.S. official to Qom for secret talks with Ayatollah Ali Khameini to explore a geopolitical deal before Iran passes yet another nuclear milestone -- e.g., a nonaggression treaty in return for taking Iran's gauntleted hand off the nuclear sword and resheathing it in an International Atomic Energy Agency scabbard. An American exit from Iraq would be part of the diplomatic mix.
For President Bush, this is rank appeasement. He sees his embattled presidency as a throwback to Winston Churchill on the backbenches of Parliament surrounded by appeasers. Now it's a world of appeasers trying to blunt America's sword. Mr. Bush tells his out-of-town visitors to think of how history will judge his administration 20 years hence and not to worry about setbacks in Iraq.
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote a long story for the New Yorker the gist of which is that Mr. Bush is contemplating a tactical nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear installations, now spread in at least 17 different locations. The absurd idea is not denied by Mr. Bush. He simply calls it "wild speculation." For the rest of the world this means that the only power in history to have used nuclear weapons -- "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" incinerated almost 200,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in less than a second -- is seriously thinking of doing it again.
Mr. Bush's "wild speculation" description is now taken seriously in foreign media as yet another indication America's global imperial hubris is out of control. The damage this is doing to America's image is hard to quantify, but it is at least as serious as the Abu Ghraib "torture" pictures.
Neoconservative supporters of the Bush administration are confident the president will order air strikes against Iran between the November 2006 elections and November 2008, when his successor will be elected. The post-strike scenario was put to one of these neocon supporters:
(1) Swift minelayers sail from Bandar Abbas, the Iranian naval base at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz and sow a few score mines in the world's busiest oil shipping lane. All tanker traffic stops. U.S. and NATO minesweepers head for Hormuz. Iranian naval commandos in Zodiak rubber speedboats come alongside a supertanker and sink it by sticking limpet mines along the waterline. Oil futures quickly pass $100 a barrel and keep climbing,
(2) Saudi Arabia's Shi'ite minority, employed in the eastern Saudi oilfields, begins blowing oil pipelines. Sabotage is reported at Ras Tanura, the world's largest oil loading port.
(3) U.S. air strikes obliterate Bandar Abbas.
(4) Iraq's two Shi'ite militia, armed and funded by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, are ordered into action against Iraq's U.S.-funded and trained army and police forces and against U.S. forces. U.S. casualties mount again. Congress calls for immediate evacuation of U.S. forces into Kuwait. The Kuwaiti Parliament balks and declares its neutrality in what is now the new U.S.-Iran war.
(5) Hezbollah and Hamas fire several thousand rockets and missiles over Israel's protective barrier killing scores of Israelis. The Israeli Defense Force is ordered back into Gaza to wipe out the terrorists.
(6) Hezbollah's militia goes into action against U.S. interests in Beirut.
(7) Shi'ite and Sunni Arabs close ranks against the U.S.-Zionist enemy. Arab streets erupt in mass anti-U.S. demonstrations. Arab governments recall their ambassadors from Washingt
(8) The entire Muslim world closes ranks behind Iran.
(9) A "dirty bomb" explodes in Lower Manhattan. Casualties are far lower than on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers were destroyed. But a 60-square-block area has to be permanently evacuated. It will be uninhabitable for several years due to dangerous radiation.
The neocon interlocutor smiled, then shrugged his shoulders and called the scenario "wild speculation." White House calculus ignores the fact Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president and a member of a fanatic sect of Shi'ite Islam, believes in the apocalypse in his own lifetime. Some people who know him say he thinks global death and destruction is only two years away and that this will be followed by the return of the 12th Imam, known as the Mahdi.
Iran's president, who claims the Nazi Holocaust was pure fiction and that Israel should be erased from the map, only has power over his Cabinet. Under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei come the intelligence services, armed forces, revolutionary guards, parliament, broadcasting -- and the government. The time for secret talks with the real No. 1 was yesterday.
Richard Armitage, a tough Republican who was deputy secretary of state under Colin Powell, says it would behoove the U.S. to talk to Iran directly -- not simply at the level of the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad to talk about the future of Iraq. So far, the U.S. has resisted direct talks with Tehran about its nuclear aspirations and mandated the EU3 -- the United Kingdom, France and Germany -- as its surrogate.
The stakes are so high, Mr. Armitage says, the situation "merits talking to the Iranians about the full range of our relationship... everything from energy to terrorism to weapons to Iraq. We can be diplomatically astute enough to do it without giving anything away."
When Nikita Khrushchev warned the U.S. that the Soviet Union would bury America, Washington didn't break diplomatic relations but went on talking throughout the Cold War, and the evil empire collapsed.
During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, with the world poised on the edge of nuclear war, brilliant U.S. diplomacy always left Khrushchev a way out of his geopolitical power play. He was trying to find a shortcut to nuclear parity with the U.S. The Soviet dictator took his missiles home, the U.S. agreed not to invade Cuba, and later took its obsolete Jupiter missiles out of Turkey.
Perhaps Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is not a student of Machiavelli. But Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and James Schlesinger are still among us -- and ready to serve, not a public circus, but a top-secret head-to-head with Velayat-e-Faqih, "the Guardianship of the Jurisprudent." That's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Prophet's proconsul in the holy city of Qom.
***Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.

Iran Flexes Diplomatic and Military Muscles
Tehran’s Nuclear Program Buttresses All-Out Bid for Regional Supremacy
While the international community focuses on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, officials of the Islamic Republic have been busy exercising their rapidly increasing influence - fueled by more than a decade of a lucrative petroleum sales and accelerated by the removal of Iraq as a regional counterweight - in the Persian Gulf and on the international stage. Complicating matters is Iran’s control of the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon and increasing sway over the now ruling terrorist Hamas organization in the West Bank and Gaza. The ability to frustrate Israeli-Palestinian peace making coupled with increasing its political, economic and military influence, means that Iran is well on its way toward dominating the wider region.
Iran’s Diplomatic Offensive
Against the backdrop of growing vocal opposition to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions from members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Iranian officials have been pressing fellow Gulf Arab states to support Iran’s nuclear program via a series of diplomatic communiquŽs and visits. According to the online analysis firm GeoStrategy-Direct, March 1, 2006 Ð in the last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dispatched messages to all six members of the GCC - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE - urging support for Iran’s nuclear program.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki upon his arrival in Kuwait, October 3, 2005. During a visit to Kuwait in February, Ahmadinejad lambasted the U.S. presence in Iraq and sought improved relations with Kuwait. Ahmadinejad’s visit, the first one of a high-ranking Iranian in 25 years, was also aimed at allaying concerns about Iran’s nuclear-fuel enrichment program and to improve defense cooperation. On March 14, Kuwait hosted the annual two-day Iranian-Kuwaiti security conference, which began in 2003. Since then, Iran and Kuwait have signed a number of agreements increasing security and military cooperation between the two states.
Bahrain’s Ambassador to Tehran, Kamel Saleh al-Saleh, met with Iranian officials in early March to promote a number of initiatives designed to promote bilateral ties, cooperation, and economic integration and during a visit to Qatar in February, Iranian parliamentarian Hussein Sheik Al Islam said, “I am calling upon GCC states to support Iran’s uranium enrichment plan,” according to the GeoStrategy-Direct report. The letters from President Ahmadinejad are said to have promised that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons and offered help to establish nuclear power facilities throughout the GCC in an effort to preserve the region’s natural oil and gas reserves.
Despite Tehran’s statements to the contrary, the thought of nuclear weapons in Iranian hands may be reigniting formerly nascent nuclear programs in other Gulf nations. Qatar, has initiated “an active exploratory effort for foreign nuclear contacts in recent months,” including consultations with South Korea regarding the prospects of nuclear energy cooperation, according to a February 2, 2006 Eurasia Security Watch report - a publication of the American Foreign Policy Council, Washington, D.C. Perhaps more troubling is the specter of a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia Ð a prospect that has long been suspected by the international community and was recently revisited when the Washington Times, October 22, 2003, published an article claiming a secret agreement between Pakistan and Riyadh regarding nuclear cooperation had been reached in 2003.
Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile. Although “it will be vehemently denied by both countries, according to an anonymous source cited by the October 22 article, “future events will confirm that Pakistan has agreed to provide [Saudi Arabia] with the wherewithal for a nuclear deterrent.” As predicted by the Pakistani source, officials from both Saudi Arabia and Islamabad dismissed the claims. The Saudi purchase of Chinese-made intermediate-range CSS-2 ballistic missiles Ð capable of carrying nuclear payloads Ð in the 1980s, coupled with the prospects of a nuclear Iran and the recent deterioration of U.S.-Saudi security ties after 9/11, however, may be motivating the House of Saud to seek alternative security arrangements, according to Richard L. Russell, a research associate at Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned that Iran’s nuclear program “threatened disaster” for the Gulf. At the same time, Jordan’s foreign minister expressed concerns that Iran was exacerbating the likelihood for a new arms race in the region. Iranian officials met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal in February to discuss regional issues, according to The Washington Post, March 20, 2005.
A nuclear capable Iran “totally turns over the balance of power and makes Iran the master of the region and the influential instrument in its decisions, Abdullah Bishara of the Center for Strategic Studies in Kuwait, said, according to Eurasia Security Watch, April 12, 2006.
During an April 9 seminar in Doha, Qatar, Kuwaiti researcher Abdullah al-Nufaisi said that the Saudi government was preparing a nuclear program in light of Iran’s program, according to the United Press International. “Saudi Arabia will not watch as its neighbors develop nuclear weapons, “an anonymous Gulf source told UPI. “It’s a matter of time until a Saudi nuclear program begins.”
Iran Uses Gas and Oil to Sweet Talk Pakistan, India and Syria
In other regional moves, Iranian officials met in early March with their Pakistani and Indian counterparts to discuss the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Iran to India that would cross Pakistan. The pipeline would provide for India’s growing energy needs and produce hundreds of millions of dollars worth of transit fees for cash-starved Pakistan but is strongly opposed by the United States.
A similar deal was struck in March when Iranian and Syrian diplomats concluded a memorandum of understanding for the construction of pipelines between Damascus and Tehran crossing Iraq. Iran and Syria have also agreed to cooperate on a number of additional issues including Iranian support for the flagging Syrian economy and the country’s ballistic missile development. Through close economic cooperation, Syria and Iran would be better positioned to buck any international sanctions.
In anticipation of United Nations Security Council sanctions over its nuclear program, Iran has vowed to become Damascus’ leading investor and business partner. “There are huge untapped economic potentials in the two countries which should be further explored,” Iranian Housing Minister Mohammad Saeedi-Kia told reporters at the Iranian-Syrian Joint Economic Commission conference held this February in Damascus. Tehran’s interests in Syria solidified during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Iranian Ambassador to Syria, Mohammad Hassan Akhtari, told Syria’s official news agency SANA, that Tehran had increased exports in the last five years in a number of non-oil related areas, including steel, textiles, automobiles, and technical and engineering expertise. Western intelligence officials have said ballistic missile technology is among Tehran’s chief exports to Syria as well.
Growing Solidarity with Increasingly Isolated Syria
In February 2005, Tehran proclaimed its intention to defend Damascus against “challenges and threats” amidst an atmosphere of international condemnation after former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, an outspoken critic of Syria’s domination of Lebanon, was assassinated in a massive car bombing. “We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats,” Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said during a meeting with Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari. “Our Syrian brothers are facing specific threats and we hope they can benefit from our experience. We are ready to give them any help necessary ... especially because Syria and Iran face several challenges and it is necessary to build a common front,” he concluded.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (on right in light gray suit) reviews honor guard with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus. More recently, Iranian officials promised to “use any means” to inflict “harm and pain” upon the United States in order to “resist any pressure and threat” to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, according to an editorial in the New York Post by Peter Brookes, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C. Iran and Syria concluded a mutual defense pact in 2004, further solidifying their ability to weather international pressure and logistically and politically complicate any impending military strikes.
The March 2, 2006 edition of the Iranian Democracy Monitor, another publication of the American Foreign Policy Council, noted that Iran has been massing ballistic missiles along its border with Azerbaijan in an attempt to persuade that country to reject possible U.S. entreaties for basing rights for U.S. forces to strike Iran’s nuclear sites. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov recently announced, however, that the five Caspian littoral countries Ð Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan Ð were exploring the formation of a ‘Caspian Security Pact’, according to the January 25, 2006 Russian Reform Monitor Ð yet another product of the prolific think tank, the American Foreign Policy Council. Ivanov told reporters military cooperation among the five nations was needed to fight the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, prevent poaching, and guarantee the security of energy resources’ deliveries.
Iran and its Terror Puppets Hamas and Hezbollah
Following the electoral victory of the Hamas terrorist organization in the Palestinian elections in January, the international community has placed increasing pressure upon the organization’s leadership to recognize Israel’s right to exist, honor existing treaties signed by the previous Palestinian Authority government, and renounce violence as a means of achieving political ambitions. Moscow broke ranks with the international community, however, and provided a degree of political legitimacy to Hamas when the organization’s political chief, Khaled Mashaal, was invited to meet with Russian officials in March. Mashaal used the high profile meeting, however, to reiterate Hamas’s absolute refusal to recognize the state of Israel.
Secretary-General of the Hezbollah terror organization Hassan Nasrallah (on right) greets Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. Mashaal was also invited to visit Ankara where he met with leaders from Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). And, during a brief visit to the Sudanese capital of Khartoum in mid-February, Mashaal stated, “there will be no recognition of Israel, and there will be no security for the occupation and colonization forces.” “Resistance will remain our strategic option É by God, Israel will not feel safe and will have no legitimacy,” Mashaal shouted to a rallying crowd, according to the Associated Press, February 14, 2006.
As U.S. and European leaders consider suspending annual aid package payments to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority in an attempt to gain political leverage over the Hamas organization, Tehran has already pledged to compensate any deficit created by a shutoff of funds from the West. Such a move would give Iran increasing sway over Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. “Iran’s role in the future of Palestine should continue to increase,” Mashaal told reporters in Tehran following diplomatic discussions with Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki.
In February, State Department Spokesman Adam Ereli warned that if Hamas accepted any financial aid from Iran, it “would send a pretty clear signal,” that Hamas “wants to put its feet in the camp of terror,” and “take $250 million from the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.” Ereli added that if Hamas refused to renounce violence and recognize Israel, the United States would find a way “to fund the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people without giving money to Hamas,” despite the fact that Hamas was elected by a popular vote.
While the United States and the European Union struggle to chart a diplomatic course with the newly elected Hamas organization, Iran and Syria have already begun coordinating a strategy designed to link Syrian-and Iranian-backed terrorist organizations with Hamas to attack Israel or the United States should either country strike at Iran or Syria, according to GeoStrategy-Direct, March 22, 2006. During a meeting held last January in Damascus, Iranian and Syrian intelligence agents gathered the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad to coordinate all political and military steps with Damascus and Tehran. “The idea was to make sure each group had its marching orders and would follow one agenda,” according to a U.S. intelligence source who spoke with GeoStrategy-Direct on condition of anonymity
Increasingly Active in Iraq
According to the Middle East News Line, March 3, 2006, Iran has deployed members of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to assist anti-coalition forces and assist Shi’ite militias amid increasing sectarian violence in Iraq. “They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq, and we know it, and it is something that they will look back on as having been an error in judgment,” Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld told reporters during a press briefing at the Pentagon, March 7, 2006.
President Bush added from the White House in March that, “if the Iranians are trying to influence the outcome of the political process [in Iraq], or the outcome of the security situation there, we’re letting them know our displeasure.” President Bush went on to say, “our call is for those in the neighborhood to allow Iraq to develop a democracy. And that includes our call to Iran, as well as to Syria.”
While both Iran and the United States have agreed to hold diplomatic meetings regarding the future of Iraq, Iran continues its full-court press against mounting pressure from Washington and the threat of sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council over Tehran’s nuclear dossier. “If any country intends to attack Iran, it should expect a fatal reply by the Iranian armed forces,” Iranian Defense Minister Mustafa Najar said, according to Middle East News Line, March 13, 2006. Western intelligence note a recent exercise conducted by Iranian military forces in the Indian Ocean and Sea of Oman that was designed to attack Western shipping and Arab oil facilities in the Gulf.
Iran Flexes Military Muscles
In December 2005, Tehran conducted a massive military exercise that combined Iranian air and sea forces in a simulated attack on American warships in the Persian Gulf bringing to a halt all oil shipments and included ballistic missile strikes on Israel and Western-aligned Gulf Cooperation Council states, unnamed diplomatic sources told GeoStrategy Direct, February 8, 2006. Following the maneuvers, Iranian Defense Minister Mohammed Najar warned Israel that any ambitions to launch an Osirak-like military strike would trigger a response that “will be so firm that it will send them into eternal coma, like [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon.”
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (on left) views military training exercises in the Persian Gulf, December 14, 2005. Image by Reuters. U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, USA, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 28, that Iran’s continued acquisition of ballistic missile technology, air defense systems, and anti ship missiles will “significantly enhance Iran’s defensive capabilities and ability to deny access to the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz.”
In a March 9 interview with the official Iranian news agency IRNA, Defense Minister Najaf warned, “the Iranian armed forces are in full combat readiness and are to defend the country’s territorial integrity with full powerÉ if any country intends to attack Iran, it should expect a fatal reply by the Iranian armed forces.” That threat was renewed on April 14 when the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, General Yayha Rahim Safavi, declared that that American troops in neighboring Iraq and throughout the Gulf were ‘vulnerable’ to Iranian attacks if the U.S. decided to strike. “You can start a war but it won’t be you who finishes it,” the General threatened
Iranian Aces Wild
Coupled with a blitz of diplomatic visits designed to build regional support and garner economic, political, and military cooperation, Iran has thus far been able to fend off the threat of international isolation for its continued enrichment program. Moreover, a number of lucrative contracts involving nuclear cooperation, military modernization, and the supply of energy resources with Russia and China, have enabled Tehran to guarantee a divided United National Security Council.
Despite Iran’s continued and flagrant violations of IAEA protocols and alarming provocations from Iranian President Ahmadinejad in public rhetoric, the international community continues to be divided on how to respond. At the same time, while diplomatic efforts remain divided, military options aimed at resolving Iran’s nuclear program, according to anonymous defense officials, may not be a viable option.
According to The Washington Post, April 9, 2006, Defense Department officials, the Bush administration, and members of the intelligence community are considering two different strike packages for Iran should diplomatic efforts fail. One would be confined to a limited, surgical campaign designed to attack Iran’s numerous nuclear facilities while a second option would also target key political facilities, in an effort to collapse the Iranian government. But experts are warning that an effective air strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would be difficult to achieve as Iran has taken aggressive measures to protect it from such a scenario.
Some of the leading challenges include how to attack Iran’s nuclear research program conducted at civilian university labs without causing extensive collateral damage. Iran has also taken steps to spread out its nuclear facilities throughout the country, bury much of it underground, and make strong efforts to reinforce and harden those facilities against potential air strikes. Some targeting experts have estimated the underground facilities to be protected by at least 50 feet of earth and reinforced concrete, making them all but impossible to defeat without the use of small tactical nuclear bombs. Furthermore, questions remain about whether the use of military force can actually destroy Iran’s nuclear capability or would it simply delay the inevitable. Additionally, Iran has vowed to unleash hundreds of suicide attacks against American targets around the world if such strikes are carried out. National security experts are taking that threat seriously, warning that Iran’s international terror network is far more capable than anything al Qaeda could hope to achieve. Nonetheless, the military options remains in the diplomatic arsenal and the Pentagon has undertaken a number of initiatives should the Bush administration decide to play its military card.
A USAF F-15E Strike Eagle releases a GBU-28 bunker-buster guided bomb. A new generation of bombs capable of taking out deeply buried and hardened targets is needed. In July, defense officials, select members of Congress, and a number of policy advisors will attend a war game exercise at the National Defense University’s National Strategic Gaming Center that will simulate an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to USA Today, April 18, 2006. Unlike traditional war gaming exercises, NDU’s day-long conference is designed to gather policy makers together and “discuss how to react to various events presented in a fictional scenario.”
Following the alarming mid-April announcement by Iranian President Ahmadinejad that Iran had mastered the enrichment process and entered the nuclear club, the Pentagon has announced a number of initiatives designed to defeat underground facilities like those increasingly in use around the world, including Iran.
The Department of Defense has also been arming munitions with earth-penetrating warheads designed to burrow well beneath the surface of the earth before exploding, in order to collapse underground bunkers. On June 2, 2006, the Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency will conduct an experiment, Divine Strake, at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nevada Test Site. It will consist of the detonation of 700 tons (TNT equivalent to 593 tons) of the explosive ammonium nitrate-fuel oil (ANFO) on the ground above an existing tunnel at the site constructed for other research efforts. ANFO is commonly used in mining and blasting operations, and the amount of explosive being used in the experiment was selected to cause various levels of damage to the tunnel. The experiment supports DoD’s Tunnel Target Defeat Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration, which is intended to improve the military’s confidence in its ability to plan to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets.
****By JINSA Editorial Assistant Jonathan Howland.

Syria to take 181 stranded Palestinian refugee -UN
GENEVA, April 25 (Reuters) - Syria has agreed to take in 181 Palestinian refugees who have been stranded at the Iraq-Jordanian border for more than a month after fleeing insecurity in Baghdad, the United Nations said on Tuesday.
"We are grateful that the Syrian government is offering a solution to the group which has been camping since March 19 at Trebil border point, just inside Iraq," said William Spindler, spokesman at the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).It was not yet clear when they would be moved to Syria, but the agency hoped for a smooth transfer, he told a news briefing. The original group of 89 Palestinian refugees, nearly half of them children, was joined by nearly 100 more refugees over the last weeks, Spindler said.At the weekend, another 50 Palestinians arrived at the Iraq-Jordanian border from Baghdad but were stopped at the Iraqi side and were prevented from joining the group of 181, he added.
Jordanian authorities, fearful of a large influx from among the 34,000 Palestinian refugees estimated to be living in Iraq, closed the border after the first busload of 89 Palestinians arrived. It remains closed to Palestinian refugees, according to UNHCR spokeswoman Astrid ven Genderen Stort.UNHCR had voiced concern over the fate of the refugees, who were staying in the harsh desert climate in "pretty dire" conditions.It stood ready to assist the group, who once in Syria will fall under the responsibility of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), Stort said.

Jordan says Hamas leaders in Syria ordered attacks
Tue Apr 25, 2006
International News
Part victory, part protest on Nepal streets
Britain admits major deportation debacle
Mexico conservative takes lead in new election poll
More International News... Email This Article | Print This Article [-] Text [+] AMMAN (Reuters) - Jordan said on Tuesday a group of Hamas militants arrested last week were close to staging attacks inside the kingdom on orders from the Palestinian group's Syrian-based leadership."Security interrogations with the detained suspects had proven they received instructions to execute operations from leaders of Hamas and specifically one of the military officials of Hamas currently based in Syria," government spokesperson Nasser Joudeh told Reuters.
"They (the attacks) had reached a stage of implementation targeting installations and people in Jordan," he added.
Joudeh, who did not disclose how many Hamas activists had been arrested last week, said one of the detainees had led security officials to a hideout near the border with Syria in northern Jordan where large quantities of weapons and rocket launchers had been found. Jordan said last week that rocket launchers and highly combustible explosives seized from a secret Hamas arms cache in the kingdom had been smuggled from Syria, where the Palestinian militant groups' exiled leadership is based.
Hamas denied the accusations, saying it has never targeted Jordan or any country other than Israel.
U.S. ally Jordan has over the years accused Damascus-based radical Palestinian groups opposed to Middle East peacemaking of either plotting attacks inside the kingdom or trying to smuggle arms to launch attacks against Israel from its territory.
A security official told Reuters that while they were concerned the activists and the smuggled weapons had come from Syria there was no proof that Damascus condoned such activities.
Hamas leaders have had a rocky relationship over the years with Amman, which signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994 and has strong security cooperation with its western neighbor. Jordanian officials privately support U.S.-led efforts to isolate the Hamas government diplomatically and financially unless it embraces Middle East peacemaking.
Hamas's politburo chief Khaled Meshaal, a Jordanian citizen, was expelled in 1999 along with other leaders after a crackdown on the group following accusations of illegal activities.
Meshaal who is the overall leader of the group along with leading Jordanian members have been based in Syria since he was forced to leave Jordan. The militant group has a large following in refugee camps across Jordan, a country which hosts the largest number of Palestinian refugees outside the West Bank and Gaza.

UN team interviews Assad over Hariri killing
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis- DAMASCUS (Reuters) - United Nations investigator Serge Brammertz interviewed President Bashar al-Assad on Tuesday over Syria's alleged role in the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, UN officials said. The meeting was the first between UN investigators and the Syrian leader since the UN inquiry opened last June into the killing of Hariri and 22 others by a lorry bomb in February 2005. There was no immediate news of how the interview had gone. "Two separate meetings took place, one with President Bashar al-Assad and one with Vice President Farouq al-Shara," a UN spokeswoman in Beirut said.
Syria has been gripped by economic and political uncertainty since a UN report last year by Brammertz's predecessor, Detlev Mehlis, implicated senior Syrian security officials in Hariri's killing and said Syria was impeding the inquiry.
Syria has denied involvement, and a follow-up report by Brammertz in March said groundwork had been laid for better co-operation, though it did not clear the Syrian authorities.
Western diplomats in Damascus said there was no direct evidence implicating Assad, and that by meeting Brammertz he was signalling a willingness to co-operate. But one diplomat said he doubted the talks would shed much light on the killing.
Assad has said that any Syrian official found to have been involved in the assassination will be tried by the Syrian legal system for treason. Anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians say that under Syria's strict top-down system of government, there could not have been Syrian involvement in the killing without Assad's knowledge.
SINISTER IMAGE
Ibrahim al-Daraji, a law professor at Damascus University, said the meeting with Brammertz, a Belgian prosecutor, would help dispel a sinister image of Syrian rulers spread by enemies. "The fact that Brammertz is here shows that Syria has no problem in seeking the truth about the Hariri killing and co-operating with the inquiry," Daraji said. "The technical and political standards governing the interviews remain a secret, but it is understood that Syrian sovereignty will be respected."
Daraji said Assad had been expected to deny vehemently that he had threatened Hariri during a meeting on August 26, 2004, in Damascus in which the extension of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud's term in office was discussed.
"The president said publicly this was not true. It is simply not in his nature to threaten anyone," Daraji said.
Abdel-Halim Khaddam, a former vice president who defected to Paris last year, has accused Assad of threatening Hariri and of involvement in his murder. Before his departure, Khaddam was a pillar of the political system. Hariri's killing sparked anti-Syrian protests in Beirut and generated international pressure that eventually forced Syria to pull its troops out of Lebanon after 29 years. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is trying to establish an international tribunal that would probably be based outside Lebanon to try suspects in the killing. Four senior Lebanese security officials who were close to Syria were removed from their positions and detained last year in connection with the murder.
(Additional reporting by Lin Noueihed in Beirut)

Al-Qaeda jihad vs US 'long war'
Analysis- By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs Correspondent, BBC News website
Osama Bin Laden. The tactics of jihad...
Monday's bombings in Egypt fit in with the philosophy of war laid out in a 7,000 word document by Osama Bin Laden which appeared recently in the form of an audio tape. And in turn, the tape came within weeks of the publication in February of the Pentagon's "Quadrennial Defence Review" which stated: "The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war."
We therefore now have two almost simultaneous documents from the leading forces in the war and they are worth comparing.
There will be those who say that any comparison is odious but no professional intelligence officer I know would allow emotion to obscure analysis and it is on that basis that I proceed. The most striking thing about the Bin Laden statement is its wide ranging nature. One counterterrorism commentator, Walid Phares, of the Florida Atlantic University called it a "state of the jihad address".
The struggles
The al-Qaeda leader lists about 20 struggles worldwide. It is important to know what they are. Among his declarations:
There can be no apology for the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, which he dwells on at length. Instead he says those "responsible" must be punished and he leaves no doubt as to what that should be
The West is at war with "our nation", defined as Islam as a whole, which amounts to a "crusade"
The West's hostility towards Hamas is evidence of this crusade
The UN Security Council is a "crusader movement along with pagan Buddhism". The Buddhists are represented by China in his view
Islamic fighters should resist any attempt by the West to cut Darfur off from the rest of Sudan. He rejects the settlement with the South
Iraq is the central struggle. "The epicentre of these wars and attacks is Baghdad"
The fight in Iraq is a "crusader-Zionist war against Muslims". So, too, are or were the conflicts in Bosnia, Chechnya, East Timor, Somalia and Kashmir
He attacks France for banning the headscarf in school and the writer Salman Rushdie is still "the infidel" He calls for the death of "Bush's lackey in Pakistan", meaning President Pervez Musharraf
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is responsible for "submissiveness and humiliation" The global war is not a clash of civilisations but an attack "by their civilisation against our civilisation"
He condemns the use of Nato troops in Afghanistan The people in the West are as guilty as their leaders. "War is a common responsibility among people and government"
No dialogue is now possible with the West as it rejected his own offer of a truce "after the withdrawal of their armies" Thus, Osama Bin Laden's manifesto.
He does not incidentally mention Egypt but has no real need to since Egypt has always been a battlefield for al-Qaeda. It is evident that Bin Laden has lost none of his determination in the years since 11 September 2001 ("the Manhattan conquest"). His manifesto is characterised by absolutism. Even the fight in Iraq is pitched in terms of protecting "monotheism", which is an implied rejection of the Iraqi majority, the Shias, according to Islamic scholars.
Whether his gathering in of just about every known conflict involving Muslims is a sign of his strength or a sign that he is trying to raise morale in sometimes weakened forces remains to be seen. But his ambition remains undiminished.
The Pentagon approach Against this, the Pentagon is preparing its own plans.
These were partly revealed in the four-yearly document it is required to produce looking ahead towards the next 20 years. The new document gives it own definition of the struggle and it is also couched in global terms.
...against the long war of Donald Rumsfeld
"Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, our nation has fought a global war against violent extremists who use terrorism as their weapon of choice and who seek to destroy our free way of life. "Our enemies seek weapons of mass destruction and, if they are successful, will likely attempt to use them in their conflict with free people everywhere. Currently, the struggle is centred in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we will need to be prepared and arranged to successfully defend our nation and its interests around the globe for years to come."
In his usual blunt style, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says in an introduction: "Now in the fifth year of this global war, the ideas and proposals in this document are provided as a road map for change, leading to victory."
The main points
The ideas and proposals are then listed in general terms. The principle is to make the US armed forces more flexible and to shift the emphasis:
From a peacetime tempo - to a wartime sense of urgency From a time of reasonable predictability - to an era of surprise and uncertainty From single-focused threats - to complex challenges From nation-state threats - to decentralised network threats From conducting war against nations - to conducting war in countries we are not at war with (safe havens)
From large institutional forces (tail) - to more powerful operational capabilities (teeth).
There is a lot more like this in the 92 page document. The practical effects are going to be an increase in Special Forces and more US forces stationed in perhaps smaller groups around the world, sometimes clandestinely and even without the knowledge of local US diplomats. There will be more unmanned drones. There will even be special teams trained to disarm nuclear weapons. The threat of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction is partly what lies behind the overall commitment.
Critics are already saying that the Pentagon will no doubt also demand the big ticket items like new jet fighters and heavy equipment for the army. But the thinking behind the review is to configure forces to better prevent or counter the kind of surprise attacks launched by al-Qaeda and its network of networks.
What the review does not get into, because it is not meant to, is the place that military tactics occupy in the wider strategy in such a long war. The document does allude to this at the end by stating: "The United States will not win the war on terrorism... by military means... simultaneous, effective interaction with civilian populations will be essential to achieve success."
And of course the lesson from the Cold War is that it was not won by military means, though military strength certainly played a key role. It was won by one system collapsing.
**Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Syria to admit nearly 200 Palestinians stranded on the Iraq-Jordan border
25 Apr 2006
GENEVA, Apr 25 (UNHCR) – The UN refugee agency has welcomed an announcement by the government of Syria to admit 181 Palestinians who fled Baghdad in terror following death threats in mid-March. Since that time they have been stranded on the Iraq-Jordan border, surviving in a makeshift camp, with supplies of food, water and other relief items provided by UNHCR and non-governmental organizations. "We have been trying to find various solutions for these Palestinians and are now very grateful that the Syrian government is offering a solution to this group," said Radhouane Nouicer, UNHCR's regional deputy director in Geneva. The group will be accepted into Syria under the auspices of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the organization set up to help Palestinians in the Near East. "We are in close contact with UNRWA which is responsible for Palestinians in Syria, and we are ready to offer assistance where needed."
There are an estimated 34,000 Palestinians in Iraq, of whom 23,000 are registered with UNHCR in Baghdad. Palestinian refugees came to Iraq in three main waves – in 1948, in 1967 and in 1991. Under Saddam Hussein's regime, they were provided with protection and assistance and enjoyed a relatively high standard of treatment that some segments of the Iraqi population now consider unfair.
Having faced death threats, intimidation and kidnapping in recent months, an initial group of 89 Palestinians arrived at the border on 19 March to find access into Jordan denied. The group, which was later joined by 93 more people, has camped at the Trebil border crossing ever since.
"We are presently in touch with all concerned parties trying to support a smooth and quick transfer of the group of 181 to Syria," said Nouicer. News of the announcement from Syria has led to more Palestinians fleeing Baghdad to the border in the hope that they too will be allowed entry. "But," Nouicer added, "So far we have not been informed that additional groups of Palestinians will be accepted into the country."
Late on Saturday night, a bus carrying 50 Palestinians arrived at the Iraq-Jordan border. Iraqi border authorities did not initially allow them to join the group of 181 already camped there. When the weather worsened, however, the 34 women and children on the bus were allowed to temporarily shelter in the makeshift camp, while the men were moved to a site further away but still in the border area. "Over the past two days, our staff in Jordan and Iraq have made every effort to allow the new arrivals to officially join the other group, but have been unsuccessful so far," UNHCR spokesman William Spindler told journalists at a regular briefing in Geneva. "We have been told by border officials that they had not received any official information regarding the admission of additional people into Syria. "The situation inside the Trebil border camp is getting more and more difficult," Spindler continued. "Over the weekend, strong winds and dust storms blew away several tents and temporary infrastructure, such as latrines, and caused heavy damage to the camp."Spindler added that UNHCR was continuing to work with the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) and the Iraqi authorities to improve the security situation and enhance the protection of the Palestinians in the capital.

Nasrallah says Israel will soon release el-Kunter
By JPOST.COM STAFF-Apr. 25, 2006 9:39
Hizbullah terrorist Samir el-Kunter, imprisoned in Israel, will soon be released, Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said Tuesday in a speech marking 28 years since Kunter was jailed. Nasrallah added that his organization would consider discussing its arms policy druing the international dialogue taking place in Lebanon. Nasrallah also stated that not all Lebanese approve of redrawing the border in the Shaba Farm area, Israel Radio reported.