LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
October 15/06
Biblical Reading For today
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 11,27-28.
While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed."He replied, "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."
Latest New from miscellaneous sources for October 15/06
U.N. adopts resolution against N. Korea-AP
European Union Condemns French Bill-All Headline News
Mubarak sends message to Syria's Assad-Raw Story
Shadid succeeds Abboud-Kuwait Times
French Official: U.N. Security Council to Settle Issue of Israeli Violations of Lebanese Airspace-Naharnet
Saniora: $53,000 in Compensation to Families of Beirut's Southern Suburbs-Naharnet
Berri Optimistic About Resumption of Dialogue-Naharnet
Aoun Has Met Nasrallah, Willing to 'Sit Together' with Hariri-NaharnetBerri Optimistic About Resumption of Dialogue-Naharnet
IRAN: KHAMENEI PRAISES HEZBOLLAH, WARNS FOREIGN TROOPS IN LEBANON-AKI
Mexico probes possible Hezbollah financing links-Reuters
Bush And Burns On Iran's Threat-Voice of America
Mr. Ignatieff's remarks-Globe and Mail - Canada
Sydney memorial held for victims of Lebanon war-ABC Online
Lebanon faces daunting challenges-Peninsula On-line
Lebanon minister threatens Israeli planes-United Press International
Talk to Iran and Syria-Times Online
Bush signs law on North Korea nonproliferation-Reuters
Palestinian interior minister arrives in Syria for talks -International Herald Tribune
Iraqis 'fleeing rising violence'-BBC News
Hamas leader in Syria says not to recognize Israel-People's Daily Online
Israel kills six Hamas militants-BBC News
Ignatieff set to visit Israel-Toronto Star
Press Release from the Canadian Lebanese Coordinating Council (LCCC)
For Immediate Release
October 13 anniversary: The Lebanese People will never forget the sacrifices of their martyrs, nor the transgressions of those leaders who changed their skin and backed on all promises, covenants and platforms
On this 16th anniversary of the terrible massacre committed on October 13, 1990 by the Syrian Baath regime along with Lebanese, regional, fundamentalist, and terrorist forces, the Lebanese Canadian Coordination Council (LCCC) bows in respect and tribute to the souls of the martyrs of the Cedars nation, military, civilian, and men of religion alike, and to the thousands of handicapped and injured. We raise our prayers humbly to Almighty God asking him with the benevolence of Lebanon’s saints Charbel, Rafqa, and Hardini, to have mercy on the souls of all those who died in the field of duty. And to nurse the wounds of all sufferers, and for the return of those forcefully displaced from their homes.
The LCCC calls for the uncovering of the fate of all missing and kidnapped Lebanese citizens detained arbitrarily without any due process in Syrian prisons. For years, Syrian Baath authorities have denied the detainees' existence and refused to give access to the Red Cross to their notorious jails. This same criminal stance of denial was, and still is, adopted by Lebanese officials, politicians, and warlords from the Syrian occupation era.
What is sad and shocking in the midst of this ongoing human rights dilemma is the recent position of General Michel Aoun, the Free Patriotic Movement leader, who for sixteen years was advocating staunchly for the release of these detainees. The General has recently adopted the stance of the Syrian authorities and their Lebanese politician and warlord allies. In a recent TV interview, Aoun has publicly denied the presence of any of his followers and party members in the Syrian jails. His shocking position has raised many bewildering questions and left a sense of disappointment in regards to what many Lebanese believe has to do with Aoun's ambition to be Lebanon's next president at any cost. This outright abandonment could be further understood in Aoun's newly forged alliance with Hezbollah, with Lebanon's Syrian-appointed president General Lahoud, the Lebanese Baathist party allied with Syria, and with the rest of the Lebanese politicians and parties that remain fully loyal to the Syrian Baath regime.
Lebanon, the nation that gave the Alphabet and the science of navigation to the world, and which remained steadfast valiantly and with dignity for 7,000 years, is a nation of sacrifices, eternity, and holiness. This nation is proud of the will of liberation and peaceful resistance, which the Syrian occupation failed to snuff out, and of the great sacrifices offered by its free people during those dark long years. This will to freedom was displayed again in the Cedars Revolution of March 14, 2005 in a popular expression never before seen in Lebanon’s history.
We salute our heroic martyrs and all the Free Lebanese who fell in defense of honor, sovereignty, and freedom. Meanwhile, we feel sorry for those leaders, politicians and parties who retreated from eighteen years of promises, covenants and national convictions, and abandoned Lebanon's righteous and just cause of sovereignty, freedom and independence. It is sad that they changed their positions with unconvincing rationale and excuses. There is no doubt that they will be exposed sooner or later, and then there will be tears and gnashing of teeth.
Elias Bejjani/LCCC ChairmanToni Mouanis/LCCC Coordinator
Background
On October 13, 1990 the Syrian Army savagely invaded the last remaining free regions of Lebanon, killed and mutilated hundreds of Lebanese soldiers and innocent citizens in cold blooded murder, kidnapped tens of soldiers, officers, clergymen, politicians and citizens, sent the legitimate government into exile and erected a subservient and puppet government. Since then, the Lebanese people commemorate the painful event each year on October 13.
Mubarak sends message to Syria's Assad
dpa German Press Agency
Published: Saturday October 14, 2006Damascus- Syrian President Bashar Assad received a letter from his Egyptian counterpart Hosni Mubarak dealing with "developments in the region," Syria's official news agency SANA reported. The report said that Assad received Omar Suleiman, the head of Egyptian intelligence, who delivered the
letter from Mubarak which dealt with "bilateral relations and the developments in the region."
Shadid succeeds Abboud
AP/BEIRUT: Lebanon named a veteran diplomat as ambassador to the United States yesterday, replacing an envoy the country's anti-Syrian parliamentary majority had been trying to oust. Antoine Shadid will succeed Farid Abboud, who served as Lebanon's ambassador to Washington for eight years, according to a Cabinet decision made Thursday and announced yesterday. Abboud was appointed as ambassador to Tunisia. The replacement was part of a package of 58 diplomatic appointments published in local newspapers yesterday. The diplomatic appointments- especially to the United States, France, Britain and the United Nations- had been held up by differences among the country's top leaders and also by political upheaval that followed the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Before his death, Hariri was locked in a power struggle with the pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud.
A day after the Israel-Hezbollah war began, the Cabinet recalled Abboud, a close ally of Lahoud, for suggesting that Israel and the guerrilla group negotiate a prisoner exchange. Abboud was accused of violating government policy by making "irresponsible statements" in Washington. The government has tried to distance itself from Hezbollah after the group snatched two Israeli soldiers on July 12, prompting a massive Israeli air, land and sea bombardment of the country. The 34-day war, which destroyed much of Lebanon's infrastructure as well as Hezbollah strongholds, ended with a UN-brokered cease-fire resolution on Aug 14. Abboud, speaking on CNN on July 12, called for a prisoner swap involving the two Israeli soldiers and Arab prisoners held by Israel, and for Israel's withdrawal from Lebanese territory.
On the day the two Israeli soldiers were captured, the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, dominated by anti-Syrian politicians, said it had no prior knowledge of the Hezbollah operation, did not condone it and bore no responsibility for it. The government includes two ministers from Hezbollah. The anti-Syrian majority has long waged a campaign to remove Abboud for being Lahoud's ally. Lahoud is boycotted by the United States and Western powers, who say the extension of his mandate under Syrian pressure in 2004 was improper. Shadid, who holds a law degree from the Jesuit St Joseph University in Beirut, was first assigned as a diplomat at the Lebanese Embassy in Washington in 1978. Later, he was appointed a general consul in Los Angeles. He returned to Beirut in 1981 to work as director of the Lebanese-American relations office at the Foreign Ministry. From 1989 to 1991, Shadid worked as a presidential adviser on American issues. He served as a general consul in New York from 1991 to 1993, and as ambassador to Greece from 1998 to 2001. Since 2001, Shadid has served as director of international organizations and cultural relations at the Foreign Ministry until his appointment as ambassador in Washington. - AP
Exclusive: S. Lebanon’s largest town, Sidon, is taken over as Russian-Syrian spy base and Hizballah stronghold
DEBKAfile/October 14, 2006- The two Russian Chechen GRU platoons, Vostok and Zapad, revealed by DEBKAfile Oct. 6 as being deployed in S. Lebanon, are setting up their headquarters and surveillance posts in the Lebanese port of Sidon and giving Syrian intelligence a window on their input. Syria is drumming up local support in the strategic port-town, the largest in S. Lebanon, by pumping weapons to local branches of the two Shiite groups, Hizballah and Amal, and the two pro-Syrian clans which dominate the town. (This was first revealed in DEBKA-Net-Weekly 272 of Oct. 6.)
The carve-up of South Lebanon since Israeli troops pulled out is unfolding as follows: The UN force mandated by UN Security Council resolution 1701 is centered in the Tyre region, whereas Hizballah, Syria’s supporters and the Russian intelligence platoons have taken control of Sidon further up the Mediterranean coast. The three elements are ideally positioned for Hizballah to control the south Lebanese coastal region and for the Russians and Syrians to keep track of the military movements of the Israeli army, UNIFIL and the European naval units off the Lebanese shore.
Senior Israeli officers told DEBKAfile that the takeover of parts of Sidon by Hizballah and Syrian intelligence - plus a Russian intelligence presence – places the security of northern Israel in extreme danger.
After lagging behind Hizballah for years, Amal, the Shiite movement headed by the Lebanese parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, is now being rewarded for backing Hizballah in the war with new weapons and training by Syrian and Iranian instructors in civilian dress. Arms are also being lavished on the powerful and wealthy South Lebanese Bizeri and Saad clans which oppose the anti-Syrian Saad Hariri, whose father Rafiq Hariri was murdered in February 2005. Hizballah’s domination of Sidon, backed up by Russian and Syrian intelligence, is a blow which virtually wipes out any advantages Israel gained from the Lebanon war. It transforms UNIFIL and the Lebanese army into a buffer that sterilizes the Syrian-Russian effort to rebuild Hizballah’s military strength and intelligence capabilities. What is most astonishing is the Israeli government and army’s passivity in the face of this gathering security deterioration which adds up to several blatant violations of the letter and spirit of Resolution 1701.
Aoun Has Met Nasrallah, Willing to 'Sit Together' with Hariri, Jumblat
Gen. Michel Aoun disclosed in an interview published Saturday that he has met Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah right after the end of Israel's summer aggression on Lebanon. He described the meeting as "not ordinary" and "very warm, particularly because there is a special sentiment between him (Nasrallah) and I." But Aoun did not say where he met Nasrallah or what they have discussed. Nasrallah has gone into hiding since the Israel-Hizbullah war that was sparked on July 12 by the group's kidnapping of two soldiers in a deadly cross-border raid. But the Hizbullah Secretary General has only once appeared in public at a "divine victory rally" in Beirut's southern suburbs last month. Aoun's remarks came in an interview with As-Safir daily published Saturday. On his opinion of a national dialogue, Aoun said that there were two forces pulling the country in different directions.
"A popular force that enjoys vivid strength and determination to rebuild the country; and a political force which still dominates the Lebanese decision-making," he explained, in a clear reference to the March 14 Forces from one side, and Hizbullah and Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement on the other.
However the former army general expressed willingness to "sit together … unconditionally" with parliament's majority leader Saad Hariri and Druze chieftain Walid Jumblat, Aoun's major foes. Aoun also slammed the Taef accord which has put an end to the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war, accusing it of trimming the Christians. "That (Taef) accord had margined half the Lebanese, which means it had margined all the Christians; and we will not accept to remain margined," Aoun said. Aoun was skeptic about taking part in a national unity government, "because by the mere participation in such a government I will be inheriting 15 previous yeas that have led to all the collapse."
Aoun and Nasrallah have been repeatedly calling for the resignation of Premier Fouad Saniora's government and the formation of a national unity government. In a separate interview with the New TV news channel, Aoun adopted Syrian President Bashar Assad's repeated declarations that an international tribunal in the assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri was "premature."
Aoun, who was defeated by Syrian and allied Lebanese forces in October 1990 and forced into exile, dismissed as "inappropriate" to maintain "hostile attitudes" towards Damascus following the withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon in April 2005.
Aoun discarded as "irresponsible" the vehement head-on with Syria, which is being accused of involvement in Hariri's murder and the ensuing bombing attacks which targeted leading figures of the March 14 Forces.
Aoun will hold a rally on Sunday to commemorate the 16th anniversary of the victims of the 1990 Syrian onslaught on Lebanon. Hundreds of Lebanese were harshly arrested and taken to Syrian jails. The whereabouts and fate of many of them remain unknown.
The retired general hit back at Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir who has voiced fears of a Christian rift, saying: "there is no consensus in democracy. There is a minority and a majority. Hence, there is no crisis in the Christian status."
Aoun's evening remarks came after a pledge by Sfeir to all the Lebanese, particularly the Christians, "to go back to your originality," calling on them to join forces and work hand-in-hand "to lift up your country from this dilemma." In his Friday's speech at Bkirki, the seat of the Maronite Catholics, Sfeir expressed distress over the Christian split in Lebanon "into diverse groups."
Tehran Arms Hamas for a Double-Barreled War Option and Gaza as Second Lebanon
DEBKAfile Special Military Report
October 13, 2006,
The military pacts Palestinian Hamas interior minister Said Siyam signed with his Iranian counterpart Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi in Tehran on Oct. 12 are designed to transform Hamas’ military wing, the Ezz e-Din al Qassam, into a crack operational arm of the Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, and Gaza into a second Lebanon. Syam was in Tehran for two days at the head of a 7-man delegation. DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report Tehran has committed to training Hamas’ rapid deployment force of 6,500 men in Hizballah combat tactics, with the accent on missiles, especially the anti-tank variety which were used with devastating effect against Israeli tanks in the Lebanon War. The force will be sent over in batches for six-week courses at Revolutionary Guards installations in southern Iran. Iran will foot the $60 million bill for the training as well as for the top-notch weaponry. The Hamas military delegation flew from Cairo to Dubai and on to Tehran. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and intelligence chief, Gen. Omar Suleiman, were apprised of the Hamas leaders’ trip and the military accords they were to sign, but did nothing to detain the travelers. This was taken by Hamas and the Iranian government as signaling Cairo’s assent to the Hamas-Iranian transaction, a green light for the trips through Egypt of trainee groups to and from Iran and a continuing blind eye to the delivery of Iranian armaments via Egypt to Gaza.
Egypt is thus assuming the same role In relation to Tehran and its terrorist proxies as does Syria, which places its airfields at Iran’s disposal for delivering arms to Hizballah. The accords merely formalize Tehran’s massive arming of Hamas which is already in progress. Smuggling tunnels from Egyptian Sinai under the Philadelphi border strip are the conduits into S. Gaza for supplies of long-range anti-tank missiles, Grad rockets and some two tons of TNT every month. Israeli forces have been battling the Hamas and its supply routes for the last three days. According to our intelligence and Iranian sources, the pacts that were signed were compiled in September down to the last detail by three Revolutionary Guards generals stationed in Syria since the Lebanon war, as Hizballah’s forward command, and the Damascus-based Hamas politburo head, Khaled Meshaal. Hamas’ military wing is accordingly undergoing a process that within months will transform the Palestinian terrorist group into one of Tehran’s overseas operational military arms, the second after Hizballah in Lebanon.
This will enable the Islamic Republic to ignite two simultaneous wars against Israel – from Gaza in the south and from Lebanon in the north.
This development is the direct consequence of this summer’s Lebanon War. It was made possible by Israel’s evacuation of the Gaza Strip in September 2005. The Gaza maneuver shows Iran’s rulers striking with speed, efficiency and ruthlessness in their determination to isolate the Jewish state and draw a military noose around its borders. Instead of resistance, they encounter inertia on the part of Israel’s political and military leaders. Prime minister Ehud Olmert has eyes for nothing but broadening the base of his government coalition. He has offered to create for Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the (Russian immigrant) party Israel Beitenu, the new post of Deputy Prime minister for Strategic Threats. Defense minister Amir Peretz thinks it is more important to prepare the armed forces for the evacuation of unauthorized West Bank settlements than for the next war. By the time they find a moment from these preoccupations, they will find Iran, Syria and Hamas have perfected a real strategic threat. By then it will be too late to repel except by a major campaign to recapture the Gaza Strip and crush the Hizballah-style force threatening southern Israel.
This campaign may be even tougher than the Lebanon war because it will have to be fought mainly in densely built-up areas against a staggering volume of war materiel. But Tehran will win the chance of repeating its successful ruse of July and August, 2006: Whenever the UN Security Council comes close to a sanctions debate, an Iranian surrogate is sent into action to start a new Middle East war. Now, the Iranians have bought themselves the option of a double-barreled offensive from two of Israel’s borders.
Finally someone SAYING IT loud what people really think.
Dear All, As you know May Chidiac our LBC reporter was hit by a car explosion back in sep. 2005.
She was considered a martyr and with the help of Prince Waleed Bin Talal she was treated back in Paris where she had prosthesis done. Personally I never liked her for her political opinion.. But this time her interview in Paris Match shocked the country.
Below is someone who dared to send her his opinion regarding this scandal. RECEIVED THIS FROM AN UNKNOWN SENDER. IT MAY BE OF Letter to May Chidiac September 23, 2006by Carla Faissal Sabbagh Dearest May, It is with a lot of disappointment and anger that I find my-self writing to you this letter; but I guess things are getting beyond what is humanly and ethically accepted. I have been watching your program on LBC almost every week. I had my concerns and personal opinion but still, I could understand your biased position towards some political views,
(although I strongly believe that professional talk shows should be unbiased by nature), and chose not to watch it as I personally do not agree with such a direction. But what really pushed me to write this letter is the last interview you had with the French magazine Paris Match. I truly understand your concern regarding the infrastructure in Lebanon that resulted from the last war on Lebanon in July 2006. I also understand your anger regarding all the destruction. I can also admit that Hezbollah did a calculation mistake regarding the operation done on July 12.
However, what I cannot understand, what I totally refuse and get ashamed of as a Lebanese citizen,
is that you gave comments that could fill 2 full pages in a magazine,
criticizing a Lebanese party from our country which was in fact initially enhanced and supported by our own government. You expressed your anger towards Hezbollah, which is understandable in a democratic country. But not ONE word concerning the atrocities committed by Israel against our country? Not one word on more than 1000 citizens dying in what can be easily called a genocide? Not one finger pointed against a country who massacred innocent children in the South, or any word regarding illegal gas bombs used on our people? I haven't seen one concern regarding the pollution that the Israeli boats deliberately caused to our Mediterranean Sea.
Not one thought regarding the villages that were encircled and blocked to make the Lebanese people starve from scarcity of food and basic needs.
Not one line to express regret concerning babies who had to survive without milk,
and mothers who were feeding them with water and sugar or the old women who were gathering leaves from the trees to make food out of them for their families. What do you think of Human Rights? Did it occur to you that this is more important to mention then criticizing people resisting? I completely understand the fact that you could be against Hezbollah's political views,
but the idea of insulting a Lebanese party in a French magazine and disregarding all the crimes against humanity caused by Israel is not only unacceptable, it is revolting! On top of all that, you mention St Charbel and your devotion to Christianity. Well I am a Christian too and I know what Christianity stands for. It is by all means Love, Loyalty, Compassion and Forgiveness. Do you feel you are an example of any of those values in this interview? Do you think Lebanese Christians are proud to read this article? How would you feel if you were in those people's shoes? You had your share of violence and tragedy. Don't you think you among all others could understand better? Who is the enemy here? Hezbollah or Israel? Why don't we say it out loud? Why don't we tell the world what Israel did to us? All you mention is that the country is destroyed and nag about a couple of bridges.
Who destroyed the country? Was it Hezbollah? Who conducted war on our soil? You are asking what Hezbollah is trying to prove.
Why not ask what is Israel trying to prove? Why do we have to always behave like traitors?
Why do we always stand against each other instead of standing against the intruder? And who defended our dignity and raison d'etre? Why should it be Hezbollah? Why can't it be the Christian media people like yourself? Why should I be ashamed to be a Christian in a country where Christians became nothing but followers? Why is it so hard to grasp that any foreign offence against ANY particular party, is an offence against our Nation? Why did it take some of us 30 years to finally consider Syria an enemy? Is History repeating itself? I am sorry to say this, but we are fed up with media propaganda. Your article is an insult to the Lebanese people, specially the Christians. We are fed up with showing the world a Lebanon that is never united. Where is our national dignity? What is the real problem here: that Hezbollah initiated all this (like you said in PM), or that Israel is attacking our fellow citizens and children? Why showing to the outside world your personal unconcern with other Lebanese people's resistance instead of shouting out loud that Israel has been attacking them for more than 35 years? Why don't you mention that your own government did nothing to build a powerful and solid Army during decades instead of raising taxes and fulfilling personal interests of men in power at the expense of a poor immigrating population? I hope that your TV Show "Bi Kill Jerka", can be really daring by exposing ALL points of view without taking any sides, and at least not the FL side,
which does NOT represent the Christians' point of view, at least not the majority. You have to be sure of that. Your article in Paris Match is a shame as it presents Hezbollah as the main enemy of Lebanon, while the real enemy has destroyed the infrastructure and children of the nation you say you adore.
I would like to finish this letter by reminding you, Mrs. Chidiac that when tragedy hit you, all these people that you are denying, stood by you, supported you and prayed for you. It is terribly sad to realize that when evil hit them, you disregarded them. You didn't even mentioned them, as if they are not human beings; as if they are not Lebanese; because believe it or not Hezbollah members are Lebanese;
as if Lebanon should only be a place for Machiavellic corruption, personal interests, and where the law of the jungle is the only one prevailing. I don't think St Charbel is very happy with that. Share your special moments by uploading 500 photos per month to Windows Live Spaces Share it!
The Nuclear Crisis with Korea and Iran: A Test for Washington's Relations with Moscow and Beijing
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 13/10/06//
New York - The North Korean and Iranian files overlap in the Chinese-Russian-US-British-French negotiations. The US administration hopes collective work will prove fruitful in confronting the two members of the 'axis of evil', since it has been crippled by its unilateral action in Iraq, making it contingent to the Chinese-Russian influence over Tehran and Pyongyang.
Currently, the US is satisfied with the embarrassment North Korea caused to China, which led the latter to agree in principle to discuss sanctions, but without further details. The US administration now seeks to work with China and Russia to define the nature of sanctions on Iran, after the latter rejected the incentives package, and in implementation of a Chinese-Russian pledge to back the sanctions option if the incentive package failed.
Stick or carrot, punitive and collective isolation measures come in direct conflict with the agendas of nations targeted by these measures. These nations calculate to buy time, during which they could evade accountability and keep the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) off its nuclear facilities. This seems to be the case with North Korea and Iran, currently manipulating and playing 'catch me who can' with the international community. In this, they enjoy a degree of Chinese-Russian protection against serious and harmful punitive measures by the UN Security Council.
The opportunity to manipulate, however, is further narrowing as the Chinese and Russian disapprove Tehran and Pyongyang's behavior of taking their protection for granted and unconditional under any circumstances.
Therefore, the coming stage of strategic debate among the five permanent members of the Security Council deserves close monitoring and might either lead to a confrontation or new understandings among members.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush's administration is divided over method and content; with one side calling for a diplomatic and political showdown with China and Russia on the Iranian and North Korean issues, and the other seeking to bolster collective work, albeit, gradually and slowly.
The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, belongs to the 'confrontation' camp. He was responsible for turning a political speech last week into a media debate on North Korea's 'protectors' in the Security Council. He was referring to Russia and China. This made his Chinese counterpart, Wang Guangya, look rather angry. The Chinese ambassador objected to the use of 'protectors' to describe North Korea's encouraged act of defiance.
That was last week, before North Korea declared it had conducted a nuclear test, which came as a slap in the face of China.
Following the Security Council's emergency session, held upon a US request, Bolton came out of the meeting to announce before the press that he did not see any protector in the room that day. Furthermore, Bolton saw the defiance of North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong Il, as almost a gift. It confirmed the necessity of the US ambassador's approach in taking a firm stance by applying sanctions, using the 'stick' and doing away with the 'carrot' and incentives package. He also found in this defiance a catalyst for exploiting the North Korean adventure by moving the Iranian file forward toward sanctions.
For his part, Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns does not see eye to eye with John Bolton. Burns prefers the strategy of collective work with China and Russia, to influence, although gradually, North Korea and Iran.
Burns' reasoning is that the North Korean developments are an opportunity for the US to step back, take a bird's eye view of its policies in Northeast Asia, and to work with Moscow and Beijing. He insists that George W. Bush is committed to diplomacy and the resumption of the six-party negotiations by the UN, the US, Russia, Japan, and South and North Korea. However, he calls for addressing the issue of the punitive stage first.
As for Iran, Burns declares that the incentives package will remain on the table, but that the US now has to move in the direction of imposing sanctions in response to Iran's rejection of the package, which made the movement toward outlining a draft resolution on sanctions necessary.
These statements seem to suggest that Burns is counting on Russia and China's commitments, secured by the US during the latest rounds of talks, to back a sanctions resolution in accordance with Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. According to Burns, however, the commitment does not address the nature, depth or breadth of sanctions, but only the principle.
The US administration is convinced that the North Korean developments will assist in shoring up unity among the five Security Council members. The US is adopting the strategy of calling for moving the two files forward, first the North Korean, and then the Iranian. Burns' argument for that strategy suggests that the "diplomatic shrewdness" attributed to Iran is a myth, considering the fact that it failed to sow division between Russia and the Europeans.
It is important to note, however, that the US administration appears to be willing to admit the shortcomings that were the reason for launching a media station in Dubai in order to better understand Iran. According to Burns, this station will serve ass a direct, albeit, unofficial communication channel to expand the scope of communication, listen to the Iranians and learn the Persian language and discourse.
This comes amid a quasi awakening since a quarter of a century ago, when US-Iranian relations were severed, and since a US diplomat or expert serving in Teheran was able to proclaim: 'I know Iran well'. This shortcoming prompted the State Department, under Condoleezza Rice, to decide to simultaneously communicate with the official Iran as well as the Iranian opposition. This approach has convinced many form the Iranian opposition that they are dispensable as soon as the "communication" with the Iranian government is reached and the ties are established and an understanding is reached over all the issues.As for the question of "isolation", the opinion of the US administration suggests duality and many contradictions. Iran rejects even the mere 'suspension' of uranium enrichment activities in exchange for an incentives package offered by the US and the rest of the Security Council permanent members and Germany.
At the same time, and according to the US administration, Iran is the leader of the 'axis of evil' which includes Syria and the terrorist organizations, which are financed by Iran. If the trail of the terrorists' financing leads to Iran's door step, why did Washington offer it a package to encourage it to simply suspend enrichment in exchange for a reward, while the US unequivocally claims it is not fostering any relations with those involved in terrorism?
According to the Department of State, Iran is actively involved in undermining stability in the region with the aim of destabilizing the regional and international balance of power in the area, thereby threatening US interests. Iran, however, is suffering from serious isolation, not only from neighboring Arab countries, but also India and Brazil, as well as in the IAEA and in the Security Council, from China and Russia. Therefore, according to the US Department of State's understanding of the situation, Iran, dependent on neighboring and remote countries, maintains a strategy based on communication, rather than isolation.
Nevertheless, there was no response from Iran to Condoleezza Rice's offer - along with the five members of the Security Council and Germany - to sit and talk with the Iranian leadership. Washington interpreted the situation as a sign of an internal split. Nicholas Burns repeatedly said before the Council of Foreign Affairs in New York that Rice offered to personally sit at the negotiating table along with others to talk with Iran. He spoke as if this was Washington's most precious gift or bonus in the incentives package. Why, then, does Washington reject the idea of holding direct bilateral talks with the Iranian and North Korean leaderships, giving them the trump cards they need to hold the US responsible for foiling the chances for a more rational way to resolve conflicts? The answer may be that the Bush administration seeks a price for bilateral talks before they begin, that it views the talks as the most valuable trump card, and that it is not willing to waste them in political wrangling. The US is willing to resort to this card only in exchange for guaranteed dividends, and not as a mere incentive.
This gives rise to a question: do the Iranian and North Korean leaderships consider the bilateral talks with the US administration as being as important as a trump card? Or do they demand bilateral talks as a means of distraction? A second question follows: What are the bases for the assumption that China and Russia are willing to facilitate holding these talks if they possess the important keys? There is a certain degree of absurdity in how the US views bilateral dialogue with Tehran and Pyongyang. George W. Bush is expected to seek face-to-face talks without mediation, and unprotected and free from the influence of China and Russia, which favor Iran and North Korea. He is expected to seek bilateral talks and straight discussions, and even bargaining in regional issues in which Iran's influence extends from the Arabian Gulf to Lebanon, and from oil to terrorism.
The US president is expected to want his administration to determine the source and know the actual aims of North Korea and Iran right out of the horse's mouth. What holds Bush back from treading this path, however, is his fascination with the concept of the 'axis of evil', which struck him in a fleeting moment, even if that moment coincided with an idea and an expression that expressed his true sentiments at the time.
Bush, nonetheless, shows no regret for, or reconsideration of, his mistakes, nor has he publicly acknowledged them. Therefore, his administration confines itself to trying to patch something here and clean something there, rather than uphold a strategy based on the acknowledgment of the error of branding Baghdad, Tehran and Pyongyang as members of an 'axis of evil'.
What is more important is that there are no signs of a US strategy capable of seriously dealing with Russian and Chinese policies moving in the direction of placing their special relationship with Iran and North Korea above their ties with the US. This is true, even if that strategy was a tactical transitional phase of an operation to redefine the strategic positions of major powers competing for greatness. Washington may eventually be aware of the fact that its optimism is an illusion. Its reliance on its relations with Russia and China is based on the unanimous agreement over the Iranian and North Korean files, an agreement that may lead to changing the paths of these two States and to curbing their dangerous nuclear ambitions.
But the US may also take a risk, based on its assumption that Tehran's and Pyongyang's embarrassment of Moscow and Beijing would lead to a qualitative shift in strategic relations. The next two weeks are extremely important. They will give some indication whether understanding and bargaining among the world's powers is to be expected, or if wrangling over strategic positions and oil sources will shape relations, especially US-Chinese-Russian ties