LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 28/09
Bible Reading of the
day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 3,31-35. His mother and his
brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him. A crowd
seated around him told him, "Your mother and your brothers (and your sisters)
are outside asking for you."But he said to them in reply, "Who are my mother and
(my) brothers?" And looking around at those seated in the circle he said, "Here
are my mother and my brothers. (For) whoever does the will of God is my brother
and sister and mother."
Blessed Guerric of Igny (c.1080-1157, Cistercian abbot
2nd sermon for the Nativity of the Virgin, §3-4 (SC 166, p.227f. and Cistercian
Fathers series)
"Here are my mother and my brothers"
The Gospel is sent to us, in which a more beautiful portrait of Christ has been
revealed; the form, that is, of life and doctrine which he has passed on by his
teaching and shown in his own person by his example. To know Christ now in this
form is loving service for Christians... This is the reason why the apostle
Paul, knowing «the flesh profits nothing without the spirit which gives life» (Jn
6,63f.), repudiates any knowledge of Christ according to the flesh (2Cor 5,16).
He does so in order to give all his attention to the life-giving spirit 1Cor
15,45).
Mary seems to have understood this too. Wishing to introduce the Beloved of her
womb, the Beloved of her desires, into the affections of all her children, she
describes him not according to the flesh but according to the spirit as if she
too would say: "Even if I knew Christ according to the flesh, now I know him so
no longer" (2Cor 5,16). For she desires to form her Only-begotten in all her
sons by adoption. Although they have been brought to birth by the word of truth,
(Jas 1,18) nevertheless she brings them forth every day by desire and loyal care
until they reach «the stature of the perfect man, the maturity of her Son» (Eph
4,13), whom she bore and brought forth once and for all.
Commending therefore this fruit she says to us: "I am the mother of fair love,
of fear, of knowledge and of holy hope" (Sir 24,24 Vg). - Is he then your Son, O
Virgin of virgins? Is your beloved such a one as this, O most beautiful of
women? (Sg 5,9). - Clearly so, my beloved is such a one and he is my Son, O
daughters of Jerusalem (v.16). My beloved is fair love in himself, fear, hope
and knowledge in whoever is born of him."
Free Opinions, Releases, letters &
Special Reports
Obama and the Mullahs.
Lebanon’s Myth of Secularism.By:
Alexander Henley 27/01/09
Guantanamo’s manipulators leading the new Jihad-By
Walid Phares 27/01/09
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for January 27/09
Syria approves first Lebanese ambassador to Damascus-Africasia
Reports of more trouble at Syria jail-rights group-Reuters
Obama chooses Arab network for
first TV interview-The
Associated Press
'Americans are not your enemy,'
Obama tells Muslims
USA
State Department: Mitchell in Region to Listen to Regional Leaders-Naharnet
Peres and Israeli Media React to Mitchell's Israel Visit-Naharnet
Assad Optimistic About Obama's Administration-Naharnet
Iran Condemns EU's Stand
on Mujahideen-Naharnet
March 14 Calls for Massive
Turnout on Hariri Assassination Anniversary-Naharnet
Row
Deepens Between Berri, Saniora over Council of South Budget-Naharnet
Posters And Slogan Removal Moves to Zahrani Region-Naharnet
Nominations for Parliamentary Elections between March 2 - April 7-Naharnet
Lebanese Doctors in Gaza
Soon-Naharnet
482 Witnesses in Hariri
Murder Case-Naharnet
Berri Defense Strategy
Blueprint in the Works-Naharnet
Grenade Tossed Near Ossama
Saad's Sidon Residence-Naharnet
Obama: Lebanon, Syria,
Iran and Israeli-Palestinian Peace are Interrelated-Naharnet
Lebanon Rivals Adjourn
Tricky Defense Talks-Naharnet
Raad to Harb: You Want to
Get Rid of Us?-Naharnet
Assad: Arab Reconciliation
was Ice-Breaking, Had No Link to Tribunal-Naharnet
Phalange Party: Disarming
Palestinian Bases is Priority-Naharnet
Bassil Denies Bugging
Charge-Naharnet
Jumblat Accuses Bassil of
Allowing Illegal Bugging-Naharnet
Syria and the new Arab 'cold war'-BBC
News
Syria wants dialogue with US without preconditions-International
Herald Tribune
Syria President: Israel only understands force-Ha'aretz
Obama chooses Arab network for
first TV interview
By PAUL SCHEMM –
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — President Barack Obama on Tuesday chose an Arabic satellite
TV network for his first formal television interview as president, delivering a
message to the Muslim world that "Americans are not your enemy."
The interview underscored Obama's commitment to repair relations with the Muslim
world that have suffered under the previous administration.
The president expressed an intention to engage the Middle East immediately and
his new envoy to the region, former Sen. George J. Mitchell, was expected to
arrived in Egypt on Tuesday for a visit that will also take him to Israel, the
West Bank, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your
enemy," Obama told the Saudi-owned, Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news channel.
Obama said the U.S. had made mistakes in the past but "that the same respect and
partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years
ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that."
During his presidency, former President George W. Bush gave several interviews
to Al-Arabiya but the wars he launched in Iraq and Afghanistan prompted a
massive backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world.
Al-Arabiya has scored interviews with top U.S. officials in the past, including
Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
The Saudi-owned channel is seen by some in Washington as more balanced in its
coverage than its Qatar-funded rival Al-Jazeera, which the previous White House
administration complained had an anti-American bias.
Obama called for a new partnership with the Muslim world "based on mutual
respect and mutual interest." He talked about growing up in Indonesia, the
Muslim world's most populous nation, and noted that he has Muslim relatives.
The new president said he felt it was important to "get engaged right away" in
the Middle East and had directed Mitchell to talk to "all the major parties
involved." His administration would craft an approach after that, he said in the
interview.
"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States
starts by dictating," Obama told the interviewer.
The president reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel as an ally and to its
right to defend itself. But he suggested that both Israel and the Palestinians
have hard choices to make. "I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides
to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in
prosperity and security for their people," he said, calling for a Palestinian
state that is contiguous with internal freedom of movement and can trade with
neighboring countries.
Obama also said that recent statements and messages issued by the al-Qaida
terror network suggest they do not know how to deal with his new approach.
"They seem nervous," he told the interviewer. "What that tells me is that their
ideas are bankrupt."
In his latest message on Jan. 14, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden said Obama had
been left with a "heavy inheritance" of Bush's wars.
Shortly after the election, the network's number two, Ayman al-Zawahri used a
demeaning racial term for a black American who does the bidding of whites to
describe Obama. The message suggested the terror network was worried Obama could
undermine its rallying cry that the U.S. is an enemy oppressor.
Recognizing that Israel's effort to topple Hamas has failed
By Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondents
Hamas Monday rejected an Israeli offer that linked the opening of Gaza's border
crossings to the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. Hamas spokesman
Fawzi Barhoum told Haaretz that under no circumstances would the organization
accept such a linkage. First, Israel must open the crossings, he said; then the
parties can talk about Shalit. A senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip, Ayman
Taha, told the Egyptian paper Al-Ahram that Israel had offered to free 1,000
Palestinian prisoners and open the crossings in exchange for a cease-fire and
Shalit's release. The Lebanese paper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, citing Israeli sources,
said the offer was for 1,050 prisoners, including 280 of the 350 senior
terrorists whose release Hamas has demanded by name. Prior to the Gaza
operation, Israel had agreed to release only some 220 people on this list. In
practice, the talks have been stalled in any case by a dispute between Hamas and
Egypt, the chief mediator, over the former's rejection of the latter's proposals
for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation and a long-term truce with Israel. And defense
sources said it was "not certain" that the figures given by the Arab newspapers
would indeed be the final formula.
If it is, however, the deal will provide Hamas with significant gains. The
organization's main rationale for ending its last truce with Israel, in
December, was to end Israel's blockade of Gaza, so Israel's offer allows Hamas
to achieve the primary goal for which it went to war.
Additionally, Hamas would receive a massive prisoner release, including many of
the people it specifically demanded. It would thereby have bested the Fatah-led
Palestinian Authority in terms of both the number and the "quality" of the
prisoners whose freedom it was able to secure. While Israel has released
prisoners to the PA several times in recent years, it has always decided whom to
release, rejecting any input from the PA.
Finally, the prisoner release, coupled with the reopened border crossings, would
essentially constitute de facto Israeli recognition of "Hamastan," since it
would bolster Hamas' grip on Gaza by giving it the image of a winner. It would
also boost Hamas' popularity in the West Bank. Effectively, therefore, it would
constitute an Israeli recognition that its three-year-old effort to topple Hamas
has failed.
Obama: Lebanon, Syria, Iran and
Israeli-Palestinian Peace are Interrelated
Naharnet/U.S. President Barack Obama has said Israel and the Palestinians should
resume negotiations, and believed Lebanon and Syria should be part of peace
efforts in the region. "It is impossible for us to think only in terms of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with
Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan," Obama told the
Dubai-based al-Arabiya TV network on Monday. "These things are interrelated."
"Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong
ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security
is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it
is important to achieve peace," Obama stressed.
The new U.S. president said he had begun to fulfill his campaign promises by
naming former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell as Mideast peace envoy.
"Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise
that we're not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with
Palestinian and Israeli peace. We're going to start now," Obama said.
He had earlier met Mitchell at the White House along with Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, before sending him off on a mission to Israel, the West Bank,
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, London and Paris. Obama, in his first interview with Arab
television since becoming U.S. president, said his administration would adopt a
more comprehensive approach in its relations with the Muslim world. "We are
looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world
and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on
mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant
progress," Obama said. He praised Saudi King Abdullah for the peace initiative
he put forward.
"I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage
to put forward something that is as significant as that," Obama, who took office
last Tuesday, said. "I think that there are ideas across the region of how we
might pursue peace."
He told the Muslim world that "Americans are not your enemy" and renewed his
pledge to travel to make an address in the capital of a major Muslim nation.
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your
enemy -- we sometimes make mistakes -- we have not been perfect," Obama said in
the interview with al-Arabiya. During the 2008 election campaign, Obama vowed to
improve U.S. ties with the Muslim world and said he would travel to a major
Islamic forum abroad to send that message. "We're going to follow through on our
commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital," Obama told
his interviewer. "We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do
a more effective job of reaching out, listening as well as speaking to the
Muslim world," he said. He did not give a time, or a venue for his visit to a
major Muslim capital. Beirut, 27 Jan 09, 09:02
Lebanon Rivals Adjourn Tricky Defense Talks
Naharnet/Rival political leaders in Lebanon on Monday adjourned for more than a
month negotiations on a national defense strategy at the heart of which lies the
thorny issue of Hizbullah's weapons. A statement from the presidency said a team
of experts will be formed to examine proposals on a defense strategy, and that
another round of talks will be held on March 2 at the Baabda presidential place.
It added that participants agreed to work on the implementation of previous
agreements concerning the issue of Palestinian weapons outside the country's 12
refugee camps, which house an estimated 400,000 people.
The Palestinians themselves police the camps, but outside the camps weapons are
also held by the pro-Syrian Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine-General Command and by Fatah Intifada. Pressure has been mounting in
Lebanon to tackle the issue of Palestinian weapons outside the camps after
rockets were fired from the south into northern Israel during the Jewish state's
22-day onslaught on the Gaza Strip. Fourteen leaders from the main parliamentary
blocs are taking part in the talks chaired by President Michel Suleiman. A major
stumbling block in agreeing a common defense strategy has been Hizbullah's
arsenal.
Members of the Western-backed parliamentary majority say Hizbullah's weapons
undermine the state's authority, but the group refuses to disarm, arguing that
its armaments are essential to defend the country against Israel. MP Butros Harb
suggested the following points as part of his proposal for a national defense
strategy:
a) Adoption of a national defense strategy that the state would commit to, in
defending Lebanon and in liberating occupied territories.
b) State to fully implement UNSCR 1701 in all its articles. c) State to commit
to Taef accords and in particular the state of truce between Lebanon and Israel
while extending Lebanese armed forces authority over internationally recognized
borders.
d) State to strengthen armed forces by all available means. e) State to adopt
modern and advanced methods in equipping and training the military under
supervision of the army's general command. f) Hizbullah to deliver its arms to
the Lebanese military under a specific timetable and program.
g) State to take measures in protecting Hizbullah leaders and cadres.
h) Strengthening international guarantees for Lebanon.
i) State to officially request from Syria to provide signed documents in order
to demarcate the Shebaa Farms area.
j) State to immediately begin collecting Palestinian arms inside and outside
refugee camps as agreed to at the national dialogue.
k) State to approve draft constitutional amendment proposed by members of
parliament which calls for a unanimous decision that rejects settling
Palestinians in Lebanon.
l) Lebanon to stay away from any regional axis and announce its positive
neutrality.
m) All political parties and players to commit to all of the above in affirming
national unity and independence of Lebanon.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 26 Jan 09,
16:32
Raad to Harb: You Want to Get Rid of Us?
Naharnet/Head of Hizbullah's parliamentary bloc Mohammed Raad criticized MP
Butros Harb's proposal for a national defense strategy, saying it "avoided the
main issue -- protecting the country.""We did not wish to comment on the (Harb)
proposal," Raad said in remarks published by the daily As Safir on Tuesday. Raad
accused Harb of misquoting Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during a
dialogue session held at Baabda Palace on Monday. "Quotes attributed to
Nasrallah were ambiguous and inaccurate," Raad said, adding that Hizbullah "will
later have something to say" about Harb's and others' views. An Nahar newspaper,
for its part, said Raad turned to Harb after he finished reading the proposal,
asking: "Do you want to get rid of us?"Rival political leaders held a 4th round
of all-party talks on Monday. Another session to discuss the national defense
strategy – at the heart of which lies the thorny issue of Hizbullah's weapons --
was scheduled for March 2. A statement from the presidency said a team of
experts will be formed to examine proposals on a defense strategy. Beirut, 27
Jan 09, 09:13
482 Witnesses in Hariri Murder Case
Naharnet/The number of witnesses in the assassination case of former Prime
Minister Rafik Hariri has reached 482, press reports revealed Tuesday.
This figure is the highest in the history of the number of witnesses in a single
case in Lebanon.The international tribunal to try suspects in the 2005 Hariri
murder would be launched March 1. Beirut, 27 Jan 09, 11:46
Nominations for Parliamentary Elections between March 2 - April 7
Naharnet/The interior ministry has set conditions for the nomination of a
parliamentary candidate.
A statement by Interior Minister Ziad Baroud said the ministry is accepting
nominations between March 2 and April 7.
The statement set April 22 deadline for candidates wishing to pull out of the
election race. Beirut, 27 Jan 09, 11:08
March 14 Calls for Massive Turnout on Hariri Assassination Anniversary
Naharnet/The ruling March 14 coalition has called for a massive turnout on the
anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri as a show
of Lebanese unity. Lebanon is marking the 4th anniversary of the killing of
Hariri and 20 other people in a massive Beirut car bombing on February 14, 2005
with rallies.
"We call for a massive popular turnout to mark the fourth anniversary of the
assassination of martyr Rafik Hariri next Feb. 14," said a statement issued by
March 14 leaders following an overnight meeting. March 14 said Lebanese
participation at the rally in Martyrs' Square, or what is now called Freedom
Square, would be "an expression of commitment to the achievements of
independence, sovereignty and democratic regime." More than one million people
turned out on March 14, 2005 for a massive demonstration one month after
Hariri's assassination. The statement also stressed the importance of a unified
Lebanese stance regarding the Palestinian cause and solidarity with the people
of Gaza and Palestine. March 14 reiterated the Palestinians' right to have an
independent, democratic state and the right to return to their homeland safe
from Israeli ambitions and attacks. Beirut, 27 Jan 09, 08:14
Posters And Slogan Removal
Moves to Zahrani Region
Naharnet/The campaign for removing posters and slogans of various political
leaders and parties from city walls is moving to the eastern Sidon region in
south Lebanon.
Due to the cooperation of political forces in Sidon 90% of photos and slogans
have been removed from city walls. The Union of Sidon-Zahrani Municipalities
held a meeting headed by Governor of the South Malik Abdel Khaleq, attended by
union head Abdel Rahman Bizri, in which it was agreed that all political-party
slogans and posters would be removed from public and private property. Bizri
affirmed that some minor violations do remain. However, the campaign has
succeeded in removing 90% of slogans at Sidon. Adding that nothing bars
municipalities from continuing with its campaign. Posters of political leaders
and provocative slogans were removed from the streets of the southern port city
of Sidon on Thursday January 21. The move followed a similar action in Greater
Beirut after Hizbullah and Mustaqbal Movement agreed to remove provocative
posters. Beirut, 27 Jan 09, 12:12
Row Deepens Between Berri, Saniora over Council of South Budget
Naharnet/Industry Minister Ghazi Zoaiter warned that if Prime Minister Fouad
Saniora continues to reject 2009 budget increases for the Council of the South
"we would call on cabinet to vote on the issue." "Let those who approve or
disapprove of the increases in appropriations cast their vote," the daily As-Safir
quoted Zoaiter as saying. The paper added that President Michel Suleiman would
work on finding an exit to the issue prior to Tuesday's cabinet session.
Moreover, As-Safir added that Speaker Nabih Berri and Saniora had a quick chat
on the sidelines of the national dialogue at the presidential palace on Monday
on the issue of increase in appropriations for the Council of the South.
Saniora maintained his position of rejecting any new increases. As-Safir
reported that Berri became visibly angry and replied that southerners won't
remain silent and would "obtain their rights through the proper means."The paper
added that al-Mustaqbal Movement leader MP Saad Hariri's attempts to calm
matters between both men failed. Beirut, 27 Jan 09, 11:02
State Department: Mitchell in Region to Listen to Regional
Leaders
Naharnet/U.S. Middle East Special Envoy George Mitchell will travel to the
Middle East and Europe from January 26 to February 3. "On this trip, Special
Envoy Mitchell will meet with senior officials to discuss the peace process and
the situation in Gaza," U.S. State Department Acting Spokesman Robert Wood told
reports.
Wood explained that Mitchell would be "in a listening mode. He wants to talk to
all regional leaders and try to get the peace process back on track. And he'll
obviously be discussing the humanitarian situation. And he's eager to get out to
the region and begin working."
"As part of this trip, he will be visiting Egypt, Israel, the West Bank, Jordan,
and Saudi Arabia. Other State Department officials, including Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs David Hale, as well as representatives from
the National Security Council and the Department of Defense, will accompany
special Envoy Mitchell," he said. He added: "The Administration will actively
and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, as
well as Israel and its neighbors. And in furtherance to these goals – or of
these goals on this trip, Special Envoy Mitchell will work to consolidate the
cease-fire in Gaza, establish an effective and credible anti-smuggling and
interdiction regime to prevent the rearming of Hamas, facilitate the reopening
of border crossings, and develop an effective response to the immediate
humanitarian needs of the Palestinians in Gaza and eventual reconstruction and
reinvigorate the peace process."Wood was asked whether Mitchell would be
traveling to other states in the region in particular Syria to which he replied:
"There are always possibilities that he may travel to other places. I don't
believe that's planned at all, but I'm certainly not going to rule out anything
because, again, they're still looking at the travel itinerary and we may have
some updates. But I haven't heard Syria." The U.S. official affirmed to
reporters that Mitchell would not have any contact with Hamas during his
trip.During his visit, Mitchell will not refer to his 2001 recommendation for
stopping violence, by stopping Israeli settlements, but will rather to listen.
Listen to what the leaders have to say. He will report back to Secretary Clinton
and the President Obama on his trip, policy formulation would come after. Wood
explained. "The new Obama administration is going to look at all options
including the Annapolis process and come up with new initiatives as well," Wood
said. Beirut, 27 Jan 09, 10:07
Peres and Israeli Media React to Mitchell's Israel Visit
Naharnet/Israeli President Shimon Peres has called on Israel to welcome the new
U.S. envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell.The Israeli daily Haartez said on
Monday. "In three days George Mitchell will arrive, and I've been reading in the
papers that we need to prepare for pressure and almost to wear a bullet-proof
vest. I'm not sure we should feel so pressured. How will the U.S. pressure us?
To make peace? To fight terror? To prevent Iran from wreaking havoc? I see
Mitchell as an envoy of a good thing, of a country we support," Peres said.
Mitchell's visit is the focus of attention by the Israeli media as it attempts
to find out new Obama administration Middle East policy trends, while clearly
reminding their readers of Mitchell's Arab origin. His mother is Lebanese.
Mitchell is due to arrive in Israel on Wednesday. Israel's Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni postulate
that the main dispute between Jerusalem and U.S. President Barack Obama's
administration is expected to revolve around the U.S.' demand that Israel halt
all settlement construction and dismantle the illegal outposts in the West Bank.
However, Olmert contends that the expansion of the settlement blocs is permitted
for natural growth purposes.
The White House may also add to the international pressure regarding the
transfer of humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Senior Israeli officials share the opinion that the importance of Mitchell's
scheduled visit has been overstated.
"These are mere overtures by the new U.S. administration in order to learn more
about the situation; the visit is not part of an attempt to dictate Israel's
policy or introduce America's new policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict," one Israeli official said. "Obama, like Israel, believes in the two
states for two peoples solution," the official added. During his visit Mitchell
is also expected to meet with the heads of the Palestinian Authority, but will
avoid any contact with Hamas.
The Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth's , Nahum Barnea described the Mitchell visit
as an early contest saying that Israel does not know how to look at the Mitchell
visit, based on the fact that 8 years ago Mitchell called for suspending Israeli
settlements. Mitchell a former Congress Democrat majority leader understands
that the last thing president Obama and Secretary of State Clinton want is a
clash with the U.S. Jewish lobby. However, messages coming to Israel from the
new U.S. administration are contradictory according to Barnea, with public
statements that affirmed the urgent need for an Arab-Israeli settlement against
silent messages that say everything is on hold pending the Israeli elections.
Beirut, 26 Jan 09, 15:20
Assad Optimistic About Obama's Administration
Naharnet/Syrian President Bashar Assad was cautiously optimistic on Monday about
relations with the United States under Barack Obama, saying a "serious" joint
dialogue has been initiated. "We have witnessed in the past weeks a desire by
the current US administration, before it took office, to examine the Middle East
situation, particularly the peace process and Iraq," Assad told the Al-Manar
television of Lebanon's Hizbullah. "We have positive indications, but we learned
to be careful. As long as there are no tangible results, we have to assume that
things have not changed." Assad rejected any preconditions to talks with the
United States.
"As long as there are (US) conditions for dialogue with Syria, there will be no
dialogue," he said in the interview.
"But I think dialogue started some weeks ago in a serious manner through
personalities who are close to the administration and who were dispatched by the
administration. "There are no (Syrian) conditions for dialogue. "You can have
dialogue with everybody but reaching an agreement or accord through dialogue
requires conditions and we have one condition, which is taking Syria's interests
into consideration." The Syrian president said his country has "hopes of seeing
a settlement and not wars" in the region. "This US administration has talked
about its will to be involved in peace, but again we should be careful and not
exaggerate optimism," he said.
Assad has told German weekly Der Spiegel that Syria is willing to work with
Obama to try and stabilize the Middle East but only if it is brought into the
diplomatic fold.
His comments follow indications the new administration plans to make a major
shift in US policy and engage with Syria and its ally Iran. Syria's relations
with the United States struggled under the former administration of President
George W. Bush amid US accusations that Damascus was turning a blind eye to the
arming and funding of insurgents in neighboring Iraq.(AFP) Beirut, 26 Jan 09,
22:36
Iran Condemns EU's Stand on Mujahideen
Naharnet/Iran on Monday angrily condemned the European Union's removal of the
rebel People's Mujahedeen of Iran (PMOI) from its terror blacklist, accusing the
bloc of "encouraging terrorism".Iran "strongly condemns European Union's
unacceptable move and it is deeply sorry that the EU has separated its way from
the international community in fighting terrorism to fulfil temporary and
illegitimate political goals," said a foreign ministry statement broadcast by
state media.
The foreign ministry charged that the European Union has "opened doors of
friendship and cooperation with terrorists" and that Iran "does not regard the
European Union accountable any longer in the fight against terrorism".
"The European Union's act in removing one of the most notorious terrorist groups
from its blacklist is interpreted as encouraging terrorism and it will give
terrorists in Europe an opportunity to use their liberated capacity against
European citizens in line with their terrorist goals." The European Union on
Monday removed PMOI, from its blacklist, bringing an end to a long legal battle,
but more action against it is not ruled out. Founded in 1965 with the aim of
overthrowing first the US-backed monarch the shah and then the Islamic regime in
Iran, the PMOI has in the past operated an armed group inside Iran. It was the
armed wing of the France-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) but
it renounced violence in June 2001. The group retains former fighters in a
cantonment in Iraq where they are faced with expulsion to third countries now
that the United States has restored security responsibility to the Shiite-led
government in Baghdad which maintains amicable relations with Tehran.(AFP)
Beirut, 26 Jan 09, 22:29
Lebanese Doctors in Gaza Soon
Naharnet/A delegation of about 10 Lebanese doctors will visit the Gaza Strip
soon in an effort to help cure the injured.
The delegation includes physicians specialized in general surgery and bone
surgery. Head of the Doctors' Gathering in Lebanon Dr. Ghassan Jaafar said the
delegation would stop in Egypt first where officials from the International
Committee of the Red Cross would facilitate their entry into Gaza via the Rafah
border crossing.
He said the delegation would be working at Gaza's Al Shifa hospital. Beirut, 27
Jan 09, 12:01
Berri Defense Strategy Blueprint in the Works
Naharnet/Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri is likely to submit his own defense
strategy blueprint at the 5th round of national dialogue set for March 2.
The daily Al Akhbar quoted Berri as saying that he is preparing his own defense
strategy blueprint. Berri's remarks, it said, were made in response to a
question raised by President Michel Suleiman during Monday's dialogue session
about whether any new proposals were in the works. Al Akhbar reported that
cabinet minister Mohammed Safadi also said he could come up with his own ideas
regarding the defense strategy. Beirut, 27 Jan 09, 10:31
Grenade Tossed Near Ossama Saad's Sidon Residence
Naharnet/Unknown assailants tossed a hand grenade overnight near the house of MP
Ossama Saad in the southern port city of Sidon. News reports on Tuesday said no
casualties were reported in the incident which took place around 9:00 pm Monday.
They said the blast only caused material damage. Beirut, 27 Jan 09, 10:09
Assad: Arab Reconciliation was Ice-Breaking, Had No Link to Tribunal
Naharnet/Syrian President Bashar Assad has said the Arab reconciliation at the
Kuwait summit last week had nothing to do with the international tribunal that
would try ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's suspected assassins. "What happened there
(in Kuwait) was just ice-breaking," Assad told Hizbullah's al-Manar TV on Monday
about reconciliation between Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Syria. "The success
of this reconciliation depends on the dialogue that would be held among
countries involved," he said. Asked about possible links between the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon and the reconciliations, Assad said: "I don't understand
the link between the court and Arab relations … The court is an international
tribunal and is not Arab."
"Our stance is clear. The Syrian citizen is subject to Syrian law. If there is
any wish for cooperation between the Syrian judiciary and the international
tribunal … there should be an agreement that sets rights and obligations," he
stressed. Assad was cautiously optimistic about relations with the United States
under Barack Obama, saying a "serious" joint dialogue has been initiated.
"We have witnessed in the past weeks a desire by the current U.S.
administration, before it took office, to examine the Middle East situation,
particularly the peace process and Iraq," Assad told al-Manar. "We have positive
indications, but we learned to be careful. As long as there are no tangible
results, we have to assume that things have not changed." Assad rejected any
preconditions to talks with the United States. "As long as there are conditions
for dialogue with Syria, there will be no dialogue," he said in the interview.
The Syrian president said his country has "hopes of seeing a settlement and not
wars" in the region. "This U.S. administration has talked about its will to be
involved in peace, but again we should be careful and not exaggerate optimism,"
he said.(Naharnet-AFP)
Beirut, 27 Jan 09, 10:01
Phalange Party: Disarming Palestinian Bases is Priority
Naharnet/The Phalange Party on Monday said the Conference on National Dialogue
should focus on disarming Palestinian bases outside refugee camps.
The party, in a statement released after a meeting by its politburo, called for
speeding up efforts to disarm Palestinian bases in light of information that
they were the source of rockets fired from south Lebanon into Israel recently.
The statement said the fourth session of national dialogue was convened "amidst
attempts to place preconditions prior to tackling the topic of defense
strategy." "They don't want a defense strategy that restricts defending the
nation to the state," the statement added.
It called for "settling the issue of Palestinian presence in Lebanon through a
political-diplomatic campaign with Arab and foreign nations." Beirut, 26 Jan 09,
22:10
Jumblat Accuses Bassil of Allowing Illegal Bugging
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat accused Minister of
Telecommunications Jebran Bassil of illegally allowing bugging of
communications.
Jumblat, in an article published by the PSP's weekly al-Anbaa on Tuesday, said
Bassil is hosting a colonel from the General Security Directorate at the
ministry where he runs a network of employees "specialized in bugging calls."
The alleged colonel, whose name was not disclosed, mans an office near Bassil's,
Jumblat said. The officer is interested in information related to the 2005
assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri, Jumblat said, explaining that such
information "had already been relayed to the international commission" probing
the Hariri crime. Beirut, 26 Jan 09, 20:49
Bassil Denies Bugging Charge
Naharnet/Minister of Telecommunications Jebran Bassil denied charges by
Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat that he has allowed the illegal
bugging of communications. Bassil, in a statement released by his press office,
also said the ministry is persisting with cooperation with the U.N. commission
probing the 2005 assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri. He said efforts to
implement law 140 aim at banning bugging centers that are not affiliated with
his ministry. Beirut, 26 Jan 09, 21:39
Lebanon’s Myth of Secularism
Tuesday, 27th January 2009.
By: Analysis: Alexander Henley./Religious Intelligence
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=3718
“Why are you studying religion?” a Lebanese friend exclaimed when I told her
about my research. “Religion is not important any more; politics in Lebanon is
about national policy now.”
Since 2005’s Cedar Revolution against Syrian hegemony, the myth that national
interests have trumped religion in Lebanon has gained unprecedented force. Those
events reshaped the country’s political landscape, political parties aligning
themselves either with the anti-Syrian “March 14” majority coalition or the
pro-Syrian (read: anti-American) opposition camp. Both sides proclaim the
success of a new secular civil society seeking national unity, and blame the
country’s problems – past and present – on foreign attempts to turn sect against
sect. The claim on everybody’s lips is that the Lebanese would all get along
happily if only left to it.
This was the line I was given by Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese Forces
party, during an interview last summer. In reply to a question about the roles
of religious authorities in Lebanon, he strongly denied that they have, or
should have, any place in political leadership. He went on to talk at length
about the flourishing of secular civil society. This despite having frequently
associated himself with the influential Maronite Patriarch, Nasrallah Sfeir, and
despite his party’s strong low-level connections with the Maronite Church.
Geagea insisted that both he and his party had renounced their sectarian militia
background in favour of secular politics. Nevertheless, his party’s ethos – and
consequent popularity – is built on a vocation of Christian defence, legitimated
by a narrative of persecution and distrust. Talking about Hezbollah’s attacks on
pro-government factions in May, Geagea broke from his civil society rhetoric to
assert proudly that his own party was spared not for political reasons but
because of the Christians’ reputation as fighters. A hint of the military
charisma that won him the LF command in 1985 came through as he reminisced for a
moment about the honour of having fought with and for his people.
An iconic red cross with a diagonal cut across the base can be spotted all over
Christian Lebanon: in graffiti, on mantelpieces, or worn over the heart. This is
the symbolic banner of the Lebanese Forces, with its roots in “Resistant Prayer
Day”, observed in Maronite churches during the 1975-90 Civil War. According to
the official LF website, it is blood-red as a “sign of martyrdom and glory… the
bearing cross of the Lebanese Christians, the sign of their suffering throughout
history.” The cross’s dagger point represents “their determination to keep the
cross planted in this region of the world.”
The myth of secularism and national interest is convenient for Lebanese
politicians, smoothing over differences between allies within the current
fragile coalitions, as well as reassuring international observers and patrons.
Yet while the rhetoric has become second nature to many like Samir Geagea, the
basic political blocs that politicians compete to represent remain bounded by
religion and mobilised by communal interest. So parties of all confessions both
thrive on and perpetuate the sectarian concerns of their constituencies, as the
Lebanese Forces does. It has often been remarked in the Lebanese press that
while party leaders – Sunni, Shi’a, Druze or Christian – embrace and smile for
the cameras, such cross-confessional conviviality has not been passed down to
their supporters.
My Lebanese friend, who had criticised my study of religion, turned out to be a
proud follower of Michel Aoun, the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement leader.
Aoun casts himself as a secular nationalist alternative to the Christian feudal
and religious establishment. He rose to prominence through the ranks of the
army, and has been one of the fiercest critics of Patriarch Sfeir’s political
stances. Following his majority share of the Christian vote in the last general
election, Aoun controversially proclaimed himself “political patriarch” of
Lebanon’s Christians. Also since his electoral victory, Aoun surprised many by
siding with the Hezbollah-led opposition.
This alliance has strained the loyalty of his voters, and as the Spring 2009
general election draws closer he is again playing to the sectarian realities
behind his talk of Lebanese unity. Aoun scored points with his Hezbollah friends
by visiting Syrian President Assad in December, but notably also made a show of
touring Syrian Christian shrines. Regardless of his advertised secular values,
it is only by asserting his religious credentials that he can reassure his
Christian constituency about his dealings with Islamists.
The disparity between rhetoric and reality is not a new phenomenon in Lebanon,
it has merely become more elaborate and universal since 2005. The Progressive
Socialist Party is a classic case, being the political engine of the Jumblatt
family of Druze feudal Skeikhs. Kamal Jumblatt, and his son Walid, used the
party’s ideologically secular name to cover their famously adaptable politics of
sectarian self-interest. Whenever the dust settles, the Progressive Socialist
Party is allied with the victor.
It has been widely acknowledged in recent years that Lebanese politics have been
– particularly during the Civil War – misleadingly translated into the Western
vocabulary of “right” and “left” in order to gain international sympathy and
support. Such language helped sterilise the bloody realities of bitter sectarian
strife for foreign financiers. It was a short step, for instance, from assigning
left-wing ideology to a loose coalition of Muslim militants, to talking in
clichés of a poor Muslim under-class rising up against a rich right-wing
Christian élite.
The pervasiveness of the (secularist )myth today encourages a continued
misdiagnosis of Lebanon’s problems. If we are to avoid falling into this trap
once again, we must recognise religion as a continuing influence on popular
perceptions and therefore élite politics across the board. One such
misrepresentation has found receptive ears in America, namely that the entire
conflict can be reduced to a confrontation between radical Islam and a
pan-confessional coalition of secular moderates.
The most serious long-term barriers to democracy and stability are actually
rooted far deeper than this, firmly entrenched in party patronage networks and
social structures. The answer is not to bolster the cosmetic secularism that
masks a generation of warlords, but to expose the myth. While talk of a secular
system often suits Lebanese leaders, religion is still the bond that mobilises
their support, and sectarian insecurity the spanner in the wheel of progress.
Guantanamo’s manipulators leading the new Jihad
By Walid Phares
January 27, 2009
Counter Terrorism
"By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for
which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for."
These are the words loudly uttered by an al-Qaeda cadre who was detained in
GITMO for a number of years and released in 2007 back to the region. This
statement comes at a time the detention center has been ordered to be shut down
within a year. This episode provides evidence that Jihadism as an ideology does
not respond to the political culture of democracy nor are the indoctrinated
Jihadists impacted by the moral and legal debate within what they see as the
sphere of the infidels. The Guantanamo legal and ethical drama will continue to
be discussed in the United Sates and the West, but for now let's look at the
outpouring harsh facts.
As reported by the SITE web site, two men released from the prison at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a Jihadi site. The most notorious
of the two, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner
number 372, has been "elevated to the senior ranks of al-Qaeda in Yemen," a US
counter-terrorism official told AFP. The other man on the video is Abu al-Hareth
Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an al-Qaeda commander. SITE stated he was
prisoner Number 333. Reviewing the video provided by the Laura Mansfield
monitoring group http://www.lauramansfield.com/mnhona.rm, I analyzed the
statements made by al-Shahri and al-Oufi in original Arabic.
On the video, as reported accurately by all sites and news agencies, al-Shihri
is seen sitting with three other men under a flag of the "Islamic State of
Iraq," Al-Qaeda's regional command in Mesopotamia. The other two Jihadists in
the video were identified as Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi
(aka Abu Hureira al-Sana'ani). Al-Shiri was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi
Arabia in 2007, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP. A US source confirmed
to AP that Said Ali al-Shihri, "who was jailed at Guantanamo for six years after
his capture in Pakistan, has resurfaced as a leader of a Yemeni branch of
al-Qaida." Al-Shihri was released by the US in 2007 to the Saudi government for
"rehabilitation." But this week a statement posted on the site declared he is
now the top deputy in "al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula," the regional command
for Bin Laden's organization operating from Yemen with cells across the
peninsula. The terror group has been responsible for attacks on the US Embassy
in Yemen's capital Sana.
Per US documents obtained by AP, "al-Shihri was stopped at a Pakistani border
crossing in December 2001 with injuries from an airstrike and recuperated at a
hospital in Quetta for a month and a half. Within days of leaving the hospital,
he became one of the first detainees sent to Guantanamo." According to the same
sources, "Al-Shihri allegedly traveled to Afghanistan two weeks after the Sept.
11, 2001 attacks, provided money to other fighters and trained in urban warfare
at a camp north of Kabul, Afghanistan." But more troubling is the fact that al-Shihri
was a contact person between al-Qaeda and Iran. As reported by AP, he was "an
alleged travel coordinator for al-Qaida who was accused of meeting extremists in
Mashad, Iran, and briefing them on how to enter Afghanistan." Such a person
operating in the most strategic area of Jihadism, the most dangerous bridge of
(potential) cooperation between al-Qaeda and the Khomeinist regime, was released
from Guantanamo on the basis that he said "bin Laden had no business
representing Islam, denied any links to terrorism and expressed interest in
rejoining his family in Saudi Arabia." When asked about his Iranian trips, he
allegedly answered that he was "buying carpets for his store in Riyadh."
Is this for real? Had these facts not been cited from official US documents and
had I and many colleagues not viewed the video personally, it would have been
hard to believe that the Guantanamo release of Jihadists was that tragic for
national security and for the future of US and allied efforts in the
confrontation with Terror forces. Unfortunately, the reality of al-Qaeda's
tactics regarding Guantanamo or any other detention center, judicial,
administrative or military, raises unavoidable questions and brings about
sobering conclusions:
1) Former inmates, in this case Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri (Prisoner No 372)
and Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi (Prisoner No 333), are being elevated to the
senior ranks of Al-Qaeda. The release of Jihadi Terrorists to their countries or
other countries in the region didn't transform them into ordinary citizens but
reinserted them in al-Qaeda's network. Furthermore, Salafi Jihadi chat rooms are
mentioning the video and propagating the argument that those released from
Guantanamo are going to be not only well received and made into heroes but will
become the leaders of the Jihad (al-Qaeda and others) against the United States,
the West and moderates in the region.
2) On what ground were they released? This is an important question to be raised
because it would help project what will happen when the other GITMO detainees
will be released. What is the measurement that US authorities have adopted to
release al-Qaeda members from Guantanamo? Was it statements the Jihadists made
about their forthcoming life? All al-Shahri had to do was criticize Bin Laden
and pledge to return to a normal life? How did experts and psychologists guide
the government in terms of concluding that indeed the Terrorists have reformed?
3) How come these released detainees to Yemen (or other countries) were able to
reemerge as al-Qaeda leaders there? How come they were able to travel across the
region and reorganize? What would this tell us about our "partners" in the
so-called War against Terror?
4) How come US intelligence wasn't able to predict that these detainees would
reinsert in al-Qaeda after being released? Or did US intelligence predict the
outcome but policy makers still decided to release them?
5) Shutting down Guantanamo may be a decision based on "political, moral and
strategic communications" considerations. This debate is not over apparently.
But this latest video brings hard evidence that the issue isn't about a camp to
be shut down but about an ideology to be countered. For according to al-Qaeda's
manuals, the Jihadists are trained for when they are in detention and are
prepared for all other scenarios: facing all sorts of courts, becoming martyrs
or being released to perform Jihad again.
In previous articles, I underlined that al Qaeda has detention tactics and a
post detention strategy. The United States must catch up with the Terror forces.
It should have developed counter strategies for both stages, with or without
Guantanamo. Unless proven wrong, facts show a failure in both stages. This
Jihadi manipulation is a chilling reminder of the “silence of the lambs.” It is
time to bridge the gap.
**************
Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation:
Winning the War against Future Jihad
Obama and the Mullahs
By: Michael Ledeen
Pajamas Media
January 25th, 2009 8:55 pm
Iran’s always tyrannical and sometimes apocalyptic mullahs have certainly been
busy of late. They’ve been spinning faster than a champion dervish, trying to
convince the gullible, at home and abroad, that their Hamas proxies in Gaza won
a signal victory against Israel, and that Iran was the reason for their success.
Meanwhile, they’ve called for the assassination of Egypt’s President Hosni
Mubarak, Saudi Arabian King Abdullah, and Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni,
and organized mass rallies against President Obama, complete with ritual burning
of his photo.
Some of it shows the regime’s comedic skills at their highest pitch, such as the
offer of a million dollars to anyone who killed Mubarak. That is a generous
reward the mullahs know they’ll never have to pay off, since anyone who actually
murdered the Egyptian president would hardly be in a position to collect. At the
same time, Tehran provided us with one of their favorite bits of street theater:
seventy thousand screaming citizens demanding to be sent to Gaza on suicide
missions. There, too, the offer was cost-free, since Iran doesn’t send its own
citizens to blow themselves up. They use the despised Arabs for such things.
Nobody’s seen an Iranian suicide bomber since the fall of the shah in 1979.
The battle of Gaza showed at least two important things about the Iranians:
–They are totally ready to fight to the last…Palestinian;
–When push comes to shove, not even the most faithful proxy can count on Tehran
for assistance.
No sooner had the fighting started, than top Iranians flew to Damascus to tell
Hamas’s “leaders” (who never left Damascus; no battlefield ribbons for them)
that they had better not stop fighting. No cease fire until the Israelis had
been defeated. This produced the entirely predictable result of increasing
casualties in Gaza (both Hamas terrorists and innocent civilians), and a clear
victory by the Israelis.
The mullahs obviously couldn’t permit that result to stand, and so they declared
victory. Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Majlis (Parliament) delivered the
official version: “In Gaza, Israel for the first time succumbed to the
resistance of the Palestinian people in its alleged territories and Gaza was
actually liberated in this war…Gaza is the beginning of Israel’s serious
downfall…”
To which one can only murmer, with such liberations, the Palestinian people is
surely doomed. And not only the Palestinians; their sponsors don’t look very
good on the morning after, despite the mullahs’ predictable claim of victory.
Everybody in Gaza knew that this was the second Iran/Israel battle (the first
was in Lebanon in 2006, involving Iran’s favorite proxy, Hezbollah), and that
the mullahs, along with Iran’s favored troops had been smashed:
Palestinian sources reported Thursday that the “Iranian Unit” of Hamas, members
of the group’s military wing trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, had
been destroyed.
According to the sources, most of the unit’s members were killed in fighting in
the Zeytun neighborhood, where they had been deployed by the military leadership
of Hamas.
The unit numbered approximately 100 men who had traveled to Iran and Hezbollah
camps, mostly in the Beka’a Valley, where they were trained in infantry fighting
tactics. The militants were also trained in the use of anti-tank missiles, the
detonation of explosives, among other skills.
The “Iranian Unit” was only a small part of Iran’s massive investment in Hamas.
Iran provides approximately $20 -$30 million to Hamas annually and also trains
Hamas operatives in Iran and Syria. Iran gave Hamas a $50 million “success fee”
after it beat Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction in
the 2006 Palestinian elections.
In the months before Hamas seized control of Gaza in June 2007, Iran conducted
extensive military training for Hamas members. Approximately 950 Hamas
terrorists have been trained in building rockets and bombs, tactical warfare,
weapons operation and sniper tactics by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a
special division of Iran’s armed forces.
So it’s certainly correct to give the Islamic Republic of Iran a share of the
blame for the terrible damage inflicted on Hamas by Israel. And it’s also
important to note that, once the fighting started, you didn’t see the Iranians
rushing for the battle field. The mullahs organized demonstrations by tens of
thousands of self-proclaimed would-be martyrs, but they went home afterwards,
not to Gaza. This is in keeping with long-standing Iranian practice: trick the
despised Arabs into blowing themselves up to advance Tehran’s interests.
The Iranians themselves know the whole thing was a mistake, and we can see it by
looking at their actions rather than listening to their lies. They’re carrying
out a “lessons learned” analysis to figure out all their blunders. There’s lots
to figure out:
Iran…as The Jerusalem Post reported earlier this week, is conducting an urgent
probe into Hamas’s (that is to say, Iran’s own, ML) failures in Operation Cast
Lead.
Hamas has acknowledged some of them and Israeli security officials have detailed
many more: Hamas did not expect Israel to respond to its escalated rocket
attacks with a major offensive - not with general elections looming, and the
scars of the Second Lebanon War still raw. It certainly didn’t believe the air
strikes of week one would be followed by the ground operation of weeks two and
three - Israel was deemed to be too wary of international criticism and too
cowardly to risk its young soldiers. Hamas anticipated more practical assistance
from the Arab world. And it fully intended to kill and maim more Israelis.
It planned to fire more rockets, more deeply, into more Israeli towns and
villages and moshavim and kibbutzim, to murder more civilians. It hoped its
booby-trapped buildings and tunnels and roadside bombs would fell more Israeli
soldiers, and that its familiarity with Gaza’s camps and alleys would yield it
greater success in close combat with the IDF.
The humiliating defeat of Iran’s proxy in Gaza comes hard on the heels of the
catastrophic drop in petroleum revenues, which weakens the mullahs’ ability to
finance terror, and alongside yet another blow from the U.S. Government, which
froze the finances of four al Qaeda terrorists, including a long-time Iranian
resident with a famous name: Saad bin Laden.
Saad bin Laden, along with daddy Osama and other members of his super-rich
family, bailed out of Afghanistan during the American assault in late 2001 and
took up residence in Iran. It was a hush-hush operation, since the mullahs were
then pretending to be super helpful to the United States, even though they were
training assassins and then sending them to Afghanistan to kill Americans. In
relatively short order, the Iranian deceit was discovered. The leading Spanish
anti-terrorist judge, Balthazar Garzon, publicly stated that the AQ leadership
had reconstituted itself in Tehran. Eventually the evidence became too great for
the mullahs to deny, and they concocted the story that they had “arrested” some
important AQ personnel, and would consider trading them for people under
American control. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage started saying that
Iran was “a democracy,” and let it be known that we were very close to a deal,
but of course we weren’t; the mullahs never had any intention of turning over
any of their top proxies. Iran remained a safe haven for AQ terrorists, from
which they came and went according to the requirements of the moment. Now, it
seems, Saad bin Laden has gone to Pakistan.
The Wall Street Journal put it oddly:
The release or escape of Mr. bin Laden’s son, Saad bin Laden, suggests possible
collaboration between Iran and al Qaeda and the potential that Saad bin Laden is
a go-between. Al Qaeda has been regrouping in Pakistan after the U.S. forced the
group out of its base in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden is thought to be
hiding there.
Saad bin Laden “has left Iran,” said Director of National Intelligence Mike
McConnell at a farewell press briefing. “He’s probably in Pakistan.”
This suggests that Mr. McConnell accepts the notion that bin Laden Jr. either
“escaped” or “was released,” which is silly. It would be helpful if our
intelligence “experts” just stuck to what they know, which seems to be that bin
Laden Jr. went to another country. And it would be helpful if the Wall Street
Journal were more careful in its use of language. After the U.S. drove AQ out of
Afghanistan, its leaders spent several years in Iran, with, at a minimum, the
full knowledge and apparent complicity of the Iranian regime. Does anyone know
enough to say that AQ leaders weren’t/aren’t happy in Iran? Or, for that matter,
does anyone know enough to deny what seems intuitively obvious: that Iran has
been fully supportive of AQ? The mullahs certainly went all-out to help al Qaeda
in Iraq. And they lost, bigtime.
Further down in the story, the Journal does better:
Saad bin Laden reportedly facilitated communications between al Qaeda’s No. 2
official and the Iranian extremist Quds Force after al Qaeda’s attack on the
U.S. Embassy in Yemen last year. He was part of a small collection of al Qaeda
operatives who helped manage the terrorist organization from Iran, where he was
arrested in 2003, according to the Treasury Department.
Earlier alleged activities include a prominent role in a 2002 suicide bombing of
a Tunisian synagogue and facilitating travel for bin Laden family members from
Afghanistan to Iran.
So he was “arrested” in 2003, which just happens to be when we invaded Iraq, and
also just happens to be the year when, according to that infamous NIE from CIA,
Iran “suspended” its “nuclear weapons program.” It’s pretty obvious, I think,
that Iran is surging ahead on nuclear weapons–even Mr. al Baradei, of the UN’s
wishy washy oversight agency, has said as much recently–and one will get you ten
that there was no “suspension” at all, but a program to deceive us into thinking
that. The story of the “arrests” is of a piece with that. Otherwise, you’d have
to explain why al Qaeda in Iraq got full support from the mullahs, but their top
people back in Tehran were under lock and key. Not bloody likely.
All of this confusion distracts us from the big story, which is that Iran is in
a jam, defeated in Iraq and Gaza, facing a cash flow crisis, and the usual
demonstrations raging on college campuses and factories all over the country. If
ever there were a fine opportunity for the United States to support Iranian
dissidents, this is it. But we’re apparently not going to do any such thing;
we’re going to try to strike a deal, even though every president since Jimmy
Carter has tried to do just that, and every one of them failed.
Obama’s even got a candidate to head the Intelligence Community who thinks he’s
identified that most elusive creature, the “Iranian moderate.” Admiral Dennis
Blair sang from the official hymnal during his confirmation hearings last week:
“While policymakers need to understand anti-American leaders, policies and
actions in Iran, the intelligence community can also help policymakers identify
and understand other leaders and political forces, so that it is possible to
work toward a future in both our interests.”
There are certainly Iranians who disagree with the official doctrine that is
best summarized in the street chant we see so often on the evening news: “Death
to America.” In fact, there are probably 50-60 million of them. They are the
oppressed people of Iran, and we don’t need the Intelligence Community to
identify them. We see them in prison, we see them publicly executed in very
brutal ways (including stoning), and we see their offices raided and smashed.
Those are the people we should be helping.
Even if the Obama people can’t bring themselves to openly support democratic
revolution in Iran–which is what they should do–they can at least publicly and
incessantly read out the long list of political prisoners every time they meet
with an Iranian counterpart. The President and Secretary of State Clinton, along
with the various special envoys, should take a page from British TV and Film
Director Ken Loach, who issued an open letter to the mullahs.
He says it very well:
I have read the information about Labour activists imprisoned in your country.
These words express exactly the outrage of many people at your government’s
callous disregard for civil liberties.
I am writing to strongly protest against a new wave of arrests and repression of
labour activists in Iran. According to the latest news, the current labour
activists who are known to be in jails across Iran are as follows:
- Mr. Mansour Osanloo, the president of the board of directors of the Syndicate
of Tehran and Suburb Bus Company…Mr. Afshin Shams, a member of “Coordinating
Committee to Help Form Workers’ organizations”… Mr. Farzad Kamangar, a 33 year
old teacher and union and human rights activist from Kurdistan province. He has
been sentenced to death by the Iranian government and has been severely
tortured… Mr. Mohsen Hakimi, a member of the Coordinating Committee to Form
Workers’ Organization and a member of the Iranian Writers’
Association…incarcerated in section 209 of the Evin Prison…Mr. Bijan Amiri, who
is an auto worker and a member of workers’ mountain-climbing board…incarcerated
in section 209 of the Evin Prison…Mr. Ebrahim Madadi, the vice-president of the
board of directors of the Syndicate of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company…currently
detained in Evin prison…- Mr. Pedram Nasrolahi, who is a member of the
Coordinating Committee to Help Form Workers’ Organizations in Kurdistan…Mr.
Bakhtiar Rahimi, a labour activist in Kurdistan…
In addition, many labour activists in Iran are under suspended sentences or
await trials and are suspended or expelled from their workplace as the result of
their labour activities, including many member of the Vahed Syndicate in Tehran
as well as five leaders of the Syndicate of Haft Tapeh Sugar Cane Company
Workers’ Syndicate who were put on trial on December 20, 2008 and are now
awaiting their verdict.
Therefore, I condemn all these arrests and repression of labour activists and
organizations in Iran and demand the immediate and unconditional freedom of all
incarcerated workers. I also ask the Iranian government to respect workers’
rights to organize, assemble and strike, put an end to persecution of labour
activists and not to interfere in the affairs of independent workers’
organizations.
It would also be nice to hear words of this sort from the feckless leaders of
the AFL-CIO, who keep whispering to me that they are actually doing a great deal
to help their brothers and sisters in Iran. They’re doing it privately, you see.
But this is the same failed tactic used for so long by the cowardly Western
organizations who shrank from publicly denouncing the Kremlin during the Cold
War, on the specious grounds that calling attention to the Communists’ crimes
would only make things worse for Soviet dissidents. We subsequently learned,
from the dissidents, that the truth was just the opposite. The dissident
movement only gained real strength when President Reagan and Secretary Schultz
openly and repeatedly demanded respect for the human rights of Soviet democrats.
There is every reason to believe a serious human rights campaign in support of
the Iranian dissidents would have similar results.
A serious human rights campaign would not stop with Iranian workers, but would
support all Iranians at the mercies of the arbitrary repression of their regime.
Above all, Iranian women need our support. Their names have to be heard, their
plight needs to be dramatized, and their freedom must be defended. Condoleezza
Rice was the perfect person to lead this campaign, but she abandoned her Iranian
sisters. Barack Obama has similar credentials, and Hillary Clinton would seem a
natural in this role.
It’s a hell of a lot better than turning loose our failed spooks in the search
for Iranian moderates.