LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
June 03/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 12,1-12. He began to speak to them in parables. "A man planted a vineyard, put a hedge around it, dug a wine press, and built a tower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and left on a journey. At the proper time he sent a servant to the tenants to obtain from them some of the produce of the vineyard. But they seized him, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent them another servant. And that one they beat over the head and treated shamefully. He sent yet another whom they killed. So, too, many others; some they beat, others they killed. He had one other to send, a beloved son. He sent him to them last of all, thinking, 'They will respect my son.' But those tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' So they seized him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What (then) will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come, put the tenants to death, and give the vineyard to others. Have you not read this scripture passage: 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes'?" They were seeking to arrest him, but they feared the crowd, for they realized that he had addressed the parable to them. So they left him and went away.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
The Nasrallah speech: Hezbollah ruled, the West is fooled. By: Dr. Walid Phares, 02/06/08
Syria Isn't Serious - Lebanon Is. By: Prof. Barry Rubin-Global Politician 02/06/08
The gradual takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah. By: Reza Hossein Borr. Global Pilitician 02/06/08
Lebanon Settlement: Is it Temporary Truce?. By: Abdul Ruff -Global Politician 02/06/08
Flag-waving is fine - so long as you use the right flag-The Daily Star 02/06/08
Despite the turmoil, Western students flock to Beirut-By Nathalie Nahas 02/06/08
The Region: Broken engagements. By BARRY RUBIN -Haaretz 02/06/08
It is all about LEVERAGE. By: Lawson Kass Hanna 02/06/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June 02/08

Terrorists Reportedly Readying Sabotage Attacks in Lebanon, on UNIFIL-Naharnet

Pakradoni: Christians Regained their Powers by Doha Accord-Naharnet

Fatah al-Islam Allegedly Claims Abdeh Blast-Naharnet

Sarkozy Visits Lebanon Saturday-Naharnet
Uproar Over Qabalan's Demand to Create Shiite VP Post-Naharnet
3 Other Bombs Reportedly Found Inside Abdeh Army Post-Naharnet
Abdullah, Mubarak Discuss Lebanon Reconciliation-Naharnet
Assad, UAE Leader Back Doha Agreement-Naharnet

France's Sarkozy to visit Lebanon on Saturday after volatile elections-Jerusalem Post

Suleiman Didn't Attend 1st Bkirki Mass…Politics Absent from ...Naharnet

Syria agrees to nuclear probe-CNN

IAEA demands 'full disclosure' from Iran, sends team to Syria-AFP

Report says terrorists ready to attack Lebanon-Xinhua

Syria waiting for Israeli response to peace push-GulfNews

Fatah al-Islam statement claims Lebanon bomb-Reuters

Israel 'surprised' to get soldiers' remains from Hezbollah-Ha'aretz

German FM hails detainee exchange between Hezbollah, Israel-Xinhua

Deal, or No Deal-The Moderate Voice

Saudi clerics attack Shi'ites and Hezbollah-Reuters

Israel transferred spy Nassim Nasser to Lebanon, and got body ..Ha'aretz

Violence Continues in Lebanon Amid Political Challenges-The Media Line

Israel releases Lebanese after six years in prison-Daily Star

German foreign minister sees 'signs of hope' in Lebanon-AFP
Suleiman touts prospects for diplomatic ties with Damascus-Daily Star
Top clerics slam attacks on Lebanese Army, urge preservation of unity-Daily Star
Baabda Palace denies media report of visit by Assad later this month-Daily Star

Suleiman calls for removal of posters bearing his likeness-Daily Star
Pentagon official touts stronger military ties-AFP
Multiple flare-ups strike Palestinian refugee camps-Daily Star

Profit taking helps reduce recent gains on Beirut Stock Exchange-Daily Star
Lebanon sees incremental increase in VAT revenues-Daily Star

Garbage on Sidon's coast kills two sea turtles-Daily Star
Clashes spell extra stresses for students at AUB, LAU
Athletes, students 'Run for Peace' in Beirut-Daily Star
Tariq al-Jadida sees tough road ahead for head of state-Daily Star
Faith in Suleiman, but not in the political system-Daily Star
Lebanese 'journalism' is part of the problem-Daily Star

Terrorists Reportedly Readying Sabotage Attacks in Lebanon, on UNIFIL
Naharnet/Terrorists were reportedly preparing sabotage attacks in Lebanon, including assaults on U.N. peacekeepers, according to a report published Monday.
The daily As Safir, citing information obtained from security circles, said military and security apparatuses, particularly north and south of the country, have been instructed to go on alert in an effort to counter "possible sabotage operations carried out by terrorist rings in certain areas" of Lebanon.
It said the Lebanese army has reinforced security measures around the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain el-Hilweh, particularly after some Islamist officials in the southern port city of Sidon received information that a "dormant cell" based inside the camp had been instructed to leave for Iraq at once.
The information coincided with reports obtained by the Lebanese intelligence and other security leaderships as well as the command of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) about preparations underway by terrorist rings in some areas and in Palestinian refugee camps for operations targeting "some UNIFIL patrols."
Meanwhile, authorities were trying to pin down the identity of the would-be suicide bomber that was killed by the Lebanese army over the weekend.
One press report, citing Lebanese medical sources, said the examinations conducted showed that the victim was in his early thirties and was neither Lebanese nor Palestinian. The Lebanese army on Saturday thwarted an apparent attack by a suicide bomber from the fanatic Jund al-Sham group at the entrance to the southern refugee camp of Ain al-Hilweh. Reliable sources said the attacker, who had an explosive belt around his waist, was equipped with a hand grenade which he tried to hurl at an army checkpoint prior to storming a nearby army post to blow himself up. The hand grenade dropped from the apparent assailant's pocket as a soldier shouted at him to stop, one source said. As the assailant moved his hand towards his waist, troops opened fire at him, assuming he had a side arm. He was killed instantly.
After searching his body, the explosive belt was found and he was assumed to be trying to pull the trigger when the troops opened fire, one source explained.
Jund al-Sham is a militant group made up of Lebanese and Palestinian militants. It is headed by a wanted Lebanese extremist known as Ghandy Sahmarani, who goes by the code name of Abu Ramez. The daily As Safir on Monday identified the would-be bomber as someone who carried a false Palestinian passport under the name of Bassem Mahmoud Yaseen al-Ahmed from the southern refugee camp of Buss in the port city of Tyre. It said that after careful examination in Ain al-Hilweh and Buss to verify the identity of the would-be killer, the various Palestinian factions rushed to inform Lebanese authorities that they had no one by that name. The man was believed to have been working for a "dormant cell" that was lately instructed by al-Qaida to move to Iraq. Beirut, 02 Jun 08, 07:35

Saudi Clerics Attack Shiites, Hizbullah
Naharnet/Hardline Sunni clerics in Saudi Arabia have accused Shiites, including Hizbullah, of humiliating Sunnis, just days before a Muslim interfaith conference called by Saudi king Abdullah. The attacks on Iran, Iraq and Hizbullah — though contrary to official policy — highlight the sharp, growing distrust between Islam's two arms. In a strongly worded statement, the 22 clerics savaged Iranian-backed Hizbullah fighters, saying the group has tricked other Muslims into believing it is against Jews and Americans."Many Muslims have been fooled by the Shiites' claims to be championing Islam and challenging the Jews and Americans and Hizbullah's claims in Lebanon," the clerics said Sunday.
The statement appeared on several Web sites Sunday, including a site run by Sheikh Nasser al-Omar, one of the signers. The 22 clerics are known for their radical views and have previously released virulent anti-Shiite statements. A Saudi official told The Associated Press that the clerics who issued the statement do not represent the official Saudi religious establishment, and their views do not reflect those adopted by the government. But the clerics' anti-Shiite diatribe reflects growing Sunni distrust of Shiites and Iran. The trend surfaced with the sectarian unrest in Iraq over the past year and escalated dramatically after Hizbullah, in a show of force, seized predominantly Sunni areas of West Beirut last month. "If they (Shiites) have a country, they humiliate and exert control in their rule over Sunnis," said the clerics, specifically citing Iran and Iraq. "They sow strife, corruption and destruction among Muslims and destabilize security in Muslim countries."
The statement is potentially embarrassing for the government because it comes a few days before the opening of a much-touted Muslim interfaith conference in the holy city of Mecca that aims at closing Muslim ranks and discussing dialogue with other faiths. Over 500 Islamic scholars — reportedly including former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani — are expected to attend the three-day conference, which begins Wednesday. The event is the first step of a wider interfaith dialogue between Muslims and adherents of other religions, notably Christians and Jews, that King Abdullah called for a few months ago. Saudi Arabia is worried by the growing regional influence of Iran's Shiite government and its allies in Iraq, the Palestinian territories and Lebanon.(AP-Naharnet) Beirut, 02 Jun 08, 05:43

Assad, UAE Leader Back Doha Agreement
Naharnet/Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his UAE counterpart Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan have voiced support for the Doha deal on Lebanon, the UAE's WAM news agency reported. The two leaders also called on Sunday for "stepped up efforts" to bolster Arab unity, the agency reported. It did not elaborate. Syria has had strained ties with Arab heavyweights Saudi Arabia and Egypt over the 18-month political standoff in Lebanon, where it supported the Hizbullah-led opposition against the Western- and Arab-backed majority. Assad is in Abu Dhabi on a two-nation tour that will also take him to Kuwait on Tuesday.
His trip follows talks in Damascus on Friday with Qatar's Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, whose country last month hosted Lebanese reconciliation talks.
The Arab League-brokered Doha accord led to the election of former army chief Gen. Michel Suleiman as president in Lebanon on May 25 after a six-month vacuum. Lebanese politicians also agreed to form a national unity government giving the opposition veto power on decision-making and adopt a new electoral law for legislative polls next year.(AFP) Beirut, 02 Jun 08, 04:47

3 Other Bombs Reportedly Found Inside Abdeh Army Post
Naharnet/Three bombs were reportedly found inside a Lebanese army intelligence post near the northern city of Tripoli but did not explode, according to a report published Monday. The daily Al Liwa said investigation showed that the force of an explosion which killed a Lebanese army soldier in the Abdeh post on Saturday had apparently disabled the other bombs from blowing up. Al Liwa said the military prosecutor summoned all soldiers in the post to learn about how the bombs reached the position without anybody noticing them. Security officials said it was unclear what caused the explosion on Saturday.
They said that the army had found another device inside the post primed and ready to detonate but that explosives experts defused it before it went off. Investigators were trying to determine when the explosives were planted. Beirut, 02 Jun 08, 10:05

Uproar Over Qabalan's Demand to Create Shiite VP Post
Naharnet/A demand by Lebanon's highest Shiite authority Sheikh Abdul Amir Qabalan to create a new Shiite Vice President post drew prompt rejection, particularly from Christian leaders. Former President Amin Gemayel expressed fears that such a suggestion was tantamount to "crowning a substitute state and a new regime being set up by Hizbullah in Lebanon."Gemayel said Qabalan's demand was a violation of the Lebanese Covenant. "How can we suggest any amendments when there is one party heavily armed with potentials that surpass that of the state?" Gemayel asked. Meanwhile, MP Butros Harb also believed that Qabalan's demand was a breach of the constitution "since there is nothing in the constitution called Vice President post.""This is a demand that cannot be fulfilled," Harb said. Lebanese Forces MP George Adwan, however, said Qabalan's suggestion "came at the wrong time.""The new climate aimed at strengthening coexistence leaves no room for badly timed suggestions," Adwan said. "Now is not the time for that." Beirut, 02 Jun 08, 10:52

Sarkozy Visits Lebanon Saturday
Naharnet/French President Nicolas Sarkozy will visit Lebanon on Saturday to meet his newly elected counterpart Michel Suleiman and French U.N. peacekeeping troops, a Lebanese government official told AFP. The official said on Monday that Sarkozy will meet Suleiman as well as Prime Minister Fouad Saniora and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. He will then head to southern Lebanon to meet the French contingent of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon and is also due to meet members of the French community in Lebanon. Sarkozy will be the first Western head of state to meet Suleiman since the former army chief was elected president on May 25 following a Qatari-brokered deal to end an 18-month political crisis.(AFP) Beirut, 02 Jun 08, 12:13

Fatah al-Islam Allegedly Claims Abdeh Blast
Naharnet/A statement allegedly attributed to the shadowy Fatah al-Islam terrorist group on Monday claimed responsibility for a bomb blast that targeted a military intelligence outpost in the northern town of Abdeh. The state-run National News Agency (NNA) said its office received a faxed statement allegedly signed by Fatah al-Islam's media bureau claiming responsibility for the Saturday blast that killed a private. "God almighty has enabled a group of our Mujahideen to start avenging the blood … shed during the assault by the Lebanese Army against our people in Nahr al-Bared camp," the statement said. "Our Mujahideen succeeded the day before yesterday in planting an explosive charge in a Lebanese army intelligence burrow in the town of Abdeh. "The charge was detonated by remote control," the statement added, claiming that the explosion killed and wounded several people. Beirut, 02 Jun 08, 14:36

Pakradoni: Christians Regained their Powers by Doha Accord
Naharnet/The Phalange Party's former chairman Karim Pakradoni said Monday that the Doha Accord compensated the Christians for what they had lost in line with the Taif accord. Pakradoni, talking to reporters after a meeting with Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun, said the Taif Accord had stripped the president of his powers. "With the Doha Accord the Christians regained their powers through the cabinet," Pakradoni added. The Doha Accord's main accomplishment is that it enabled the Christians to regain their status in the state, Pakradoni concluded. Beirut, 02 Jun 08, 15:17

Suleiman Didn't Attend 1st Bkirki Mass…Politics Absent from Sfeir's Sermon
Naharnet/Newly elected President Michel Suleiman broke the centuries-long tradition by not attending the mass held in Bkirki on Sunday, the first after his election as head of state. Some press reports indicated Suleiman's failure to attend the mass was likely due to "security considerations." At the same time, Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir did not touch on political issues during his Sunday sermon. Beirut, 02 Jun 08, 11:36

Saudi clerics attack Shi'ites and Hezbollah
Sun Jun 1, 2008
RIYADH (Reuters) - Clerics in Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia attacked minority Shi'ites in a statement on Sunday saying Lebanon's Hezbollah was posturing against Israel to hide an anti-Sunni agenda. The Saudi government and religious establishment has watched with alarm as the Lebanese Shi'ite group's popularity rose in the Arab world since forcing Israel to withdraw in south Lebanon in 2000 and surviving an Israeli military onslaught in 2006.
Although most Arabs are Sunni Muslims, Hezbollah is generally popular in the region. Saudi Arabia sees the group, which is funded by Shi'ite Iran, as an extension of Iranian power. "Many Muslims have been fooled by the Shi'ites' claims to be championing Islam and challenging the Jews and Americans and Hezbollah's claims in Lebanon," the statement distributed on Islamic websites said. "Those who believe their claims have not realized the reality of the infidel bases of their faith ... It was the rejectionist Shi'ites who began the practice of visiting graves and building shrines," it said, citing a major concern of Saudi Arabia's particular brand of Islam, often termed Wahhabism. "They (Shi'ites) humiliate Sunnis whenever they have the chance, in Iran and Iraq. They are destabilizing Muslim countries as happened during pilgrimage and in Yemen."Some members of a Shi'ite sect in north Yemen, to the south of Saudi Arabia, are locked in rebellion there. Iranian pilgrims making political statements have often clashed with Saudi authorities during the haj pilgrimage. Hezbollah and its allies won a bigger seat in government after street fighting broke out between government and opposition militias last month, further alarming Riyadh. The statement was signed by 22 clerics including the leading independent religious scholars Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak and Abdullah bin Jabreen The Grand Mufti, who represents the government's position, was not a signatory but he was quoted in the media during last month's fighting in Lebanon saying groups who raise the banner of Islam were exposing the country to the danger of Israeli reprisals, but he did not specify Hezbollah by name.
**(Writing by Andrew Hammond; Editing by Charles Dick)

Syria Isn't Serious - Lebanon Is
Prof. Barry Rubin - 6/2/2008 -G;obal Politician
Why is Israel negotiating with Syria and what happened in Lebanon ? One of these events may be the Middle East ’s most important development for 2008. Hint: it isn't the first of them.
Let's consider why the two sides are "negotiating" including the fact that they aren't negotiating.
There isn’t going to be a deal. Both sides know it, yet have good reason to be seen
talking, indirectly that is.
Start with six factors that account for Israeli government policy.
1. Keep Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in power. It's not the only issue but sure it's there. Olmert wants to claim he's amidst such important negotiations that it’s a sin to interfere. What’s more important, he says, envelopes filled with cash or peace? Olmert has used this strategy with Palestinian talks for a while and is now jumping on a different horse. This doesn’t mean he’s going to give away national security assets to save himself. The beauty of this strategy is that he doesn't have to do that. Just making headlines achieves this goal.
2. Show everyone Israel wants peace. The country is indeed ready to take chances and make compromises—though only if sufficiently rewarded and proving this seeks to muster support from Western governments, media, and public opinion, and also to ensure its base within Israel .
3. Give Syria reason to show restraint. If Syria is gabbing away in contacts that are all-win, no-lose for that dictatorship--it doesn't want to wreck them by too much terror or another Hizballah war on Israel . Keeping things quiet in the north lets Israel focus on the south, the Gaza Strip.
4. Keep Turkey happy. Turkey is an important friend of Israel and has tied its prestige to this initiative. Not real important but should be on the list.
5. Show the Palestinians that Israel has an alternate partner, as a way of pressuring them. Israel gains a freer hand for dealing with them (see point 3, above) by
at least momentarily widening the gap between Palestinian and Syrian interests. Many of those backing the Syrian track don’t believe progress with the Palestinians is possible. If point 1 is most important for Olmert's political calculations; point 5 is central for coalition partner Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
6. Media coverage and political statements ignore or misinterpret the fact that Israel isn’t negotiating with Syria . It’s merely holding more systematic, indirect contacts to establish whether Israeli preconditions for direct negotiations can be met. Even though the answer is "no," this means Israel can do this at little cost and no substantive concessions.
Thus, Israel is doing something totally different from the ideas of Senator Barack Obama which would bring disaster if he becomes the U.S. president. If Syria is ready to move away from Iran, stop backing terrorist groups, be ready to make full peace with Israel, and meet other conditions (limiting forces in the Golan Heights, early warning stations, etc.), talks can advance. When this doesn’t happen the talks will either collapse or enter a long, obviously dead, slow-motion process.
This game, in my opinion, is not a good thing, since it weakens the struggle against the Iran-led bloc which is the region’s most important issue, but it is unlikely to inflict material damage to Israel 's strategic position.
What, then, are Syria 's motives? It, too, has good reasons to play the game.
1. Syria 's main problem is international isolation. The alliance with Iran as well as sponsoring terror against Lebanon , Iraq , and Israel , has brought Syria serious diplomatic and economic costs. Negotiating with Israel bails it out of jail. The precedent is 1991-2000. Without concession or policy shift, the dictatorship survived a decade when it was vulnerable ( USSR 's collapse; America 's Kuwait victory). Understandably, it wants to repeat this triumph.
2. The Damascus regime argues that if the West and Israel want it to talk peace, they better treat it right. Forget about investigating Syrian-planned murders in Lebanon ; cancel the tribunal trying the regime’s highest level to murder.
3. Ditto, forget about punishing Syria 's building a secret nuclear weapon installation with North Korea . Ignore Syria 's backing for insurgents in Iraq who kill Iraqis and American soldiers.
4. Demand more concessions which might be obtained without any of their own.
5. Stall for time in the belief that Obama will become president and follow a pro-Syria policy. This is what they’re saying in Damascus .
6. Focus on what they really want: consolidating control over Lebanon without interference from abroad. The world, including especially the UN and State Department, did nothing to stop Hizballah-Iran-Syria victory in Lebanon , then compounded the
betrayal by pretending it was a step toward stability. This probably would have happened without the Israel-Syria drama but that couldn't hurt, so reasoned Syria ’s rulers.
Of course, the idea that Syria wants real peace, will recognize Israel , move away from Iran , abandon Hamas or Hizballah, and cease terrorist meddling in Iraq is purest nonsense. All these steps are against the regime's vital interests. Yet, as demonstrated above, it can play the talks' game without doing any of these things.
Meanwhile, Lebanon has fallen to Hizballah, another state added to Iran ’s bloc. This catastrophe is intensified by ignoring it. One day, this tragedy might be seen as equivalent to the 1938 sacrifice of Czechoslovakia at Munich to appease Germany . Bashar is no Hitler (perhaps closer in this parallel to Germany’s junior partner, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini), but toward Lebanon the United States and Europe, especially France, acted like British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at Munich.
And this is even without Iran having nuclear weapons or Obama being in the White House. What could come next may be far worse unless the West wakes up.
***Prof. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary university. His new book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
You can buy his latest book The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict on Amazon.com here.
 

The gradual takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah
Reza Hossein Borr - 6/2/2008 Global Pilitician

http://globalpolitician.com/24847-lebanon-hezbollah

"When you have lost, pretend that you have won and celebrate so pompously that everybody believes you have won." This is what the Hezbollah of Lebanon did after its war with Israel, but this time when they really won in Lebanon, they did not celebrate as much as they did before just to downplay their victory and diminish its impact over Lebanon's politics and convince the Lebanese people that they did not have another hidden agenda for Lebanon. Hezbollah was right in both cases. In the first case, they had to exaggerate about their victory to inject hope and confidence in their members and the Islamic world. They did the opposite this time when they really crushed their opponents in Beirut in less than two days to prevent scaring the Lebanese Suunis and convince them that everything is okay for their opponents.
The Arabs gracefully accepted terms and conditions of Hezbollah without accepting defeat but every intelligent analyst knows that the Arab league and the opponents of Hezbollah have lost their territories. Now Hezbollah is the main power in Lebanon but what they will do in future? There is no doubt that the leader of Hezbollah is planning his next step for even more expanding its power in Lebanon.
What is the next step for Lebanon? Now that the Hezbollah has consolidated its supremacy and forced its opponents into submission, it is the big time for the next big step to consolidate itself as the main power of Lebanon. The Doha agreement was publicised as a win-win arrangement. The international media assessed it as a victory for Hezbollah. The Arab media downplayed the victory of Hezbollah and portrayed it as if it was in the interest of all Lebanese people and Lebanese opposing groups. The fact of the matter is the opponents of Hezbollah were very happy that it did not capture and execute them during the short Civil War. They were humbled sufficiently to accept what they couldn't accept for nearly two years. They were happy that they were alive and they were happy that Hezbollah was happy to withdraw its troops from their territories.
Hezbollah was smart enough to accept its victory without publicising it as that would have encountered the resistance of the Arab masses. Iran and Syria also did not oppose the agreement as they saw their ally become formally the main powerhouse of Lebanon. The victory of Hezbollah over its opponents was the victory of Iran and Syria over the Arab governments. Now Syria can shift as much arms and ammunitions to Hezbollah headquarters as it wishes without any opposition. Obviously Syria is still at war with Israel and it has Hezbollah and Hamas as its main allies in this long dispute. It is likely for Hezbollah to shift its focus for some time to South Lebanon along the Israeli border to make sure that it deploys sufficient arms, ammunitions, equipments and well-trained soldiers to act if Iran was attacked. Syria will use the South of Lebanon and Hezbollah as a deterrent to prevent an Israeli attack on its soil. Iran will finance the supply and provision of any equipment that may be required to strengthening the position of Hezbollah not only in south Lebanon but in Beirut too.
The victory of Hezbollah over its opponents in Lebanon was in fact a big blow to Israel as it has now a new well-trained and well-equipped enemy near its borders and therefore, any war with Hezbollah will be considered a war of people in Lebanon and it will draw the attention of the international community. Furthermore, Hamas will be given more opportunity for training its members to a high level. The victory of the Hezbollah over its liberal opponents will also inspire Hamas to gain more confidence to insist on its present position of keeping Gazza separate from the rest of Palestinian authority while it can use Hezbollah as a new model and ask Iran to provide it with the same facilities.
The Hezbollah of Lebanon will try to force the Lebanese government to establish close relationship with Syria and Iran, practically alienating Lebanon from the camp that is close to the West. This will give Syria a new opportunity to interfere again in the affairs of Lebanon and help Hezbollah to take new measures for expanding its power. The active participation in the process of decision-making of the government is another significant development for Hezbollah in which it will use its influence to change the direction of the government. Hezbollah will also take the opportunity for installing and establishing new communication systems in the locations which are considered strategic. These communication systems would give it a new advantage to control the work of governmental institutions as well as political figures and its opponents. It will impose new restrictions on its opponents and limits their ability for manoeuvring and secret dealings.
Hezbollah will also establish friendly relationships with Christians to alienate them from the Sunnis. It must be noted that the Shia Hezbollah has no as much contrasts with the Christians as it has with the Sunnis and therefore, when the Suunis are completely neutralised, it will be the turn of the Christians. This is what the Iranians call the creeping coup. The Islamic Republic of Iran mastered this strategy of gradual creeping coup (Align yourself with one and take on another one, one at a time) to remove its opponents one at a time while securing the support of the other one. This is important to remember that Ayatollah Khomeini appointed Bazargan, a semi-secular prime minister, at the beginning of the revolution as he was acceptable as a decent man to the majority of the Iranians. By aligning itself with Bazargan, and armed leftist groups, Khomeini began to massacre his monarchist opponents. As soon as the monarchists were eliminated, Khomeini ousted Bazargan and began eliminating the radical leftists groups by aligning itself with nationalists and liberals. As soon as the leftists were eliminated, Khomeini began to eliminate nationalists and Liberals. This was all gradual. This was all aligning itself with one group and eliminating the other one. Each group was eliminated one at a time. This is an old strategy in war. You can't fight all at the same time. Align yourself with one and eliminate the other one and as soon as the other one is eliminated, find an excuse and eliminate the one that was allied with you.
This will be the strategy of Hezbollah in Lebanon. For successful implementation of this strategy, Hezbollah needs to pretend to establish close relationship with other Lebanese groups to gain their confidence. In fact, it will use a two pronged strategy: lulling Arab emotions and preparing its plan for the gradual takeover of Lebanon.
The greatest concession that the Hezbollah received was its acceptability not only by the Arabs but by the western world. As Hassan Nassrallah, the leader of Hezbollah said in his speech, it is the military power that determines your position in international relations. The international recognition of Hezbollah as a political force will encourage this organization to increase its military power even further to secure even more recognition. Iran has been very effective in lobbying for Hezbollah to gain legitimacy as a resistance force, as resistance in the Arab world is the highest priority. Hezbollah has been also very smart to increase its military force using resistance legitimacy. If the resolutions of United Nations, the power of Arab nations and the pressure of civil societies did not work for establishing a Palestinian state, the military power and smart strategies of Hezbollah will definitely affect the mindset and attitude of Israel in dealing with the Palestinians and Syrians.
The success of Iranian strategy of shifting resistance from Arab governments to the Arab people changed the equilibrium in international scene. While international community supported Israel in its wars against the Arab governments, no one can support it in its war with the Arab people. Now the war with Israel is the war of the Arab people, not the war of the Arab governments. Israel needs to adjust itself completely to the new realities.
While Hezbollah will pursue its clandestine agenda for gradual takeover of Lebanon, Iran will be busy drawing new plans for another country in another part of the Middle East. Iran will give every assurance to Arab countries that it would not further advance in their territories, cooling their nerves but it is unlikely that anybody can believe that. But again, if they do not accept the false assurances of the Islamic Republic of Iran, what options they can have?
Reza Hossein Borr is a leadership consultant and the creator of 150 CDs and 14 Change management models. He is also the author of Manual Success, Manual of Coaching and Mentoring, Motivational Stories that Can Change Your Life, and a New Vision for the Islamic World. He can be contacted by email: balochfront@aol.com. His web site is www.rezaaa.com
 

Lebanon back to Normalcy?
Abdul Ruff - 6/1/2008-Global Politician
It is only ironical that the Lebanese, like Palestinians, have to settle scores with domestic opponents and e satisfied with that without having any time left for resolving the eve-increasing problems with Israel.
The intense fight between the government and opposition in Lebanon seems to have come to an end with a compromise formula brokered by Arabs at Doha. The Hezbollah-led opposition left a national unity coalition cabinet late in 2006, demanding more power and a veto over government decisions. The deadlock has stopped parliament from electing a new president for more than six months, creating an unstable power vacuum. Arab League mediators met both sides in Beirut in an effort to end the violence which left many people dead. Under a six-point plan, the rival parties agreed to go to Qatar on Friday to try to elect a president - Lebanon has had no president since November - and to form a national unity government.
The Western-backed government and Hezbollah-led opposition agreed on May 21 the army chief as a compromise candidate as violence raised fears of civil war. Lebanon's parliament has elected army commander General Michel Suleiman as president, ending deadlock which has left the post vacant since November. Gen Suleiman called for "the beginning of a nation that is starting to wake up from self-destruction". It seems his powers are limited after recent Hezbollah gains. Many Lebanese are relieved to finally have a president.
The deputy leader of the mainly Shia political and militant movement, Naim Qassam, told a news conference Hezbollah would return the situation in Lebanon back "to normal". Airport officials said the national carrier MEA would resume international flights to the airport soon. The Hezbollah opposition has pledged to return normality to Lebanon, a week after battles erupted between the movement and government supporters. The announcement comes a day after the government withdrew two key measures to curb Hezbollah that triggered clashes. The “militants” loyal to Hezbollah have since removed roadblocks on the route to Beirut's international airport.
The camp set up by supporters of Hezbollah and its opposition allies occupied a sizable chunk of downtown Beirut. The razor-wire barricades set up by the army to protect the government building have also now been removed. For the smart shops and cafes of the reconstructed downtown district - which depend heavily on a climate of stability - it could not come too soon. These shopkeepers count heavily on an influx of rich Arab visitors from the Gulf during the summer months. They lost that two summers ago because of Hezbollah's war with Israel. Now, they're hoping at least, that this summer can be salvaged by the new agreement signed in Qatar, between the pro-West Lebanese Government and Syrian and Iranian-backed Hezbollah reached to deescalate the crisis.
Agreement
According Doha Agreement, signed last week, western-backed ruling majority to get 16 cabinet seats and choose prime minister, while Syrian-backed opposition to get 11 cabinet seats and veto power. President would nominate three cabinet seats. The use of weapons in internal conflicts is to be banned. Opposition protest camps in central Beirut are to be removed. A new law would be enacted to divide country into smaller electoral districts. Among 200 guests at the parliamentary vote were the Emir of Qatar, who helped mediate the Doha deal, as well as a US congressional delegation and the foreign ministers of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. These outside powers have all been involved in the proxy struggle in Lebanon, but now seem to be coming together to give their blessing to the agreement.
Under the agreement, the opposition gained the power of veto in a new cabinet of national unity - over which it had walked out of the previous cabinet 18 months ago. While the make-up of the government has been agreed, there will be much haggling over who gets which portfolio. Under the constitution, outgoing Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is expected to head a caretaker government until a new prime minister is appointed. The government in effect backed down, retracting demands like the head of airport security be moved from his job and Hezbollah's private phone system be shut down. The network is a key element of the Hezbollah's military capability and what it calls the "weapons of resistance" against Israel.
The agreement that paved the way for his election, reached in Doha, ended some of the worst violence since the country's 1975-1990 civil war. An 18-month stalemate between the Christian, Sunni Muslim and Druze governing coalition and the pro-Syrian opposition - led by the Shia Hezbollah political and militant group - had brought the country to crisis point. It is indeed a great agreement achieved for Lebanon; hopefully the beginning of new era. The job has been vacant since last November because of the political deadlock. The agreement gives the Hezbollah-led opposition bloc enough seats in the cabinet for a veto. The controversial issue of Hezbollah's arsenal is addressed. The deal states that "use of arms or violence is forbidden to settle political differences".
The army chief, Gen Suleiman, who was standing unopposed, is widely seen as a trusted figure who has managed to maintain the army's neutrality among Lebanon's complex mix of factions. For months, Gen Suleiman had been accepted by all sides as the only candidate to succeed outgoing pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, but disagreements had repeatedly prevented a parliamentary vote to appoint him. His election does not mean the military is taking over - it is more a case of feuding politicians being unable to agree on a Maronite Christian, which the president has to be, who is acceptable to all. Applause broke out in the chamber as speaker Nabih Berri announced that Gen Suleiman had won 118 votes out of 127.
Following the announcement, there was a lot of commotion on the streets now. “Let us unite... and work towards a solid reconciliation... we have paid dearly for our national unity, let us preserve it hand-in-hand” Trumpets played and supporters waved flags in the streets, while celebratory gunfire resounded around the capital, Beirut.
Reconciliation?
As he was sworn in, the new president called for a "new phase", and a “quiet dialogue” on some of Lebanon’s thorniest issue, including the role of Hezbollah as an armed movement. His assumption of presidency would add further momentum. The BBC's Jim Muir in Beirut says the first hurdle facing the new president is to form a national unity government, as agreed in last week's deal after days of talks in Qatar. The outgoing Western-backed governing coalition had pushed for the UN tribunal and blamed Syria for Hariri's death, while the role of Hezbollah as an armed movement to defend themselves is one of the most sensitive issues facing the new president.
After he was sworn in, Gen Suleiman, in a speech seen as reaching out to both sides of Lebanon's political divide, said: “Let us unite... and work towards a solid reconciliation. We have paid dearly for our national unity. Let us preserve it hand-in-hand." Gen Suleiman said the country should co-operate with UN efforts to try suspects in the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. But he also called for "brotherly ties" with Syria and a "national strategic stance" so that Lebanon could "benefit from the lessons of the resistance [Hezbollah] to serve the nation".
Weeks ago the crisis flared into the worst violence the country has seen since the civil war in 1990. Many people died in clashes as Hezbollah fighters seized control of sections of Beirut in response to government attempts to outlaw the group's private telephone network and reassign Beirut airport's security chief, who is close to the opposition. The agreement signed in the Qatari capital Doha has brought about a perceptible easing of tensions on the ground.
US President George W Bush welcomed Gen Suleiman's election and said he looked forward to an "era of political reconciliation". Bush said that he is confident that Lebanon has chosen a leader committed to protecting its sovereignty, extending the government's authority over all of Lebanon , and upholding Lebanon 's international obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions.
Lebanon
Lebanon is a religiously diverse, mountainous country in Western Asia, on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bordered by Syria to the north and east, and Israel to the south. Lebanon faces serious problems from Israel. Before the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990), the country enjoyed a period of relative calm and prosperity, driven by the tourism, agriculture, and banking sectors of the economy. It was widely known as the "Switzerland of the East" due to its financial power and diversity. Immediately following the end of the war, there were extensive efforts to revive the economy and rebuild national infrastructure. By early 2006, a considerable degree of stability had been achieved throughout much of the country, Beirut's reconstruction was almost complete, and an increasing number of foreign tourists were pouring into Lebanon's resorts.
On 2005 February 14, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated in a car bomb explosion near the Saint George Bay in Beirut. Leaders of the March 14 Alliance accused Syria of the attack due to its extensive military and intelligence presence in Lebanon, and the public rift between Hariri and Damascus over the Syrian-backed constitutional amendment extending pro-Syrian President Lahoud's term in office.
The Hariri assassination marked the beginning of a series of assassination attempts that led to the loss of many prominent Lebanese figures. It is claimed that the assassination may have been executed by the Israeli Mossad in an attempt to destabilize the country, though Israel denies any direct involvment in this. Hezbollah captured on July 12, 2006, two Israeli soldiers leading to a conflict, the 2006 war that caused widespread loss of life and damage to Lebanon's infrastructure from 21 July, 2006 until a a United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect on 14 August, 2006, and the country's economy is still in the process of recovering.
In October 2007, when Émile Lahoud finished his second term as President, the opposition conditioned its vote for a successor on a power-sharing deal, thus leaving the country without a president for over 6 months. On 09 May , 2008, Hezbollah and Amal militants, in an armed attack triggered by a government decision on Hezbollah's communications network, temporarily took over Western Beirut. The situation was described by the government as an attempted "coup".
On May 21, 2008, all major Lebanese parties signed an accord to elect Michel Suleiman as President, to form a national unity government with 11 out of 30 seats for the opposition, thus enabling it to veto decisions, and to adopt a new electoral law, based on the 1960 law with amendments for the 3 Beirut constituencies. The deal was brokered by an Arab League delegation, headed by the Emir and Foreign Minister of Qatar and the Secretary General of the Arab League, after 5 days of intense negotiations in Doha. Michel Suleiman was officially elected President on Sunday May 25, 2008 in the presence of the Foreign Ministers of Syria and Iran as well as France and Saudi-Arabia.
A Word: Beirut back to life
The agreement between feuding politicians has brought a surge of hope and confidence which has been felt in many areas, including a burst of activity on the financial markets, with some shares jumping sharply. Beirut 's city centre, partly paralyzed for 18 months by a sit-in staged by Lebanese opposition groups, is starting to come back to life. Cleaning crews were out in force and restaurants, nightclubs and cafes prepared to open for business. The tented encampment was removed within hours of agreement between feuding Lebanese factions.
It was a huge relief for many Lebanese, and the world at large, to find themselves with a new president in Lebanon at last, after 19 failed attempts to elect a head of state. But Gen Suleiman comes into office with his wings somewhat clipped, after his army was humiliated by having to stand by while Hezbollah burned newspaper offices and nearly stirred up civil war in the violence which broke out two weeks ago. However the turmoil has been put down as far as possible with the Doha agreement. Suleiman would see the situation never goes out of control again and the legitimate concerns of the opposition and other sections of the country are properly addressed. Like the Palestinians, the Lebanese could successfully face their external enemies only if they are united and face the danger together. Whether the usual Sunni-Shia divide or something else has triggered the trouble, the spiritual leadership in Lebanon has warned all sides against falling into the trap of sectarian discourse and called for dialogue among all parties.
The Doha Agreement has largely been seen as a victory for Hezbollah in Arab world and beyond; the militia cum political party will be brought into the Government and provided a cabinet veto. Meanwhile, a discussion of the disposition of Hezbollah’s weapons—a core issue for March 14th—is deferred. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa has described the Doha Agreement as a historic “reconciliation” but it is up to the Hezbollah and the government to prove if it is not a temporary truce—until the next round of fighting.
**Abdul Ruff is an Indian analyst, researcher & commentator.

The Region: Broken engagements
By BARRY RUBIN -Haaretz
Engagement doesn't always produce marriage. In the US-Iran case, for example, diplomatic engagements have been repeatedly disastrous. Yet many think the idea of engagement was just invented and never tried.
President John Kennedy pressed Iran for democratic reforms in the early 1960s. The shah responded with his White Revolution, which horrified traditionalists, provoking them to active opposition. One of them was named Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
President Richard Nixon urged Iran in the early 1970s, under the Nixon Doctrine, to become a regional power, since America was overextended in Vietnam. The shah embarked on a huge arms-buying campaign and close alliance, stirring yet more opposition and fiscal strain, further contributing to unrest.
In the late 1970s president Jimmy Carter pushed Iran to ease restrictions. The result was the Islamist revolution. Next, Carter urged the shah not to repress the uprising, which helped bring about his downfall.
After the 1979 revolution, Carter engaged the new regime to show Khomeini that America was his friend. National security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who today advises Barack Obama, met Iranian leaders. Teheran interpreted this engagement as an effort to subvert or coopt the revolution, so Iranians seized the US embassy and took everyone there hostage.
The Reagan administration secretly engaged Iran in the mid-1980s to help free those hostages. Result: a policy debacle and free military equipment for Iran.
In recent years there has been a long engagement in which European states negotiated for themselves and America to get Teheran to stop its nuclear weapons drive. Iran gained four years to develop nukes; the West got nothing.
THE HISTORY of US engagement with the PLO and Syria is similar.
The Oslo era (1992-2000) was engagement as disaster, establishing a PLO regime indifferent to its people's welfare. It increased radicalism and violence, with no gain for peace. Aside from its worsened security situation, Israel's international image was badly damaged by concessions made and risks taken.
America's making the PLO a client brought it no gratitude or strategic gain.
Similarly, Syria used the 1991-2000 engagement era to survive its USSR superpower sponsor's collapse while doing everything it wanted: dominating Lebanon, sponsoring terrorism and sabotaging peace. US secretaries of state visited Damascus numerous times and achieved nothing, a process that continued up to 2004.
Syria first helped Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, then sponsored terrorists who disrupted Iraq and killed Americans.
There have, of course, been successful engagements - but not with Iran, Syria or the PLO. The most successful was Egypt's turnaround by Nixon and Henry Kissinger. A partial success was changing Libya's behavior.
In those two cases, American power, not compassion, achieved success. Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and Egyptian president Anwar Sadat ("America holds 99 percent of the cards") knew they were weak and needed to stop America from hitting them hard.
ENGAGEMENTS, OF course, have effects other than direct success. One is to buy time for someone. But for who? If one party subverts other states, builds nuclear weapons, demoralizes the other's allies and sponsors terrorism during talks while the other side... just talks, the first side clearly benefits far more.
Secondly, if one side gets the other to make concessions to prove good faith and keep talks going, that side benefits. Keeping engagement going becomes an end in itself as the weaker side uses a diplomatic version of asymmetrical warfare to make gains.
Finally, while using talks to de-escalate tensions apparently benefits everyone, matters are not so simple. By talking, a stronger side can throw away its leverage. The weaker side does not have to back down to avoid confrontation.
So engagement without pressure or threat benefits the weaker side. If the stronger side is eager to reach agreement, the weaker side has more leverage. The advantage is transferred from the strongest side to the most intransigent one. Here, Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah have the upper hand.
SEN. OBAMA doesn't understand these points. He favors direct presidential diplomacy with Iran, without preconditions. A normal liberal concept of foreign policy is alien to him. What he should be saying is:
"America must be strong to protect its interests, values and friends against ruthless adversaries. But if America is strong, it can also be flexible. Let us engage countries and leaders by telling them clearly our demands and goals.
"Once Iran understands the United States will counter its threats of genocide against Israel, involvement in terrorism against Americans, and threats to our interests, it may back down. If Iran gives up its extremism, we are ready to offer friendship.
"But if Iran remains extremist, we will quickly abandon engagement and never hesitate to respond appropriately."
This way, a leader shows he knows how to use both carrots and sticks.
But Obama has never said anything like this. He has no concept of toughness as a necessary element in flexibility, nor of deterrence as a precondition to conciliation. Nor does he indicate that he would be steadfast if engagement failed. He defines no US preconditions for meeting or conditions for agreement. He offers to hear Iran's grievances, but says nothing about American grievances.
Radical Islamists interpret this strategy as weakness - of which they will take full advantage.
THAT'S WHY Iran, Syria and Hamas favor Obama. Thus spoke Lebanese cleric Muhammad Abu al-Qat on Hizbullah's Al-Manar television on May 10: "The American empire will very soon collapse... This won't happen as a result of war... An American Gorbachev will surface in America, and he will destroy this empire." (Translation by Memri)
Islamists and radicals want Obama because they understandably expect him to play into their hands. By the same token, more moderate Arab regimes and observers are horrified.
Obama is so scary and is accused of appeasement not because he wants to meet enemies in person, but because he doesn't want to meet them in struggle. He doesn't know how international politics works through power, threats, deterrence, self-interest and credibility. He doesn't comprehend that totalitarian ideologies cannot be moderated by apology or weakness.
Whatever you think of Sen. John McCain, he understands these basic concepts. That's why he's a centrist who can be trusted to protect American national interests. Whatever you think of Sen. Hillary Clinton, she understands these basic concepts. That's why she's a liberal who can be trusted to protect American national interests.
And that's why Obama is both a dangerously naive amateur, and a leftist posing as a liberal.
**The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center at IDC Herzliya and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal

The Axis of Weakness
By DANIEL FREEDMAN
FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
June 2, 2008
In a Middle East full of dissenters and conspiracy theorists, there are usually at least ten interpretations of any noteworthy event. So perhaps most remarkable about Hezbollah's recent power play in Beirut is how uniform commentary has been. The conventional wisdom is that the deal to give Shiites more control in the central government is a victory for the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis and a defeat for Saudi Arabia, France and the United States, who support the Cedar Revolution.
But why, at the moment of Hezbollah's big military victory -- when it had taken parts of Beirut and proved the army would not stand in its way -- did it not finish its coup? The Lebanese government's attempt to shut down Hezbollah's telecoms network and remove a Hezbollah-friendly army commander from Beirut airport miserably failed. Why did Hezbollah only demand a new political settlement? Why wave the white flag when your opponents have laid down their arms? This doesn't add up.
Perhaps then Hezbollah's temporary seizure of Beirut wasn't so much a sign of the strength of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis as of its weakness. The "Party of God" may realize the axis with Tehran and particularly Damascus is not quite as strong as it appears. Seen in this light, the decision to secure tangible political gains while it still has military strength makes sense.
Syria's ongoing negotiations with Israel must worry Hezbollah. Any peace agreement that nets Damascus the Golan Heights would have to include a promise to abandon Hezbollah. If these talks don't bring a deal immediately, the fact that Damascus entertains the idea of cutting ties with Hezbollah must concentrate minds in South Lebanon.
Another sore point is the February assassination of Imad Mughniyah in Damascus, a key Hezbollah leader. Most fingers pointed at Israel. But there is another theory that the Syrians may have killed Mughniyah as a sign to Jerusalem of their sincere intentions.
The pressure on Syria to abandon Hezbollah is rising and coming not just from the West. The March Arab League summit in Damascus was boycotted by half of the leaders. This snub was not only a blow to Syrian prestige. It also showed how isolated Damascus is in the Arab world -- a world it once hoped to lead. It was a signal that its gambit of creating a new regional alliance with Iran comes with a heavy price tag.
While Iran has no plans of making peace with Israel or abandoning Hezbollah, it would be difficult for Tehran to keep Hezbollah alive without Syrian help. If Damascus closed its border to Lebanon, it would cut off a key route for Iranian arms smuggling to Hezbollah. And Iran's financial support for the Shiite group is in the end no match for the kind of money Saudi Arabia can pour into Lebanon to counter Tehran's influence. Riyadh has indicated that it will increase its support for its Sunni allies in Lebanon.
Hezbollah may have also learned a lesson from recent events in Iraq, where the Iranian-backed militia headed by Muqtada al-Sadr has at least for now abandoned its fight and started negotiations with the government. Apparently, Iranian support was not enough to keep up al-Sadr's war.
Why should it be different in Lebanon? Although Hezbollah portrayed its recent war with Israel as a victory, it wasn't. The fight did serious damage to Hezbollah's military capabilities. And the Shiite group lost legitimacy among the Lebanese people for the way it acted, both in disregarding Lebanese lives and starting an unnecessary war.
The once dominant sentiment among all Lebanese that "everyone can get along because we are all Lebanese," is waning. Sunni citizens are increasingly wary of Hezbollah. The Shiite group therefore faces the prospect of a hostile Israel on one side, a Syria that is no longer its ally on another, and a third column of opponents within: Lebanon's Sunnis together with Druze and Christian populations who have their own problems with the Shiites.
Sensing the tide in Lebanon might be turning against it, it used the government's attempted crackdown as an excuse to take parts of Beirut to scare its opponents into accepting a new political reality. This new reality gives Shiites, and therefore Hezbollah, more power in the central government.
So perhaps what we are seeing is the beginning of the gradual transformation of Hezbollah into a predominately political actor. It won't be easy and it will take time. Just like Northern Ireland, where it took the IRA 10 years to decommission their arms.
Some people argue that given Hezbollah's ideological commitment to an Islamic Lebanon such a transformation could never happen. Well, in the Middle East, everyone promises never to negotiate with their enemies, but everyone has their price. The PLO promised to never recognize Israel. Israel promised never to recognize the PLO. And so on. While the PLO certainly didn't start off negotiating in good faith, the political process helped gradually changing their stated ideological aims. The same could potentially be true for Hezbollah.
If Hezbollah really is on the brink of what could turn out to be a seismic change, the U.S. should do everything to encourage this process. It should accept a greater role for Shiites in the Lebanese government as long as Hezbollah agrees to start, however gradually, decommissioning. Israel should also be allowed to negotiate seriously with Syria.
Much more is at stake than easing frictions at the Israeli-Lebanese and Israeli-Syrian borders. Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power. Separating Tehran from Damascus and Hezbollah would isolate and weaken the Islamic Republic at this crucial time. If we fail to do this, the conventional wisdom -- that the recent Lebanese developments were a victory for the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-axis -- may unfortunately turn out to be right.
**Mr. Freedman was the foreign policy analyst for Rudy Giuliani's Presidential Committee.
 

Not just a gesture
By Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz Correspondent
ttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/989099.html
"Nassim Nasser was freed in exchange for the body parts of Israeli soldiers," said the Web site of the Hezbollah-owned Al-Manar television station, adding that the swap was the first stage of negotiations.
In making such a statement, Hezbollah is trying to undermine the Israeli position that it does not negotiate for body parts; the Israeli explanations that Nasser was due to be released anyway for legal reasons are not self-evident in Lebanon.
To judge by reports in the Arab press, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has succeeded in selling his take on the prisoner swap, whereby there are no goodwill gestures, just tough negotiations in which Nasrallah is getting a live prisoner in exchange for body parts.
Nasrallah's negotiating tactics should be no surprise. The rule that no goodwill gestures or "gifts" are granted to the enemy remains intact, he says. Thus the exchange does not seem to be a last-minute decision, as it appeared from the way the remains were transferred, but the result of an earlier plan waiting only for the moment when Nassim Nasser returned to Lebanese soil.
Sunday's visit to Lebanon by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who is familiar with negotiations between Israel and Hezbollah, may have influenced the return of the remains, but a Lebanese source said the influence was "marginal" in the game being played by Nasrallah. That's because Nasrallah is not trying to demonstrate his capabilities to Israel alone.
The Hezbollah leader still has a score to settle with the new Lebanese president, Michel Suleiman, who mentioned the return of all the prisoners during his speech at his swearing-in ceremony. Nasrallah is not willing to let the president of Lebanon win the prisoner jackpot; those prisoners are considered Hezbollah's private asset, not the Lebanese government's.
The timing of the major deal depends on the concessions Nasrallah will be willing to make vis-a-vis the Israeli offer. His decision is bound to take into account how he will be able to reap as large a political bounty as possible, both within Lebanon and abroad.
This political bounty was damaged in January, when Nasrallah made one of his biggest propaganda mistakes ever. The "body parts speech," which he made in his first public appearance since the Second Lebanon War, sparked fierce criticism of Nasrallah, in Arab countries as well as in Israel.
"This great religion, Islam, never spoke about people like replacement parts," wrote Saudi publicist Ali Sa'ad al-Mussi in Al Wattan shortly after the speech, and similar sentiments were published in other Arab newspapers. A Lebanese pundit close to Hezbollah said that since the piercing criticism, Nasrallah has refrained from speaking publicly about body parts. He said this can be seen in the little attention the Hezbollah-run media gave to the return of the remains, compared with the media frenzy surrounding Nasser's return.


 

The Nasrallah speech: Hezbollah ruled, the West is fooled
By Walid Phares, Ph.D.
June 02/08

In the next days a major battle in the War of Ideas will be unfolding worldwide and particularly through the international media. We are now witnessing a massive campaign by Hezbollah's strategic communication machine (as our Western jargon likes to describe it) to frame the outcome of the battle for Lebanon, significantly lost by the United States, the West and the forces of Democracies in the region. The main issue at hand in the Iranian funded war room is not about convincing the international community and the Arab and Muslim world that Hezbollah has defeated its opponents in that small but strategically located republic, but that an overwhelming majority of Lebanese are now firmly standing behind Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in his vision for the future of the Eastern Mediterranean and probably the Greater Middle East.

The propaganda machine, living off Khomeinist Petrodollars, enlists not only the traditional Hezbollah outlets such as al Manar but also an networks of friends in the multi-layered world of the foreign press and active pens in a plethora of news rooms around the world. The power of the Iranian Oil lobbies is almost as influential as the power of the Wahabi Petro pressures group. We'll come back to revisit this world later.

In his more than significant speech today, secretary general of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah uncovered the bulk of his agenda for Lebanon, the region and perhaps his international open alignment with Tehran's ambitions. This speech, delivered after the invasion of West Beirut and southern Mount Lebanon and collapse of the Seniora Government is indeed a declaration of victory. Usually, Hezbollah's commander produces these benchmark-speeches when a new era is already underway. The first lesson thus is that the Tehran-backed militia in Lebanon has already scored its victory on the ground, in the institutions and diplomatically. What the political architects of the "axis" are working on as we write is a push to present the situation in Lebanon as marching towards stability and reconciliation. This is not unusual to "coups" aftermath. The winners always try to set the agenda of the debate and later on their pens will try to rewrite history. But one has to admit that Western public is hardly absorbing the too many sudden Lebanon-related events that took place over the last few weeks. Strategic realities were that Hezbollah and its allies overran Beirut and crumbled the foundations of the democratically elected Government of Fuad Seniora; the Lebanese Army headed by the now President of Lebanon, General Michel Sleiman did not confront Hezbollah then nor after; the March 14 coalition backing the Government couldn't resist Hezbollah without the protection by the Lebanese Army or a Western intervention; both needed moves didn't happen; hence the March 14 accepted to participate in conference in Doha to cut a deal with Hezbollah under the auspices of the Qatar regime, a friend of all, including more importantly of Tehran and Syria.

Now the reader can understand the rest of the story. In Qatar, it wasn't a national reconciliation that took place, but a crushing defeat to the March 14 coalition, which � rightly or wrongly � felt abandoned by Washington and by Arab moderates. Details will be reviewed later. The Qatari regime brokered a deal, saving the face of the anti-Syrian politicians and providing them with enough oxygen for a year or so. But the lion's share was granted to the Syro-Iranian forces in Lebanon. Hezbollah emerged as the main real power in Lebanon, with a veto power inside the Government, eleven ministers, the sanctity of its Iranian weapons and enough legitimacy to shield it from being disarmed at any time under UNSCR 1559. If this is not a astounding victory, I don't know how to describe it accurately.

And on top of it, Hezbollah welcomed � in fact hurried � the election of General Suleiman as the new President of the Republic. You don't need to be a political genius to figure out that Tehran would have shaken the Earth under Lebanon if the candidate was not who it wanted at this particular conjuncture. The rest is an amazing cooking of the story by the "axis kitchen." The version � available via the international news agencies and the networks it feeds � is a celestial tale: The Lebanese opposition (read Hezbollah) finally pressured the Government into making concessions; the Lebanese Army stood neutral between the "opposition" and the "loyalists;" a brotherly Arab initiative convinced "both parties" to come solve the problems calmly in Doha; hence both sides decided to make concessions and come up with a national reconciliation document. This version of the events would have needed an entire process of analysis but another rapid volley of events followed and shifted attention to the current stage of affairs.

As analysts were still evaluating the Hezbollah offensive, the March 14 weakening and the real attitudes of Washington and Paris leading to the Qatar meetings world attention was suddenly hijacked to Beirut where a Presidential election took place under the eyes of many diplomatic representatives from the Arab world and the West. How did the international community shift from supporting the Cedars Revolution to backing a renewed influence by Iran and Syria in Lebanon in few days? Well, the "story" rapidly moved to the rosy painting that, now Lebanon has a President and we shouldn't be looking back, meaning at how Hezbollah began the operations on May 7 leading to the crumbling of the Seniora Government and the coming of General Sleiman. Now "Peace" has come to Lebanon after assassinations and a summer war, so let's not look back at an era where Lebanon was a battlefield with Terrorism and its Iranian and Syrian backers.

The media coverage of these blitz-stories has moved even faster to re-baptize Hezbollah as a force of stability. Indeed, a respectable international English-broadcasting network, based out of Europe said today "Hezbollah head urges co-existence." A reminder of the Munich media coverage in the 1930s, today's depicting that the Doha declaration "saved the Peace of Lebanon," and that "Hezbollah got all what it wanted, it won't ask for more, is chilling. And who best than the Secretary General of the victorious organization to confirm our fears that the world is being duped on Lebanon, but public opinion is not being informed about it.


As carried live by Hezbollah-owned al Manar TV, and posted on its web site later, the speech by Sayyed Nasrallah today says it clearly:

We have won that war in Lebanon.
We have defeated the Democracy movement in this country and the Government it has produced.
The United States and its allies knows that they cannot defeat us in Lebanon or in Iran by military means.
We showed Washington that it cannot move forward with its freedom strategy, particularly from Lebanon.
We have now seized power in this country (Lebanon) but we don't have to make it formal.
The Lebanese Army will never be used to disarm us. Its commander, our ally, is now the President of the Republic.v
We will fight any international move to disarm us.
We will grow militarily in Lebanon with the backing of Iran, in parallel to the Lebanese Army.
We have offered a successful model of military confrontation, thus we won't accept diplomatic solutions.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad will continue their Terror operations against Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
We support the armed insurrection against the political process in Iraq.
We are proud of being under the Vilayet e-Faqih of Iran, in other words, Jihadi-Khomeinist.
Obviously, these assertions are not well reported by the international media. Nasrallah said in his speech that "his wars" are "insuring peace." Probably many ears wants to hear the second part of his statement and certainly the oil-funded media consulting of the axis wants the West to hear that portion as well. We've seen this in Munich before.

Now to the main points of the speech:

1. Hezbollah "offers its Strategy" to all Arabs

Nasrallah said Hezbollah is as ready to fight in Lebanon as it was during the July 2006 war with Israel. He called on the "Arab Peoples and Governments to study the seriousness of the defense and liberation strategies of the organization and the new balance of power in Lebanon." In other words, the victory achieved in Lebanon against the democratically elected Government and the deterrence against the United Nations and the West is a strategic option to follow for all other radicals in the region. He predicted that because of these strategies, Hezbollah's prisoners in Israel will be returned soon.

2. Hezbollah's weapons are untouchable

He said: For what use were the other weapons in Lebanon? He meant the light weapons owned by Lebanese citizens not supporting Hezbollah. In other words Hezbollah cannot accept that any other citizen resistance to terror could form in Lebanon. The only "resistance" is Hezbollah and no other Lebanese group can arm itself against the Iranian-backed force. In addition, Nasrallah threatened that the Lebanese Government should not use its regular forces to settle scores with its opposition. In reality he meant that no Lebanese Government will be allowed to use the Army and the Security Forces to disarm Hezbollah. Explicitly he said: "The Lebanese Army and Internal Security Forces cannot be used against Hezbollah (the so-called resistance)."

3. Hezbollah's friends

Nasrallah particularly thanked the Qatar's regime for the diplomatic help it extended. In fact Doha's representatives at the Security Council have indeed blocked every single attempt to take the Lebanese crisis to the Security Council and implement the various resolutions under Chapter 7 of the Charter. Qatar was the fastest regime to oppose the internationalization of the crisis when Hezbollah invaded Beirut. It stated that the crisis is exclusively internal, read Iran and Syria are not behind the offensive. So it was natural that Nasrallah would gratify Qatar, in addition to the warm thank you to the Iranian and Syrian regimes who "helped in producing Doha's agreement."

4. Sleiman in Hezbollah's eyes

Nasrallah said the election of General Sleiman as President "renews hopes among Lebanese for a new beginning. He added that Sleiman's inauguration speech "expresses the spirit of consensus." How to translate this Hezbollah admiration for the new President? It is simple: The General committed to protect the "resistance's" weapons, practically, the military power of Hezbollah. Better, the new President didn't even mention UNSCR 1559 which expressly calls for the disarming of militias, that is Hezbollah. Hence Nasrallah's satisfaction is understandable. Since September 2004, the Iranian funded militia lived in the uncertainty of a UN backed decommission of their arms. Now and for the next six years (Lebanon's Presidential term) the 30,000 missiles and rockets and the 300 millions Petrodollars (plus) will be under the protection of a new President and of perhaps a Hezbollah even more dominated cabinet as of 2009.

5. America's "dream" has been shattered

The conqueror of West Beirut and of Mount Lebanon in 2008 and the champion of the 2006 regional war, said his dream is to provide Lebanon with a "peaceful and calm summer" (sic) but "America's dream is for a summer war." He called all to "cooperate against the dreams of the enemy," hence assimilating the United States to an "enemy."

6. "Reconstruction and Violence" at the same time

Moving swiftly in an attempt to reconcile with the Hariri legacy, Nasrallah offered the supporters of the slain Prime Minister (mostly Sunnis who were attacked by Hezbollah few weeks ago), an opportunity to go back to the better era of the 1990s. "Rafiq Hariri," remarked the head of Hezbollah, "had a strategic thinking. His great mind was able to support the projects of "resistance" and "reconstruction". What Mr. Nasrallah is hoping for is a change of policy by the Future Movement of his son Saad Hariri from opposing Syria and Iran to a new deal with the axis, whereby a Hariri Government would conduct business at will while the business of military force would be left exclusively to the pro-Iranian militia. For in the mind of Nasrallah, his forces would conduct wars -with all the subsequent destructions- and Beirut entrepreneurs would rebuild afterwards.

7. Hezbollah's sectarian clones

Uncovering the next stage of Hezbollah's agenda inside Lebanon, the master of the Party of Allah declared that not all 11 members of his bloc inside the next Lebanese Government will necessarily be from his organization or even Shiites. This statement is among the most important points made in the speech. To use his impressive quota in the forthcoming cabinet so that Hezbollah allies from the Sunni, Druze and Christian communities emerge in Government is a Machiavellian move. What better than non-Shia cabinet members promoting the Iranian group inside the country and worldwide?

8. Hezbollah will re-open the wounds later

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah paused long before he informed his audience that he will not open the wound now. He meant by "wound" the reasons for why he launched his attack on Beirut on May 7. He argued that reopening it now may inflame passions. He promised to address the matter in the era following the election of General Michel Sleiman "who obtained such a national, Arab and international support." An expert reading of Nasrallah's calibrated words tells us that he doesn't want to criticize further his enemies (most Sunnis, Druze and Christian leaders) at this particular time, but in fact he will come back to denounce them, and maybe more, later. Why? Because of a delicate calculation. Indeed, Hezbollah won a short military battle but was about top lose the long term one has events resumed. His battlefield surge was instantly transformed into a political victory in Doha by his friends in Qatar and his allies in Damascus and Tehran. He came back to Beirut to collect enormous dividends: 11 ministries in the Government, veto power, a friendly President and an insulted America. What else he could dream of at this stage? Hence, Nasrallah doesn't want to jeopardize this. If he reopen these "wounds" now, he will force his foes to re-engage in battle again, and this time Hezbollah may not keep all its credibility intact. Thus he will settle scores with his opponents at his discretion, later.

9. The real fear of Hezbollah: Lebanon's Army

In this speech, Nasrallah revealed the deepest secret his organization has kept for years from public debate: The fear that a confrontation between the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah could take place. In contrast with most analysis on the subject, I have argued for years that if the Lebanese Army begins the process of disarming Hezbollah, unlike what most commentators and analysts have advanced, on a medium range the national Army will gradually isolate the radical group. That of course if this Army is backed by its commanders, its Government and the international community. Hezbollah intimidates Lebanon's politicians, Arab leaders, and has been successful in relatively defeating Israel psychologically. The suicide bombers of this organization have created a myth of invincibility since the massacre of the US Marines and French fusiliers in 1983. But ironically, in every time the heavily armed and hugely funded militia by Iran face off with other Lebanese, they weren't exactly a superpower. During Hezbollah's war against Israel's occupation in southern Lebanon, the group was not as successful against the local SLA militia then against Israeli media. In the recent incidents, Hezbollah might was repelled by Druze peasants and Nasrallah hesitated before he gave the orders to assault the Christian areas. A long occupation of Sunni neighborhood may not be very healthy for the Khomeinist militia. Regarding the Lebanese Army, surely Hezbollah can influence about 25% of the personnel to quit the institution if the Army is asked to contain the militia. But what about the remaining 75% of the officers and soldiers. It is not about the weapons it is about the emotions. It would be almost impossible for Tehran's militia in Lebanon to fight a core of the Lebanese Army in addition of a majority of the population, and win, despite the 30,000 rockets and their suicide bombers. Nasrallah knows it well, perhaps better than his enemies inside the country. Hence, his nightmare scenario isn't an Israel offensive or a US landing but simply a clash between the Lebanese Army and his forces. Thus this one single short sentence: "we want to save Lebanon (i.e. his own militia) from a fight between the Army and the Resistance (Hezbollah). In fact Nasrallah's real mega-victory was to neutralize the Lebanese Army by co-opting the election of its commander as the new President. Under this new equation, the Iranian militia in Lebanon won't fear a move by the Army.

10. Hezbollah, member in Iran's regime

Perhaps one of the most noticed statements made by Sayyed Nasrallah was his unequivocal admittance that he -and thus his party- are proud members of Iran's regime. "I am proud of being a member in the Vilayet e Faqih Party" declared the Hezbollah Secretary General in front of the international media, shattering every bit of questioning about his affiliation with the Khomeinist regime in Tehran. Observers may ask why would Nasrallah state in public -in an astounding way- that he is part of the Iranian regime? The answer is simple: Because he believe he won the war irreversibly and that the Cedars Revolution was crushed and the United States humiliated. Thus this is a victory speech where he can tell the world where his real affiliation is.

11. Hezbollah's road to power

In his speech Nasrallah also explained his road map to power in Lebanon. He said: "all victorious resistance movements in history either seized power or claimed it." But in a magnanimous gesture, the head of Hezbollah added "we are not interested in power and we don't want it. Now, how would experienced experts read this statement with enough background on the group? Just the opposite. Hezbollah is extremely interested in power and definitely wants it. If it is not surrendering one inch of the power it already has to the Lebanese Government, not decreasing its weaponry system and invading parts of Lebanon to expand, this definitely is the evidence that Nasrallah aim at supreme power in the country. But why is he not stating so? Because these types of totalitarian Jihadist forces won't declare their ultimate goals before they have reached them. If they do prematurely they will lose allies and unite their enemies. If anything, Nasrallah's statement about his disinterest in power indicates that the final victory was not achieved yet. This also indicates that there are enough forces inside Lebanon which still have the potential of countering and eventually reversing his group's grip on power.

12. Hezbollah losses

Interestingly, Nasrallah minimized the losses of his militia during the fights against fellow Lebanese, particularly in Mount Lebanon against the Druzes. he said his organization lost 14 "martyrs" and his allies from the Amal Movement, the Syrian National-Social Party, and others also lost fighters. Obviously, Sayyed Hassan is not being candid here. There were way more burial services in several villages and neighborhoods controlled by Hezbollah. According to Druze and Sunni sources and other observers, more than 70 armed elements from that militia were killed as they stormed the opponents positions. More than 14 were lost by Hezbollah on the unfamous "888 Hill," as sources said weeks ago. It is then to believe that the "Secretary General" doesn't want to reveal to the world, and his followers that -in a three days period- Hezbollah lost more fighters in battles against lightly armed citizens than against the mighty Israeli forces. Minimizing the losses to the extreme is indicative of a discovery made by the Iranian War room in Lebanon. Attacking Lebanon's civil society head on with sheer military power can be an unsustainable expedition.

13. Hezbollah doesn't need consensus on its weapons

Not only he asserted that he is part of Iran's regime (Wilayat al Faqih) but Nasrallah dismissed any Lebanese consensus on his organizations weapons. "The Resistance � i.e. Hezbollah � doesn't wait for national and political consensus but it carries weapons and march to implement the goals of liberation with arms and blood." This powerful statement is very clear: Hezbollah will not accept in any form or shape surrendering its weapons to any Lebanese Government until, of course, it becomes the Government. No democratic majority, no national consensus will remove Hezbollah weapons, as we understand Nasrallah's speech. Hence how many question marks must we put on the so-called "Doha Agreement" and on the statements made here and there by Western and Arab voices hoping Lebanon's dialogue and the newly elected President can convince the Iranian militia of Lebanon to ay down its weapons. I'd say too may.

14. No to US intervention, yes to Iran's

Going on the defensive, Nasrallah denied that his allies Iran and Syria are "imposing any decisions" on the organization. Then leaping on the offensive, he criticized his critics for not addressing the American and Western interference in the country. Such an assertion shows that Hezbollah wasn't so comfortable for being attacked as stooge of the Mullahs. The Party felt a growing discontent by a majority of Lebanese because of the collaboration with Tehran and Damascus regimes. Under the previous Syrian occupation of Lebanon 1976-2005 this "privileged" relationship with the axis was part of the de facto situation in the country. But Hezbollah abhorred the accusation, which since the departure of the "brotherly forces" was leveled against his leadership. In other words Nasrallah is attempting to bring the country back to a status quo ante. In his book, collaboration with the Syrian-Iranian axis is part of a needed strategy. But the United Nations Security Council Resolutions and their initiators, Washington and Paris, are to be considered as foes and unacceptable.

15. After Hezbollah, Gaza

After he asserted the victory of Hezbollah in Lebanon, against both his adversaries and Iran's opponents, Nasrallah underlined that his "strategy" in Lebanon has also been working in Gaza. In addition to fighting with Israel -which is the norm for radicals- it is in fact the crumbling of sitting authorities that constitute the "defense strategy" of Iran's allies. As in Gaza will be in Lebanon, meaning a coup, and as in Lebanon will be in Gaza, meaning future wars. More than ever the long range apparatus of Iran's regime on the Eastern Mediterranean seem to be centered on Hezbollah and Hamas and the basis for Tehran's forthcoming expansion are the rest of Lebanon and the West Bank.

16. Hezbollah's Iraq strategy

After Palestine, Nasrallah moved to Iraq to reveal clearly that Hezbollah is part of the insurgency against the Iraqi Government and the Coalition forces. In an unprecedented manner, the man who dealt a blow to the Cedars Revolution in Lebanon declared his unmitigated support to Jihadi Terror in Mesopotamia. "In the name of the Arab and Muslim world I am calling on the Iraqi people to support the resistance and adopt the "strategy of liberation." He added: "We in Hezbollah naturally side with the Resistance in Iraq." In other words Nasrallah is backing the Terror insurgency in Iraq, both against the Iraqi Government and the US-led Coalition. This by itself is as clear as one would investigate the real regional role of Hezbollah: Seizing power in Lebanon, crumbling the Peace Process between Palestinians and Israelis and fueling Terror against the political process in Iraq. If you couple this statement with intelligence reports accusing Hezbollah of training insurgents in Iraq, Nasrallah's Iraq strategy cannot be clearer: strike in Iraq in the same way you strike in Lebanon and Gaza; bring down the Iraqi Government in the same manner the (first) Seniora Government and the Mahmoud Abbas Authority were brought down in Beirut and Gaza.

17. Bush and the "axis"

One day after pro-Syrian speaker of the Lebanese Parliament Nabih Berri blasted the United States and predicted that its dream of spreading Democracy from Lebanon is now shattered, Nasrallah escalated the attack. "The Contemporary Pharaoh George Bush, who is departing by God will, poured his anger against the 'resistance movements' in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq and against the countries (regimes) that support and supply the 'resistance.' What do we take from here? In a sum, Hezbollah shows that it is indeed part of a regional axis aimed at defeating the United States efforts against Terrorism (with my reservation as to the name of that war) and more importantly, American support for Democracy. Tehran's (and Damascus' as well) most urgent goals are to break the US-led efforts to support democracy forces in the region. Hezbollah was tasked to do its part mainly in Lebanon, but also in the region.

18. Terror is our choice

"We as Arabs, Umma and Muslims," said Nasrallah, we have one choice, that is resistance (Terrorism) its methodology, its culture, its will and its action." With this conclusion, now the international community, democracies, the Arab and Muslim world and most Lebanese realize who they are up against and what they are facing in Lebanon: a powerful, determined and highly armed force, which has seized the control of the country's destiny (for now) and which has the full support of the neighboring Syrian regime and an Oil power, Iran, seeking to rapidly becoming a nuclear one. Far from the erroneous reporting by prominent international media calling this speech "a step towards coexistence," what we have heard, saw and read was nothing less than a full fledge declaration of Terror, mollified to Western ears by a powerfu and sophisticated propaganda machine.



� Dr. Walid Phares is Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington, D.C., and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. He is the author of the recently released book, The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad; and of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West (2006) and The War of Ideas: Terrorist Strategies against the West (2007), available at www.walidphares.com.
**Dr. Phares holds degrees in law and political science from Saint Joseph University and the Lebanese University in Beirut, a Masters in international law from the Universite de Lyons in France and a Ph.D. in international relations and strategic studies from the University of Miami.
He has taught and lectured at numerous universities worldwide, practiced law in Beirut, and served as publisher of Sawt el-Mashreq and Mashrek International. He has taught Middle East political issues, ethnic and religious conflict, and comparative politics at Florida Atlantic University until 2006. He has been teaching Jihadi strategies at the National Defense University since 2007.
Dr. Phares has written eight books on the Middle East and published hundreds of articles in newspapers and scholarly publications such as Global Affairs, Middle East Quarterly, the Journal of South Asian and Middle East Studies and the Journal of International Security. He has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, BBC, al Jazeera, al Hurra, al Arabiya, as well as on many radio broadcasts.
Aside from serving on the boards of several national and international think tanks and human rights associations, Dr. Phares has testified before the US Senate Subcommittees on the Middle East and South East Asia, the House Committees on International Relations and Homeland Security and regularly conducts congressional and State Department as well as European Parliament and UN Security Council briefings.

Visit Dr. Phares on the web at walidphares.com and defenddemocracy.org.


© 2008 Walid Phares

Walid Phares story archive