LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِAugust 01/2010

Bible Of the Day
Romans 5:1/Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Today's Inspiring Thought: Right with God
Do you ever feel that you can't measure up to God's standards? On our own, we can't. But God's plan provides a way for us to be righteous: faith in Jesus. You can stop fretting about being unworthy if you believe in Jesus as your Savior. What a relief to understand that you don't have to struggle to please God by your own merit.
Today you can rest in the knowledge that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross makes you clean in the sight of God. Sleep well tonight, remembering that when you accepted Jesus, God adopted you as his beloved child.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Assad on Hariri probe: We'll stand by Hezbollah/Israel News/July 31/10
Syria’s comeback to Lebanon/By: Hanin Ghaddar/July 31/10
Calm offers Lebanon a chance to mature/By Jamil K. Mroue/July 31/10
Is a new war in the Middle East becoming inevitable?/By Volker Perthes/July 31/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 31/10
Sheikh Hamad from Bint Jbeil: Lebanon is Capable of Taking its Decisions on its Own/Naharnet
Abdullah promises to deal with STL’s indictment/Now Lebanon
Assad wants STL abolished/Now Lebanon
Assad stresses Lebanon’s unity in meetings with Sleiman and Berri/Now Lebanon
Franjieh cites Abdullah-Assad agreement on Lebanon/Now Lebanon
Hezbollah will not accept delay of STL’s indictment/Now Lebanon
Iran 'ready' for immediate talks, denies bid to stockpile enriched uranium/AFP
Obama renews measures to freeze Hizbullah assets/AFP
Politicians of rival parties praise tripartite summit at Baabda/Daily Star
Saudi, Jordan kings back Lebanon's stability/AFP
Decade into al-Assad's rule, media suffering in Syria/CPJ Press Freedom Online
Editorial: Lebanese summit/Arab News
Syrian, Saudi leaders tackle tension in Lebanon/Ynetnews
Rare Arab summit to forestall possible Hezbollah unrest in Lebanon/Christian Science Monitor
Qatar's emir arrives in Lebanon on support visit/AFP
Looming threat from illegals: terror/New York Post
General in Latin America trains eye on Middle East/Washington Times
Americans must transcend ignorance on mosque near Ground Zero/Washington Post
Qatari emir stresses commitment to stable Lebanon/Daily Star
Phalange Party boycotts lunch over protocol 'mistake'/Daily Star
Lebanon press unmoved by Syrian-Saudi visit/AFP
Qatar's ruler inspects south Lebanon border towns he helped rebuild after 2006/Canadian Press
Berri: STL is Israel's Main Concern because it Aims to Cause Strife in Lebanon/Naharnet
Suleiman Highlights Doha's Influential Role as Qatari Emir Expresses Pride in Lebanon's National Unity/Naharnet
Sources: Nasrallah May Head to Damascus at the End of the Week/Naharnet
Suleiman Franjieh: Indictment will be Covered up if it Really Will Accuse Hizbullah/Naharnet
Abdullah, Assad Urge Lebanese to Avoid Resorting to Violence/Naharnet
Jumblat: I Oppose Politicizing STL, Israel's Statements Take it Out of its Context/Naharnet
Washington Hopes that Tripartite Summit would Stress Commitment towards Lebanon's Sovereignty/Naharnet
Saudi, Jordan Kings Back Lebanon's Stability, Unity/Naharnet
Inmates Set Fire to Roumieh Prison Cell amid Quarrel, Several Injured/Naharnet
Obama Renews Asset Freeze of People 'Undermining' Lebanon/Naharnet
Williams: Visit of Abdullah, Assad Beneficial for Lebanon's Future/Naharnet
Israeli Report: Mughniyeh Brother-in-law Implicated in Hariri Murder/Naharnet

Assad on Hariri probe: We'll stand by Hezbollah
Israel News
Syrian president warns stability in Lebanon could be threatened if international tribunal into assassination of former prime minister not halted. Assad declares Syria to support Hezbollah if implicated in killing
Roee Nahmias Published: 07.31.10, 14:19 /
Bashar Assad sent a firm message to the international tribunal investigating the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The Syrian president warned that any ruling that would implicate Hezbollah may destabilize Lebanon. He said that his country would stand by the Shiite organization in any case, and added that Syria considers any blow to Hezbollah a line that should not be crossed.
Meanwhile, it was reported that Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah plans to leave for a secret visit in Damascus in the coming days, to discuss with the Syrian president the outcome of his meetings with Saudi King Abdullah.
Lebanese daily al-Akhbar reported that Assad said the international tribunal's work should come to an end. According to the report, the Syrian president feels the tribunal's investigation has become "a heavy diplomatic burden on Lebanon and its stability. Syria's experience with the tribunal so far indicates that there are no encouraging bodies to support the continuation of the tribunal's work or prevent its politicization."
It was also reported that Assad told the Saudi King the international tribunal has already nearly brought destruction on Lebanon and the region in the past. "Today, this attempt is being repeated with Hezbollah, which is being accused of assassinating Rafik Hariri. This mean Lebanon may once again be subject to destruction, and therefore, clear outlines should be determined to put this matter to rest."
'Search for real killer'
The Syrian president reportedly stressed to his Saudi guest that he supports Hezbollah's stance. "The resistance in Lebanon will not be satisfied with the international tribunal, since the tribunal will accuse it of the assassination. If there is insistence to move forward with the international tribunal, the resistance will rise against it, since it strives to harm it. We consider the resistance a red line and we will let no harm come to it," he said.
Regarding Hezbollah, the Syrian president said, "It will not agree to the principle decision to implicate it and will not accept any such agreements. The international tribunal must seek the real killer."
According to the report, the Saudi king mainly listened to Assad and did not express any objection or reservations to what he heard. King Abdullah is a patron of Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri, Rafik Hariri's son. The paper reported that the two leaders tried to find a solution to the matter, in a way that would prevent an explosion in Lebanon, particularly after the Syrian president stressed that Hezbollah "will not remain silent if it is accused by the tribunal, and will do everything in its power to rise against it."
It remained unclear what the two leaders agreed on, but on Friday they both traveled to Lebanon and met with President Michel Suleiman. The Saudi king later met with Hariri in private, and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al Mualem met with Hezbollah representatives and briefed them on the talks. At the end of the visit it was agreed that a Hezbollah representative will soon be deployed to Damascus to meet with Assad and learn of the outcome of the talks in Syria and Beirut and the future outlines for the solutions discussed by the parties.

Tripartite Summit Agreed on Mechanism to End Political Tension
Naharnet/Arab sources that participated in the tripartite summit Friday told the daily An Nahar Saturday that the talks mainly focused on the indictment in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and how to deal with it. The three rulers, Saudi King Abdullah, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Lebanese President Michel Suleiman, agreed on rejecting any accusation against Hizbullah. They agreed that Israel is behind plans to instigate internal strife in Lebanon. In addition, they added that all sides should wait for indictment to be issued, and only then can the Lebanese government take the appropriate stand from it. The leaders also agreed on maintaining Lebanon's stability and security and resorting to dialogue through the government and constitutional institutions. Beirut, 31 Jul 10,

Sheikh Hamad from Bint Jbeil: Lebanon is Capable of Taking its Decisions on its Own
Naharnet/Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani thanked on Saturday on his tour of southern Lebanon the fighters "who have sacrificed their lives in defending the nation."
He added upon his arrival at the town of Bin Jbeil: "I am happy to be here, in the region that was rebuilt after having been destroyed."Upon his arrival, Sheikh Hamad was greeted by a large crowd and handed the key to the town. He was accompanied on the trip by President Michel Suleiman, House Speaker Nabih Berri, Prime Minister Saad Hariri, and Hizbullah MP Mohammed Raad representing the party's leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. The officials then moved on to the reopening of the Bint Jbeil hospital, where Sheikh Hamad said during the ceremony: "We have no doubt that Lebanon is capable of taking its own decisions on its own without resorting to foreign meetings.""You will find us supportive of the voice of wisdom and all the Lebanese regardless of their sect," he continued. "You have lifted Lebanon's head high and the heads of all Arab leaders, congratulations to Lebanon and the South on the reconstruction," he said. Beirut, 31 Jul 10,

Abdullah promises to deal with STL’s indictment
July 31, 2010 /Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz has promised to make efforts to deal with the issue of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s (STL) indictment in the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, but the matter is not easy because it is in the hands of the international community, An-Nahar newspaper reported on Saturday.
The paper quoted for its report a source that participated in meetings held on the sidelines of the mini-Arab summit at the Presidential Palace in Baabda on Friday. Abdullah, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and President Michel Sleiman were reported to have discussed the mounting political tension in Lebanon over the tribunal’s pending indictment that sparked fears of sectarian strife. Assad and Abdullah urged Lebanese parties during their visit on Friday to avoid resorting to violence in the face of rising political turmoil in the country, according to a statement issued by Sleiman’s press office. An-Nahar said that a parliamentary source in the March 8 alliance quoted Assad as saying that Abdullah had promised to talk with the US about the postponement of the STL’s indictment despite doubts about the success of this effort.NOW Lebanon

Syria’s comeback to Lebanon
Hanin Ghaddar, July 31, 2010
Now Lebanon/
On Friday morning, the Lebanese woke to an unfamiliar sight, or at least one that they hadn’t seen since April 2005: pictures of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on the streets of Beirut, Tripoli and other Lebanese cities and towns.
A few months ago, this would have been unimaginable; however, today the pictures do not surprise anyone. Assad’s visit was expected, indeed even welcomed, by almost everyone in the region, especially since he came with Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz on the same plane. Could it really be that Syria was reassessing its relationship with Iran and Hezbollah and moving back into the Arab fold?
But those Lebanese who fear that Damascus has once again been “given” Lebanon in some regional deal were not welcoming of the Syrian president’s visit. The possibility cannot be ignored. One cannot be sure of what happened behind the scenes in previous meetings between Abdullah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and what will happen later this week in similar talks with Abdullah and Assad.
For its part, Iran is currently drowning in sanctions, while Hezbollah is under pressure on several fronts: the external threat of another war with Israel and the internal threat of alleged indictments handed down by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. In the midst of all this, Assad wants to protect himself. His support for Iran is still officially rock solid, but it doesn’t mean that he won’t seek out other alliances as a form of insurance.
Ever since it withdrew its troops from Lebanon in 2005, the Syrian regime has been trying to return to a position of dominance in the country it once controlled. During the civil war, Syria had the upper hand, controlling all security and political decisions. But since the withdrawal of its forces, Hezbollah and Iran have been the strongest players in Lebanon. To this end, Syria has used its alliance with Iran to maintain what influence it still has here. Despite the strong coordination between the two countries on the ground, Hezbollah’s influence has grown stronger, and Syria now sees an opportunity to regain its power in Lebanon without going through the usual Iranian channels.
This, of course, does not mean that the Syrian army and intelligence services will return to Lebanon. Today Damascus is only interested in a partnership with Hariri, and good relations with Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In this sense, the Syrian regime will ensure control over state institutions by placing its people in high security and administrative posts with no need to re-impose the previous system. If Syria “gets” Lebanon, Hezbollah won’t be the only party that controls the political game. The Party of God’s absolute power to implement its agenda will be curbed, and Iran’s capacity to impose its agenda on Lebanon will be limited.
For example, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s hint of carrying out another May 7 to force the government to bend to the party’s will won’t be easy without Syria’s blessing. Any unilateral decision would be an attack against the Syrian regime itself. Hezbollah already feels cornered, and Nasrallah’s last speech was not aimed primarily at March 14 figures; it was also addressing the Syrian regime by reminding it of the favors Hezbollah has done for it in the past five years.
But Syria doesn’t want to break Hezbollah; it just wants to bring it back into its orbit. Ideally, Syria would keep on supporting and protecting Hezbollah, but on its own terms and with its interests in Lebanon as the priority. Should this scenario unfold, it will probably not be without teething problems as Damascus seeks to impose its will on an embattled Hezbollah.
The Iranians have been expecting such a move. It started in Iraq after the elections, when a Saudi-Syrian-Turkish alliance against Iranian interests in the country was a precursor to what is taking place in Lebanon. That did not cause any serious rift between Syria and Iran because the two regimes still have a number of concerns in common, such as the Israeli-Palestinian issue. In any case, the Syrian regime will never totally give up on Iran, at least not before the dynamics are more definite and the outcome of any better, long-term option is clearer.
But we must not forget that Syria is still not in the clear with the STL. The regime in Damascus will not easily surrender any of its members if they are indicted, but the difference between Syria and Hezbollah is that Damascus does not see the tribunal as a battle it must fight, while Hezbollah has already begun to fight back.
Accordingly, Syria will probably not permit Hezbollah to blow up Lebanon, but it might let the party apply internal pressure and push for a regime change (and bring in a government that would, if the indictments were handed down, kill off the tribunal by cutting off funding), a move that would not totally destabilize the country but reshuffle the deck in its favor.
So far, Syria has protected itself. It has secured good relations with its fellow Arab countries and shed the feeling of international isolation without totally abandoning either Iran or its interests in Lebanon.
We must not forget that with the exception of an exchange of embassies between Damascus and Beirut, Syria has not fulfilled any of its promises regarding Lebanese sovereignty, such as border demarcation, curbing the proliferation and use of Palestinian arms outside the refugee camps, and resolving the issue of political detainees in Syrian prisons.
If it does manage to stage a return to Lebanon, Syria would have got what it wanted without giving up any of its cards. Time will tell how clever Assad has been.
**Hanin Ghaddar is managing editor of NOW Lebanon

Sources: Nasrallah May Head to Damascus at the End of the Week
Naharnet/The Kuwaiti daily al-Qabas reported from sources close to Hizbullah that the party's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah may travel in secret to Damascus at the end of the week. He is expected to hold talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who would inform him of the agreement he reached with Saudi King Abdullah during their latest meeting.
The sources said that Hizbullah's leadership is "very concerned that something is in store for the party despite all assurances otherwise." Beirut, 31 Jul 10,

Jumblat: I Oppose Politicizing STL, Israel's Statements Take it Out of its Context
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat stressed that he opposes politicizing the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. In addition, he told the daily Asharq al-Awsat Saturday that Israel's recent statements "take the tribunal out of its context of achieving justice."The MP also voiced his optimism over the new chapter in Lebanese-Syrian relations.
Beirut, 31 Jul 10,

Washington Hopes that Tripartite Summit would Stress Commitment towards Lebanon's Sovereignty
Naharnet/U.S. State Department Spokesman Philip Crowley hoped that Friday's tripartite summit in Beirut would reaffirm the commitment towards Lebanon's sovereignty, "especially at a time when concerns surround the situation in the country."He also voiced a hope, in an implicit reference to Hizbullah, that the summit would help "curb those elements within Lebanon that caused passed conflicts." Beirut, 31 Jul 10, 09:05

Berri: STL is Israel's Main Concern because it Aims to Cause Strife in Lebanon
Naharnet/House Speaker Nabih Berri stressed Saturday that Israel is aiming to exploit the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in order to create internal strife in Lebanon.
He said during the reopening of the Bint Jbeil hospital in southern Lebanon: "Israel has nothing better to do than create division between the Lebanese."
The House Speaker stressed the commitment towards the Doha agreement and Taif Accord in order to maintain the peace in Lebanon, as well as the importance of strengthening ties with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and implementing resolution 1701. Berri commended Qatar for its instrumental role in rebuilding Lebanon after the July 2006 war, adding that Lebanon possesses a deterrent power embodied in its Resistance, army, and people. Beirut, 31 Jul 10, 14:44

Saudi, Jordan Kings Back Lebanon's Stability, Unity
Naharnet/Saudi King Abdullah and his Jordanian counterpart Abdullah II discussed on Friday developments in Lebanon and called for stability and security to be strengthened in the country. "The two leaders stressed their backing for Lebanon's efforts to enhance its stability, security, unity and national accord," a Jordanian palace statement said.
The Saudi monarch and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad earlier on Friday urged Lebanon's rival factions to avoid violence, in an unprecedented joint visit to Beirut to defuse a tense political situation. The two kings also held talks on the Palestinian issue. "A two-state solution is the only way to achieve security and stability in the region," they were quoted as saying in the statement. "Saudi Arabia and Jordan support the Palestinian people in seeking to restore their rights." Arab officials agreed in principle on Thursday to holding direct Middle East peace negotiations, but left it up to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to decide when the talks with Israel should start. The Jordanian monarch was to host an official dinner for his Saudi counterpart, who wraps up his visit on Saturday. Jordan's King Abdullah II visited Saudi Arabia in January to discuss the Palestinian problem.(AFP) Beirut, 30 Jul 10, 23:03

Politicians of rival parties praise tripartite summit at Baabda
Siniora describes visit by Assad, King Abdullah as ‘historic’
By Wassim Mroueh /Daily Star staff
Saturday, July 31, 2010
BEIRUT: Friday’s visit by Syrian President Bashar Assad and Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz to Lebanon was welcomed by rival Lebanese parties, with members of the parliamentary majority ruling out any impact on the course of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL).
President Michel Sleiman hosted a tripartite summit with Assad and the Saudi monarch at Baabda Palace.
Also, Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifah al-Thani kicked off a visit to Lebanon Friday evening following Assad and King Abdullah’s departure.
Former Prime Minister and Sidon MP Fouad Siniora said King Abdullah and Assad’s visit to Lebanon was a “historic” one and aimed at delivering a message that Syria and Saudi Arabia were concerned with peace and stability in Lebanon.
“They will not allow any party to harm domestic security or to turn Lebanon into an arena for adventurism, of any kind,” said Siniora.
The head of the Future Movement’s parliamentary bloc spoke during an interview with cable news network CNN.
Siniora ruled out any linkage between the summit at Baabda Palace and an upcoming indictment to be issued by the STL, saying that the tribunal was independent and that the results of its investigations could not be anticipated.
The former premier, who headed a government at a time of extreme tension between Beirut and Damascus, said the Lebanese and Syrians should establish the best possible bilateral relations.
Reports about a possible indictment by the STL of Hizbullah members in the assassination of Former Premier Rafik Hariri have raised concerns over renewed strife in the country.
The STL’s president, Antonio Cassese, has said that he expects an indictment by the end of this year.
In a recent address, the leader of Hizbullah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, predicted that rogue members of his party would be charged with Harari’s assassination.
While rejecting the indictment, Nasrallah said they reflected Israeli and US attempts to target the resistance.
Chouf MP Mohammad Hajjar, a Future Movement official, praised the Saudi monarch for triggering a series of Arab visits which he said aimed at countering Iranian attempts to use Lebanon as a tool in Iran’s negotiations with the international community over its nuclear program.
For his part, Batroun MP Antoine Zahra dubbed the meeting at Baabda as the “summit of restoring calm,” rather than solving Lebanon’s domestic problems.
Speaking to Al-Jadeed Television, Zahra said the Saudi king’s visit to Lebanon had nothing to do with the STL, which was not up for negotiation.
“The other side hopes that Syrian President Bashar Assad will convince King Abdullah to abandon the tribunal, and this is unlikely; I reiterate that this summit is aimed only at restoring calm,” said Zahra.
“Hizbullah is still dreaming of taking control of Lebanon,” the lawmaker added.
Zahra voiced his respect for Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah for his keenness to safeguard Lebanon’s official political institutions and its society.
He accused Hizbullah of planning to instigate strife in Lebanon since it was the only party capable of doing so.
Meanwhile, former Minister Jean Obeid said in a statement that Friday’s visit by the three Arab leaders to Lebanon was an occasion to remind some Lebanese leaders “of the sacredness of unity, and to avoid the Israeli trap that wants them to once again fight each other and become displaced in their country, under any pretext.”
Metn MP Salim Salhab noted that the visit by the Saudi king and Syrian president reflected continuous Syrian-Saudi consensus over the situation in Lebanon. He urged Lebanese officials “to take such a fact into consideration and work for the interest of Lebanon and the Lebanese.”
Salhab, a member of the Change and Reform Parliamentary bloc, welcomed the Qatari emir’s trip to Lebanon, saying it “has an additional positive impact on domestic conditions.”
Salhab commended Qatar’s role in brokering the 2008 Doha accord, along with contributing to reconstruction works following Israel’s deadly war against Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
Former President Emile Lahoud welcomed Assad’s visit to Lebanon without commenting on King Abdullah’s visit.
Lahoud said in a statement that Assad’s trip to Lebanon indicated he had overcome the anti-Syrian rhetoric of Lebanese politicians in recent years, hoping that the visit would prompt Lebanon to “honestly” restore good ties with its “closest brother.”

Phalange Party boycotts lunch over protocol 'mistake'
By Elias Sakr /Daily Star staff
Saturday, July 31, 2010
BEIRUT: The Phalange Party boycotted Friday’s luncheon hosted by President Michel Sleiman at Baabda Palace in honor of his guests Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz and Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Phalange Party MPs and ministers declined to attend the event, in protest against Sleiman’s decision to not invite Amin Gemayel, the Phalange Party’s leader and a former president of the Republic. On the guest list were the heads of parliamentary blocs, MPs, ministers, as well as senior state and diplomatic officials. However, the president refrained from sending invitations to political party leaders with no official capacity, as well as former presidents and former state officials.
“There was a protocol mistake based on a stupid decision,” Phalange Party politburo member Sejaan Azzi commented in response to the arrangements decided upon by Baabda Palace.
But Azzi stressed that no political motives were behind the decision since Phalange Party MPs were invited to attend the lunch.
“I do not believe there is a Syrian veto behind the decision to refrain from inviting President Amin Gemayel,” Azzi said.
Azzi also criticized Sleiman without naming him for failing to seize the opportunity of the visit by the Saudi monarch and the Syrian president to strengthen national consensus.
Echoing Azzi, Batroun MP Antoine Zahra, a Lebanese Forces official, said “excluding certain political leaders from the invitation to Baabda Palace did not reflect a scene of national unity.”
“We hope that the background [of the decision] is not to pursue attempts to isolate the LF and March 14 forces,” Zahra said in reference to the presidency’s failure to invite Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, who is not an MP.
His wife, Bsharri MP Strida Geagea, did attend the luncheon, and commented that it was a “historic” event, “which is why we are here despite the big mistake in form against Samir Geagea.”
She also praised the Saudi king’s role in promoting Lebanon’s stability.

Qatari emir stresses commitment to stable Lebanon
Saturday, July 31, 2010
BEIRUT: Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa al-Thani said on Friday that he wanted the Lebanese state to preserve its unity, freedom, and sovereignty in the face of pressures and adverse circumstances.
Sheikh Hamad made his comments during a dinner hosted by President Michel Sleiman in his honor at Baabda Palace.
The emir arrived in Beirut on Friday evening to begin a three-day official visit to Lebanon.
Sheikh Hamad, his wife Sheikha Mozah, and the accompanying delegation were received at Rafik Hariri International Airport by Sleiman and his wife Wafaa, Speaker Nabih Berri, Premier Saad Hariri and a number of MPs, ministers and officials.
Sheikh Hamad’s arrival came shortly after the departure of Syrian President Bashar Assad and Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz, who had arrived earlier in the day for a tripartite summit with Sleiman.
Sleiman, Sheikh Hamad, and the accompanying delegations held talks at Baabda Palace before the dinner.
“We understand the sensitivity of this moment that accompanies our visit to Lebanon, as the clouds mount, and we pray to God they will clear peacefully,” said the emir during dinner.
Reports about a possible indictment by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) of Hizbullah members in the assassination of late Premier Rafik Hariri have raised concerns over renewed strife in the country. Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah recently predicted that members of his party would be charged with Hariri’s killing, and rejected any attempt to target the resistance.
At Baabda Palace, the emir stressed that Qatar’s policy would always involve a quest for achieving peace in Lebanon.
He praised efforts pursued by Assad and King Abdullah to enhance stability in Lebanon.
For his part, Sleiman touched on the “close ties” that bind Qatar and Lebanon, noting that Qatar had brokered the 2008 Doha Accord, which rescued Lebanon from several weeks of civil strife.
Sleiman said he and his guest had reviewed several items prior to the dinner, such as Sheikh Hamad’s “firm commitment to enhancing the basis of national consensus in Lebanon, as cemented in the Taif Accord and reinforced in the Doha agreement.”
The Lebanese president said he discussed with Sheikh Hamad the Qatari contribution to reconstruction efforts that followed Israel’s July 2006 summer war against Lebanon
He thanked the emir for his country’s effective support for Lebanon in the international arena, “and especially in the face of the Israeli enemy, which does not hesitate to threaten Lebanon and try to instigate tensions among its people.”
On Saturday, Sleiman will accompany Sheikh Hamad to the south, where the two are expected to visit a number of villages that benefited from Qatar’s reconstruction aid.
The emir will also attend a lunch at Berri’s residence in Beirut and on Sunday, he is scheduled to attend official ceremonies marking Army Day in Fayyadieh.

Iran 'ready' for immediate talks, denies bid to stockpile enriched uranium
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Siavosh Ghazi
Agence France Presse
TEHRAN: Iran said on Friday it was ready for immediate talks with the United States, Russia and France over an exchange of nuclear fuel and added that it was also against stockpiling higher enriched uranium.
The comments by the Islamic Republic’s atomic chief Ali Akbar Salehi came as Washington decided to fan out envoys across Asia, the Middle East and the United Arab Emirates, asking its partners to levy tighter sanctions against Tehran.
“We are ready even in the next few days to start negotiations with the other parties” over the fuel swap, Salehi said to Mehr news agency.
He said talks on this issue with the so-called Vienna group, comprising the United States, Russia and France, will be held in Vienna, where the UN atomic watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is based.
The Vienna group has raised questions about a proposal forwarded by Iran, Brazil and Turkey concerning a fuel swap.
The May 17 proposal, known as the Tehran Declaration, stipulates that Tehran send 1,200 kilograms of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for 20 percent high-enriched uranium to be supplied at a later date.
The enriched uranium when converted into fuel plates, will be used for a research reactor in Tehran.
Salehi said Iran has already responded to the questions raised by the Vienna group, but that any other “technical” queries can be answered during another meeting.
The Tehran Declaration was Iran’s counter-proposal to an earlier plan drafted by the IAEA for a fuel-swap deal.
After that plan hit deadlock, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered Salehi to produce 20 percent enriched uranium inside Iran, in defiance of world powers’ requests for Tehran to stop the process.
Enriching uranium is at the heart of a controversy over Iran’s nuclear program because the material can be used to power nuclear reactors as well as to make atom bombs.
Experts say that by enriching uranium to 20 percent, Iran has theoretically come closer to enriching it to the 90 percent purity required for making nuclear weapons.
Tehran denies that its uranium-enrichment program has any military goals. But the world powers which dismiss Tehran’s arguments have levied new sanctions against Iran.
On Friday, Salehi again attempted to clarify Iran’s position, saying that it was against stockpiling the 20 percent enriched uranium.
“We need 20 percent fuel for the Tehran research reactor at the moment,” Salehi said. “We have said before that we are producing 20 percent only for our needs. We do not want to stockpile 20 percent fuel.”
He and other Iranian officials have previously said that if Iran gets the fuel required for the Tehran reactor which makes medical isotopes, it would stop producing the high-enriched material.
Salehi, meanwhile, indicated that the overall nuclear talks between Iran and the six world powers – Britain, China, France, Russia, the US and Germany – could be held in Turkey at the the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, in mid-September.
“As I know, Iran prefers to organize these talks in Turkey,” he told ISNA news agency.
Ahmadinejad has ordered a freeze on these talks until the end of August as a “penalty” for UN sanctions.
The US announced Thursday that top officials would visit China, the United Arab Emirates and other key countries in support of tighter sanctions against Tehran.
“China is of concern to us in this regard,” Robert Einhorn, the US State Department’s special adviser for non-proliferation and arms control, told an investigative committee.
“We need for them to enforce the Security Council resolutions conscientiously and we also need for them not to ‘backfill’ when responsible countries have distanced themselves from Iran.”
China, which has emerged as Iran’s largest trading partner in recent years, backed the latest UN sanctions, but has consistently insisted on a diplomatic solution to the nuclear controversy.
On Friday, Beijing opposed the recent unilateral sanctions imposed by the EU that target Iran’s vital energy sector.
“China disapproves of the unilateral sanctions put in place by the EU against Iran,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a statement.
Meanwhile, Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday that his government was skeptical about the effectiveness of the latest UN sanctions targeting Iran.
“They’re determined to get nuclear military capability. We see it,” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” television program.
“I don’t believe that sanctions will work,” Barak added.
But he said that despite skepticism, Israel was willing to give the latest round of United Nations pressure on Tehran more time to have an effect.
“I think that the essence of it we still believe it’s still time for sanctions, to see whether they’re working. But as I said, we have to realize, we cannot wink in front of tough realities, however tough they might be,” Barak added.

Obama renews measures to freeze Hizbullah assets
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Saturday, July 31, 2010
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama renewed an emergency measure Thursday to freeze the assets of persons who work with Hizbullah militants and “infringe upon” Lebanese stability. “While there have been some recent positive developments in the Syrian-Lebanese relationship, continuing arms transfers to Hizbullah that include increasingly sophisticated weapons systems serve to undermine Lebanese sovereignty,” Obama said in Congress.
Obama said the emergency measures declared on August 1, 2007, must “continue in effect beyond August 1, 2010.”
The original executive order under President George W. Bush, continued by Obama, found that threats against Lebanese stability and moves to restore Syria’s former dominant influence there presented an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the US.”
The statement came hours after confirmation that Syrian President Bashar Assad would visit Beirut on Friday for a summit aimed at easing tensions in Lebanon in his first visit since the 2005 assassination of Lebanese former Premier Rafik Hariri, which forced the pullout of Syrian troops after a 29-year presence.
Syria, also accused of backing Hizbullah, was widely believed to have a hand in the killing but has consistently denied any involvement. – AFP

Calm offers Lebanon a chance to mature
By Jamil K. Mroue
Publisher and editor in chief
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Daily Star/Editorial
In parsing the significance of the Friday’s summit of Saudi King Abdullah, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Lebanon’s leaders, it is crucial to grasp that this is not exclusively about Lebanon. The effort, led by Abdullah, represents part of a regional initiative indivisible from the push to revive direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.
One should see Abdullah’s work on Friday as another milestone on this path of his that includes the summit he backed in Kuwait in January 2009 to resuscitate the peace talks. What happened in Lebanon on Friday is also inextricably linked to the involvement of the Obama administration in the peace process, as well as the support expressed this week by the Arab League for Palestine to enter direct talks with Israel.
The summit brings home to us this major departure from previous approaches; hitching the Palestinian narrative to other issues percolating in the region is designed to create the international stability required for Palestinian-Israeli negotiations to move forward.
Of course, we must also note that this new approach might be short-lived, because a major variable in the equation – Obama’s attempt to defuse the Iranian nuclear file – remains up in the air, to put it mildly. It also depends on what Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu is willing to put on the table; to be sure, Mahmoud Abbas also faces difficult constraints ahead of any direct talks, and all of these unknowns might well stay unresolved until the November midterm elections in the US, which could also recalibrate the dynamic.
Despite increasingly belligerent rhetoric from Israel this year toward Lebanon, Friday’s summit also reduces the threat of any confrontation on that front. The presence of Abdullah and Assad establishes the diplomatic precedent that Saudi Arabia and Syria are going to cooperate to avert strife in Lebanon, which is certainly a welcome development. To be sure, fears still smolder here about what Hizbullah will do if the Special Tribunal for Lebanon indicts Hizbullah members, and Prime Minister Saad Hariri has a most difficult task in managing the situation here until an indictment is handed down.
The coming period will require a great deal of self-control and calm from Lebanon’s leaders. Although they have allowed regional powers, in some sense, to direct the affairs of Lebanon, and while the summit set parameters for how top officials here should proceed, Friday’s milestone does not absolve this country’s leaders of their responsibility to take advantage of the stability handed to them. However long the calm might last, they need to use this space for the germination of a Lebanese state that could one day manage its own crises.
**Jamil K. Mroue, Editor-in-Chief of THE DAILY STAR, can be reached at jamil.mroue@dailystar.com.lb

Is a new war in the Middle East becoming inevitable?
By Volker Perthes
Commentary by
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Fouad Siniora, Lebanon’s former prime minister, is a thoughtful man with deep experience in Middle Eastern politics. So when he speaks of “trains with no drivers that seem to be on a collision course,” as he recently did at a private meeting in Berlin, interested parties should probably prepare for unwanted developments. Of course, no one in the region is calling for war. But a pre-war mood is growing.
Four factors, none of them new but each destabilizing on its own, are compounding one another: lack of hope, dangerous governmental policies, a regional power vacuum, and the absence of active external mediation.
It may be reassuring that most Palestinians and Israelis still favor a two-state solution. It is less reassuring that most Israelis and a large majority of Palestinians have lost hope that such a solution will ever materialize. Add to this that by September, the partial settlement freeze, which Israel’s government has accepted, will expire, and that the period set by the Arab League for the so-called proximity talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, which have not seriously begun, will also be over.
Serious direct negotiations are unlikely to begin without a freeze on settlement building, which Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unlikely to announce or implement, given resistance within his coalition government. Syria, which until the end of 2008 was engaged in its own Turkish-mediated proximity talks with Israel, does not expect a resumption of talks with Israel anytime soon. This may be one reason why Syrian President Bashar Assad mentions war as an option, as he recently did in Madrid.
Moreover, Israelis and people close to Hizbullah in Lebanon are talking about “another round,” while many pundits in the Middle East believe that a limited war could unblock a stagnant political situation. Their point of reference is the 1973 war, which helped to bring about peace between Egypt and Israel. But the wars that followed, and the latest wars in the region – the 2006 Lebanon war and the December 2008-January 2009 Gaza war – do not support this reckless theory.
Iran, whose influence in the Levant is not so much the cause of unresolved problems in the Middle East as the result of them, continues to defy the imposition of new sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. Iranian rulers have as little trust in the West as the West has in them, and they continue to increase international suspicion by their words and actions. Repeated statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about Israel’s eventual disappearance play into the hands of those in Israel who argue that Iran’s nuclear program must be ended militarily.
Some of the Middle East’s most important players are increasing the risks of confrontation because they have either lost a proper feeling for their regional and international environment, or seek to increase their own political power through provocation and brinkmanship. Netanyahu’s short-sighted reluctance to give up settlements and occupied territory threatens Israel’s long-term interest to reach a fair settlement with the Palestinians. In its deadly assault on the Gaza flotilla in May, Netanyahu’s government demonstrated a kind of political autism in its inability to realize that even Israel’s best friends no longer wish to accept the humanitarian consequences of the Gaza blockade.
In the Arab world, there is currently no dominant power able to project stability beyond its own national borders. It will take time before Iraq plays a regional role again. The Saudi reform agenda mainly concerns domestic issues. Egypt’s political stagnation has reduced its regional influence. Qatar over-estimates its own strength.
The only regional power in the Middle East today is Iran, but it is not a stabilizing force. The Arab states are aware of this. Much as they dislike it, they are also fearful of a war between Israel or the United States and Iran, knowing that they would have little influence over events.
Indeed, intra-regional dynamics in the Middle East today are driven by three states, none of which is Arab: Israel, Iran, and, increasingly, Turkey. In recent years, Turkey tried to mediate between Israel and Syria, Israel and Hamas, opposing factions in Lebanon, and lately between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.
Turkey should continue to play this role. But the Turkish government has increasingly allowed itself to be dragged into Middle East conflicts, rather than functioning as an honest broker.
The Obama administration has had a strong start with respect to the Middle East. But a year-and-a-half after his inauguration, Obama’s “outstretched hand” to Iran has turned into a fist, and his attempts to encourage Israeli-Palestinian negotiations seem stuck. Domestic issues are likely to preoccupy Obama and his team at least up until the mid-term elections this November, thus precluding active diplomacy during the critical months ahead.
And the European Union? There has not been much active crisis-prevention diplomacy from Brussels or from Europe’s national capitals. None of the leading EU states’ foreign ministers seems even to have made an attempt to mediate between Europe’s two closest Mediterranean partners, Israel and Turkey.
Twenty years ago, in the weeks that preceded Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, many observers saw signs of a looming crisis. But Arab and Western players somehow managed to convince themselves that things would not get out of hand.
That crisis, and others before and since, showed that tensions in the Middle East rarely dissolve with the passage of time. Sometimes they are resolved through active diplomatic intervention by regional or international players. And sometimes they are released violently.
**Volker Perthes is chairman and director of Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org).

General in Latin America trains eye on Middle East
Says local terrorist proxies supporting parent organizations
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/29/us-general-latin-america-keeps-eye-middle-east/
The top U.S. general in Latin America and the Caribbean said Thursday that he is closely monitoring the activities of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas in the region.
"Transnational terrorists -- Hezbollah, Hamas -- have organizations resident in the region," said Gen. Douglas M. Fraser, commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), in an address at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "I stay focused on it just because I'm paid to be skeptical. What we see right now is support -- financial support -- to parent organizations in the Middle East."
"I don't see any ops," the SOUTHCOM commander qualified. "I don't see anything like that. It still remains an issue and a concern for the supply they are doing. But on a skeptical basis, because of the amount of illicit trafficking that happens throughout the region -- the ability to move people, goods, capability across the border of the United States -- makes it a concern that I will continue to monitor."
Gen. Fraser also spoke to the increased presence of Iran in the region. In recent years, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has cemented alliances with anti-American states in the region -- most notably Venezuela -- as well as, of late, Brazil. Last month, the continent's most populous state joined Turkey in casting the only votes against new sanctions on Iran in the U.N. Security Council.
"From an Iranian standpoint, they are increasing their presence in the number of embassies that they have within the region," Gen. Fraser said. "They've gone from seven. I think they'll open their twelfth embassy this year. My concern there is just their traditional support to Hamas and Hezbollah and whether or not that then has an impact in Latin America and the Carribean. I have not seen that connection right now. So I see primarily diplomatic and commercial activity. I don't see anything beyond that."
Iran and Hezbollah do have an unsavory history in the region. In 2006, Argentine prosecutors charged the Iranian government and Hezbollah with orchestrating the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 and injured hundreds.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Lebanese summit
Arab Times
31/07/10
It does not take genius to know that the Middle East is the most fractured place on earth.
Palestinians are divided into two mutually hostile camps, Iraqis are still under occupation and remain at bloody odds with each other, the region is threatened by the possibility of another war over Iran’s nuclear plans, there is simmering conflict in Yemen and terrorism continues to stalk the region. Arching above all and fueling the region’s instability is Israel’s ever-tightening occupation of Palestinian lands and its blockage of the Palestinians’ right to their own sovereign state. Meanwhile, across the Red Sea, in the North African half of the Arab world, the picture is just as grim in certain areas. Think Somalia, Darfur or Al-Qaeda’s activities in the Maghreb.
The faint-hearted could be forgiven for deciding to give up on the Middle East and get on with their own lives. That is not the Saudi way. The country’s location as home of the Two Holy Mosques and its great wealth have given it a unique status and influence in the region. It is using them as best it can to promote regional unity, stability, peace and justice. That this is so can be seen to the full in three-way summit in Beirut with Custodian of The Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah, President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister Saad Hariri of Lebanon and President Bashar Assad of Syria.
The summit is testimony to Saudi Arabia’s part in bringing Syria and Lebanon closer together. For the past five years, ever since the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the two countries have been virtual enemies. The anti-Syrian movement in Lebanon, led by Saad Hariri, held the Syrians responsible for his father’s assassination and accused it of continuing efforts to destabilize the country through its protégés in Hezbollah. For its part, there was resentment in Damascus at being forced to pull its troops out of Lebanon and having to admit that Lebanon is a separate Arab state.
Even a year ago, it would have been difficult to imagine Hariri and Bashar sitting down together. But times have moved on and the three-way summit draws something of a line under Lebanon’s and Syria’s recent difficult relationship — although it would be foolish to predict an unquestionably smooth ride from here on. Hariri leads a government of national unity but questions remain over Hezbollah’s membership of it. Some in Lebanon say it remains a state within a state. There is also the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon investigating the assassination of Hariri. If it blames Syria or Hezbollah, there could be trouble,
However, that is not inevitable. As this summit shows, reconciliation is at work. But it is about far more than just Lebanese-Syrian reconciliation. It is about moving the region away from its internal divisions so it can work together for regional peace and resolve the Palestinian issue. The Lebanese summit is just the third leg (Sharm El-Shaikh and Damascus being the first two, Amman the last) in a bigger four-state tour by the king aimed at strengthening Arab unity and effectiveness on a host of issues — Darfur and divisions in Iraq also being among them — but particularly in dealing with Israel. It has to be. Arab disunity has always been Israel’s trump card, not to mention a massive block on progress — political, economic and social — in the Arab world. It is Saudi Arabia’s cherished dream to remove it.

Rare Arab summit to forestall possible Hezbollah unrest in Lebanon
An Arab summit of the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Syria met in Beirut today for the first time in eight years amid rising concern that the Hariri assassination tribunal could indict key Hezbollah members – sparking Hezbollah unrest.
.By Nicholas Blanford, Correspondent / July 30, 2010
Christian Science Monitor
Beirut, Lebanon
The leaders of Saudi Arabia and Syria arrived in Beirut Friday for an unprecedented summit with Lebanese President Michel Suleiman. The visit comes amid rising regional concern over the potentially explosive findings of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
Hezbollah denies responsibility for truck bomb blast that killed Hariri
Lebanon election: Fault lines of a Saudi-Syria cold war
Briefing: What are Hezbollah's true colors?
.The Netherlands-based tribunal reportedly has found evidence implicating members of Hezbollah in the truck bomb assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005.
The powerful Shiite militia has denied any involvement in the assassination. But if indictments are issued in the coming months as is widely expected, it will cause at the very least a major political crisis. Worse, it could spark outbursts of sectarian violence, analysts say.
“The rapid rush of kings and presidents to Lebanon confirms that this is a very serious development,” says Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Endowment’s Middle East Center in Beirut. “The scenario that Hezbollah is implicated is the worst-case scenario. It raises problems at every level.”
Strategizing about how to contain potential fallout
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad arrived separately in Beirut early Friday afternoon and headed to the Baabda presidential palace in the hills overlooking Beirut for a meeting with Mr. Suleiman. It was the first time either of them have visited since an Arab League summit in 2002, underlining the level of unease in the region at the potential fallout over the tribunal’s findings.
Mr. Assad, who together with Mr. Abdullah was expected to help Lebanon strategize over how to contain the likely fallout, was quoted as describing the summit and side meetings with senior Lebanese officials as "excellent."
A final communiqué called on all Lebanese not to resort to violence in settling their differences and declared that Lebanon's well-being should come above partisan interests.
Mending Saudi-Syria rift
Rafik Hariri was a Saudi protégé and his murder in 2005 fueled a bitter split between Saudi Arabia and Syria – a new cold war whose fault line ran through Lebanon. Syria was widely blamed for the killing although it has always denied involvement.
The Saudi-Syrian rift was further aggravated by their differing stances toward Iran. Syria and Iran have been close allies for three decades while Saudi Arabia leads Arab opposition to Iran’s growing influence in the region. The rivalry was played out in Beirut where the Saudis and Syrians backed opposing political factions.
However, Saudi Arabia patched up its differences with Syria last year, hoping to woo Damascus away from Tehran and back into the Arab fold. The Syrians so far have refused to sever ties with Iran but nonetheless appear anxious to maintain good relations with their Arab neighbors and to roll back some Iranian influence in Lebanon.
The improved ties between Saudi Arabia and Syria were reflected in Lebanon with a gradual easing of tensions between rival factions. Saad Hariri, the Saudi-backed prime minister and son of Rafik, has visited Damascus three times since December, most recently last week at the head of a large ministerial delegation.
“Both Syria and Saudi Arabia have an interest in curbing Iran’s sway over Hezbollah, and ensuring Hariri’s political survival, now that the latter has mended fences with Damascus,” says Elias Muhanna, a Lebanese political analyst and author of the Lebanese affairs blog Qifa Nabki.
Hariri could face impossible choice
Mr. Hariri has consistently supported the international investigation into his father’s murder since its inception five years ago. But if indictments are issued against members of Hezbollah, it will place him in an impossible position.
“The government is already under pressure and it will face even more pressure to change direction on the tribunal,” says Salem of the Carnegie Middle East Center.
Hezbollah denies responsibility for truck bomb blast that killed Hariri
Lebanon election: Fault lines of a Saudi-Syria cold war
Briefing: What are Hezbollah's true colors?
.If Hariri distances himself from the tribunal and accepts Hezbollah’s argument that the investigation is flawed and politicized, it will make a mockery of the judicial process and cast into doubt the tribunal’s future. Lebanon could end its obligation to pay 49 percent of the costs of the tribunal, the remainder of which comes from donor states.
On the other hand, if Hariri accepts the tribunal’s indictments, it would place him on a collision course with Hezbollah and risk the collapse of his coalition government and the outbreak of renewed Sunni-Shiite strife after two years of relative domestic calm.
Mindful of the fears surrounding the tribunal, Hariri repeatedly has attempted to assuage concerns of violent repercussions.
“I say to the Lebanese, don’t be afraid. There will be no strife or war. All [the speculation of strife] is merely intimidation by Israel,” Hariri told the pan Arab Al-Hayat newspaper last week.
Nasrallah casts tribunal as Zionist conspiracy
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, said last week that Hariri had told him in May that the tribunal would indict “undisciplined members of Hezbollah” rather than the party as a whole. The tribunal’s investigators interviewed up to 20 Hezbollah members in March at an office in southern Beirut, the party’s stronghold.
But Nasrallah and other party officials have vehemently rejected Hezbollah’s alleged role in Hariri’s assassination, accusing the tribunal of serving US and Israeli interests.
“We believe that there is a major plot to target the resistance [Hezbollah’s military apparatus], Lebanon and the whole region,” Nasrallah said in a televised speech.
Adding to the intensifying speculation, Israel’s Channel 1 television reported Thursday night that the tribunal has identified the chief suspect in the Hariri murder as Mustafa Badreddine, who is believed to be a senior security official in Hezbollah. Mr. Badreddine was the brother-in-law of Imad Mughniyah, the organization’s top military commander who was killed in an unresolved assassination in Damascus in February 2008.
The fact that Badreddine’s alleged involvement in the Hariri assassination was revealed by an Israeli media outlet will serve as additional ammunition in Hezbollah’s campaign to attack the credibility of the tribunal.
“Nasrallah has been vocal on this issue in order to soften the ground ahead of an impending indictment against the party,” says Mr. Muhanna. “He is trying to get out ahead of the story in order to impose some measure of control over it, casting it as a Zionist conspiracy or an American plot to target the resistance.”

Iran and Russia: Pies Falling from the Skies
30/07/2010
By Amir Taheri
Until just a few months ago the official commentariat in Tehran
was building a lot of pies in the sky with the prospect of a new axis to oppose the global influence of the American “Great Satan.” The axis would consist of Venezuela, Russia, China and the Islamic Republic.
With its experience of challenging the United States throughout the Cold War, Russia was supposed to play a central role in the imagined axis.
Now, however, it seems as if Russia is being out of the imagined axis to be included in the “the club of Iran’s enemies”, according to a commentary published by IRNA, the official news agency on 12 July.
In that commentary, President Dmitri Medvedev is described as an American “puppet” and advised to listen to “the wise counsel of Russia’s elder statesmen”, presumably including Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
The initial reason for Tehran’s anger was Russia’s decision to vote for new United Nations’ sanctions against the Khomeinist regime. That was compounded by President Medvedev’s assertions that Tehran was, indeed, trying to build a nuclear arsenal and that Russia would not allow that to happen.
Playing the Russian card formed a major part of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s strategy from the start of his mandate in 2005.
So keen was Ahmadinejad to woo Moscow that he announced the revival of two Irano-Russian treaties signed respectively in 1921 and 1941. The treaties give Moscow the sole right to maintain a navy in the Caspian Sea and to land troops in Iranian territory when Russia felt threatened. The treaties had been denounced by successive governments under the Shah. But it was not until 1979 that Ibrahim Yazdi, who briefly served as Khomeini’s foreign minister, announced the formal cancellation of the two treaties.
No doubt acting with the consent of Ali Khamenehi, the “Supreme Guide”, Ahmadinejad went further in his attempt at winning Russia’s support. He put a stop to the coming-and-goings of Chechen and Daghestani fighters, trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan, who passed through Iran to reach the war zones in the Caucasus.
In 2006 he closed the Tehran offices of the Caucasian “Mujahedin” and handed some 30 Chechen and Ingush campaigners to Russia under an invalidated agreement signed in 1969.
The Khomeinist regime’s moves against the Russian “Mujahedin” is now seen in Tehran as a major element in Moscow’s success in crushing the Chechen revolt, at least temporarily.
It was, therefore, no surprise that the IRNA commentary included a barely concealed threat that Tehran might reverse that policy. It reminded Medvedev that if Iran were weakened, presumably by UN sanctions, “the current situation in Chechniya and Ingushetia would not remain the same.”
Russia’s policy on Iran has been a model of duplicity.
While happy to see the Islamic Republic act as thorn in the side of the Americans, Russia has been careful not to let the Khomeinist regime get too big for its mullah’s slippers.
Russia invited the Islamic Republic to attend the meetings of the Shanghai Group, which also includes China and the Central Asian republics, as a thank-you gesture for Ahmadinejad’s anti-Chechen policy. But when Ahmadinejad demanded that Iran be accepted as a full member, Russia insisted that nothing more than an observer’s status should be granted to the Islamic Republic.
Both Putin, as president, and Medvedev have politely ignored Tehran’s persistent demands that Ahmadinejad be invited to Moscow for a full state visit. Both men have also declined repeated invitations for a state visit to the Islamic Republic although Putin spent a day and a half in Tehran in the context of a summit of the Caspian Sea littoral states.
The supreme insult came last year when Ahmadinejad was not invited to the same summit, presumably because of his controversial re-election and the public uprisings that followed in Iran.
There are a number of other indications that Moscow is no longer sure of the Islamic Republic’s stability under Ahmadinejad’s maverick domestic and foreign policies.
First, Moscow is pushing for the finalisation of a treaty that would divide the Caspian Sea among its five littoral states; Kazakhstan, Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran and Turkmenistan.
Under the Russian scheme, unveiled last year, Iran, which has the longest coastline on the inland sea will end up with 11.5 per cent of the Caspian’s oil, mineral and fish resources. Iran has always opposed the scheme and insisted that the Caspian be regarded as “inland water” an equally shared among the five littoral states. Under that formula, Iran would end up with 25 per cent of the sea’s resources.
The Iranian formula would also give littoral states veto power over contracts with companies from non-littoral countries.
Using that power, Tehran would be able to exclude European and American companies that currently enjoy the lion’s share in most contracts, especially in developing oil and gas resources.
Even when it comes to Caspian caviar, Moscow has adopted a tough stance against Tehran.
Moscow vetoed last year’s quota that allowed Iran to catch 1000 tonnes of the high price sturgeon fish. As result no caviar was exported from the Caspian in 2009.
This year, Tehran was forced to accept a quota of 800 tonnes. Moscow ended up with 2400 tonnes, including the share of Kazakhstan controlled by Russian companies.
Russia has also announced it would not deliver the S300 anti-aircraft missile system that the Islamic Republic paid for in 2007. The system would have significantly increased Iran’s defences against possible air attacks by Israel or the United States.
The Bushehr nuclear power plant, the first of its kind in Iran, presents another piece of the jigsaw.
The Russians were supposed to switch it on in March 2005.
Now, however, they promise to start “final tests” sometime before the end of 2010. Many in Tehran, including Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the former head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency, believe that the Russians will never do so.
In the average Iranian’s historical landscape, Russia has always been regarded as one of the two traditional enemies of Iran along with Great Britain. This is why Ahmadinejad’s apparently Russophile gestures were never popular.
While scaling down its political and diplomatic support for the Islamic Republic, Russia is keen to maintain, if not enhance, its economic ties to Iran. Russia’s trade with Iran amounts to no more than $3 billion a year, making it the 10th foreign partner of the Islamic Republic.
Last week, Lukoil, the Russian state-owned oil giant, offered to sell Iran gasoline in defiance of sanctions imposed by the US and the European Union. In exchange, Lukoil wants an exclusive contract to develop oilfields in the Iranian waters of the Caspian. If Ahmadinejad were to grant Lukoil such a contract, Russia would see part of a dream that it has had since the middle of the 19th century come true.
Is Russia trying to exploit the Islamic Republic’s current weakness and isolation to realise its dream of securing a dominant position in Iran?
Rather than echoing Ahmadinejad’s foreign policy of insults and threats, the Tehran commentariat should ponder that question.