LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 10/12

Bible Quotation for today
Matthew 11/25-30: " At that time Jesus said, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. ‘Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Washington’s self-defeating policy/By: Tony Badran/Now Lebanon/August 09/12
Iran and the Human Rights Opening /By: Mehdi Khalaji /Wall Street Journal/August 08/12
Looming U.S.-Iraqi Row over Decision to Release Hizballah Commander/By: Matthew Levitt /Washington Institute/August 09/12
EU politicians ignore Muslim world’s crimes/Manfred Gerstenfeld/Ynetnews/August 09/12
Do the Assads fear Alawite anger/By Michael Young/The Daily Star/August 09/12
Al-Assad under Iranian guardianship/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/August 09/12
Neglecting Sinai/By Adel Al Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat/August 09/12
The phenomenon of the “frenemy”/By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat/August 09/12
The fearful in Damascus/By Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Alawsat/ August 09/12

Barak: A nuclear Iran is taking shape before us. Time for decisions is short
DEBKAfile Special Report August 9, 2012/Stout refutation of reported disagreements over the military option against Iran’s nuclear program between the US and Israel, and himself and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, took up most of a long radio interview given by Defense Minister Ehud Barak Thursday, Aug. 9. He explained that US and Israeli intelligence essentially see eye to eye on this matter and so do he and the prime minister.
Barak referred to the new US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran as confirming that both capitals understand that not much time is left for making decision on whether or not to go on the offensive against Iran’s nuclear facilities and when, because, he said, “a nuclear Iran is taking shape right before our eyes.”
Defense Minister Barak's key remark was this: "I am aware of an American intelligence finding (not the new National Intelligence Estimate) that brings American intelligence assessments [of the current state of the Iranian nuclear program] very close to ours. This makes the Iranian question [i.e., the issue of the Iranian nuclear program and a possible military operation against it] extremely urgent," he said without further explanation. Barak disclosed that the US and Israel have been essentially of one mind for many months in their estimates of Iranian nuclear progress and the factors holding Tehran back from starting to build a nuclear bomb. All options therefore remain on the table, he stressed. debkafile's military and intelligence sources add: American-Israeli talks about a military operation against Iran wound up months ago in early 2012. The administration was made aware that notwithstanding President Barack Obama’s objections, Israel would soon go into action against Iran's nuclear facilities.
This presumption has been adopted as their working hypothesis by the top US command echelons, from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey and down to the head of the US Central Command, Gen. James Mattis, who has both Israel and Iran in his jurisdiction.
Barak stressed that he and the prime minister are in total harmony on this issue. "What we (the prime minister and I, and the Americans) understand is that there is not much time left for deciding [about an attack on Iran]"
He referred in answer to a question to the comment by former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy made last week: “if I were an Iranian, I would be very worried in the next twelve weeks.”
To this, Barak said "There is some basis to what Halevy said." He added: “We will soon have to make some difficult decisions.”
As to the public disputes over the media on the wisdom of attacking Iran, the defense minister said some of the debates and public disclosures not only harm Israel’s security but actually aid Tehran.
The price of allowing Iran to attain a nuclear weapon will be much greater than the cost of an attack. It is already happening, said the Israeli minister. "And we must take into account the dangers and the very steep price in human life and in resources, if Iran goes nuclear. First, we must consider the outcome of first Saudi Arabia, then Turkey, and then the New Egypt becoming nuclear powers in their turn.”
Asked about an unattributed report Thursday that Saudi Arabia had sent a message to the Obama administration threatening to intercept any Israeli bomber planes using its air space to strike Iran, Barak replied he was not familiar with any such message. But, he said, Saudi Arabia is a sovereign state and makes its own decisions like any other country.
He went on to warn that another consequence of Iran’s nuclearization would be the strengthening of terrorist elements in the region, such as Tehran’s proxy, the Lebanese Hizballah.
At the same time, Barak also said: It's quite possible that we may have to deal with Hizballah anyway.”
This was taken by debkafile’s sources as suggesting that Hizballah is a rising menace - both because of its support for Bashar Assad in the civil war and for performing Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks on Israelis in different parts of the world. In discussing the situation in Egypt and Sinai-based jihadist terror, Defense Minister Barak asserted his confidence that Egypt is capable of dealing with it. “But I can’t say whether it has the will to do so,” he added. For more than a year since Mubarak’s overthrow, “Israel has been readjusting its military and intelligence resources in the areas abutting Egypt and Sinai,” he said. "We have deployed an Iron Dome missile interceptor battery near Eilat in case it becomes necessary in that sector."
Barak did not elaborate upon what he expects to happen in the Eilat sector, which is the southernmost point on the Israeli map, or against whom the missile defense system was deployed.
He did offer a prediction on Syria, estimating that quite soon "we would see Syrian President Bashar Assad hunkering down with his army in a fortified Alawite enclave" encompassing the Syrian coast and the Alawite Mountains."The longer the war in Syria drags on," he said, "the greater the prospects of total chaos."
The defense minister underlined the importance of attempts to renew peace negotiations with the Palestinians as quickly as possible. He cited the growing strength of Hamas and its ties with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and in other Arab countries as lending urgency to the revival of the peace process.
"On this issue, time is not on our side," he said. "But if progress proves evasive, both of us [Israel and the Palestinians] may be faced with having to perform certain mutually-agreed unilateral measures.”

Michel Samaha Arrested for ‘Security Reasons’
Naharnet/09 August 2012/The Internal Security Forces Intelligence Branch arrested former MP and cabinet minister Michel Samaha on Thursday morning "for security reasons," the acting general prosecutor said. Samaha was arrested following raids on his houses in Beirut’s Ashrafiyeh district and the North Metn town of Jwar al-Khensahara. Samaha's wife, Gladis, told LBC TV network that the former minister was still in bed when the security forces dragged him out and forced him into one of four vehicles waiting outside his Jwar al-Khenshara house. She said her husband was arrested for “political reasons” and urged the Lebanese team that backs him “to move.”The security forces seized two of his vehicles, a computer and several items, including CDs and videos, from both houses. They also took his driver Fares Barakat for questioning. The National News Agency said his secretary and two of his bodyguards were also being interrogated. The reasons for Samaha's arrest were not clear.
His seizure came upon instructions by acting General Prosecutor Samir Hammoud for “security reasons" which MTV said were linked to an assassination attempt against al-Mustaqbal bloc’s Akkar MP Khaled al-Daher to create civil strife. Al-Daher later told MTV that he was surprised by the report. “I don’t have any information about this case,” the lawmaker said.
Security forces linked his arrest to the seizure of explosives for the purpose of carrying out bombings in several Lebanese areas. They told LBC that the explosives were not found at his houses but elsewhere.
Hammoud refused to divulge any information, telling LBC that the interrogation should be swift. “The appropriate judicial measures will be taken after that by either issuing an arrest warrant or setting him free,” he said. Justice Minister Shakib Qortbawi later told NBN: "The manner in which Samaha was arrested is unacceptable at all and I will request the acting general prosecutor to investigate the matter."
Samaha is known for his pro-Syrian regime views. He was among several pro-Syrian Lebanese officials who were sanctioned in 2007 by the United States for “contributing to political and economic instability in Lebanon.”

Syria regime pressures Lebanon to release detained former minister, source says
August 9, 2012 /A well-informed source told NOW on Thursday that the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad was exerting pressure on Lebanon’s judiciary and President Michel Suleiman to release former Information Minister Michel Samaha, who was arrested earlier in the day. The source also said that the Syrian regime demanded that Samaha be cleared of all charges filed against him.
The detained minister is considered to be close to Syria's embattled regime. Furthermore, the source told NOW that the security forces also pursued other people close to Samaha, but that some of them had fled to Syria. Although the National News Agency reported that the security forces had raided Samaha’s residence in Beirut and searched it before undertaking the raid on his residence in Khenshara, the reasons behind Samaha’s Thursday detention are yet unclear. Lebanon’s political scene is split between supporters of Assad’s regime, led by Hezbollah, and the pro-Western March 14 camp.
-NOW Lebanon

Lebanese premier says former minister’s arrest not related to STL
August 9, 2012 /Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Miqati said Thursday that the arrest of former Information Minister Michel Samaha was not related to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
The STL is probing the killing of former Lebanese Premier Rafiq Hariri. Four Hezbollah members were indicted in the assassination, but Hezbollah, which is mainly backed by Damascus and Tehran, has strongly denied the charges and refused to cooperate with the tribunal. Acting General Prosecutor Judge Samir Hammoud issued an arrest warrant in Samaha’s name for involvement in “security incidents.” These “incidents” are in no way related to the STL, head of the Journalists Union, Elias Aoun, quoted Miqati as saying after a meeting between the premier and the Journalists Union council.
Lebanese security forces on Thursday arrested Samaha, who is considered to be close to Syria's embattled regime, a senior official said.
Regarding the issue of Lebanese Shiite pilgrims kidnapped in Aleppo, Miqati was quoted by Elias Aoun as saying that “the issue took political dimensions that [revealed] a campaign against the cabinet.”
“It seems the abductees are being used as hostages for political purposes ,” Aoun also quoted Miqati as saying. In May, 11 Shiite pilgrims were abducted in Syria’s Aleppo while returning from a pilgrimage in Iran. Later in the month, a previously unknown armed group calling itself the "Syrian Revolutionaries—Aleppo Province" said that it was holding the group, while the Free Syrian Army had repeatedly denied its involvement in the abduction. The families of the kidnapped men have repeatedly accused the Lebanese government of inaction in the case. On Monday, they shortly blocked Beirut’s airport road and later on Tuesday protested in front of the Turkish embassy. They have also threatened to escalate their protests if their demands to address the issue are not met.
Turning to the upcoming parliamentary elections, Miqati said that they will take place on time.-NOW Lebanon

Report: Israel Intercepted Phone Calls between Lebanon, Bulgaria ahead of Bombing
Naharnet/ 09 August 2012/The Israeli intelligence service intercepted several telephone calls between Lebanon and Burgas in Bulgaria two months before the bombing that killed five Israeli tourists and their local bus driver, the New York Times reported on Thursday. “The volume (of calls) intensified in the three days leading up to” the bombing, a senior Israeli government official told the newspaper on condition of anonymity. Israel accused Iran and Hizbullah of planning attacks in "over 20 countries" in remarks just days after the July 18 attack in Bulgaria.
However, Iran and Hizbullah both denied any involvement in what was the first attack of its kind in Bulgaria.
The official said that “the sources in Lebanon are known,” but the identities of those who are on the other end in Bulgaria remain a mystery.
“They shouldn’t know that we know the numbers in Lebanon,” he said. The NY Times said that the Bulgarian officials are hesitant to declare Hizbullah responsible without evident proof.
European allies expect more concrete evidence than the volume of calls before taking steps against Hizbullah, the daily added.
A senior security official in Germany told the daily that the EU maintains “some skepticism that it was Hizbullah as an organization itself, and not, for instance, Iran using individuals with some Hizbullah affiliation.” Police have the fingerprints and DNA of the bomber, who killed five Israelis and the Bulgarian bus driver as well as himself in the July 18 attack at Burgas airport, but they have drawn a blank on international databases.

Iran hosts Syria talks, calls for national dialogue August 09, 2012/By Mohammad Davari
TEHRAN: Iran on Thursday hosted a 29-nation conference on Syria with the aim of stopping bloodshed there and forging a role for Tehran as peace-broker for its beleaguered Arab ally.
Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi opened the meeting by calling for "national dialogue between the (Syrian) opposition, which has popular support, and the Syrian government to establish calm and security," according to state television.
He added that Iran was prepared to host any such dialogue.
Salehi said Iran was opposed to "any foreign interference and military intervention in resolving the Syrian crisis" and supported efforts extended by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
He said Iran had sent humanitarian aid to Syria to make up for international sanctions on Damascus that he said "are not in the interest of the Syrian people but have added to their suffering."
Excluded from the Tehran meeting were Western and Gulf Arab nations that Iran has accused of giving military backing to the bloody near 17-month insurgency seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad.
State media said the foreign ministers of Iraq, Pakistan and Zimbabwe were present.
Lower-ranking diplomats, most of them ambassadors, represented the other nations.
Salehi listed those nations as: Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Benin, Belarus, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Oman, Russia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
A representative of the United Nations was also present.
Kuwait and Lebanon had said before the meeting they would not send representatives.
Iran is endeavouring to establish a ceasefire in Syria and start national dialogue between the Syrian opposition and government.
But Tehran is at the same time pledging to stick by Assad, whose forces are battling rebels in war for Syria that has so far cost more than 21,000 lives, activists estimate.
A top aide to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Saeed Jalili, met Assad in Damascus on Tuesday to vow Tehran would not permit the bond between it and Assad's regime to be broken.
There was no immediate word from the Syrian opposition and rebels on how they viewed the Tehran conference.
Iran's hasty organisation of the meeting appeared to be an attempt to step into a diplomacy vacuum caused by the August 2 resignation of Kofi Annan as U.N.-Arab League peace envoy on the Syria crisis. The frustrated former U.N. chief had said that "continuous finger-pointing and name-calling" within the UN Security Council had undermined his mission. He also said he believed Assad would go "sooner or later."Iran, which blamed Annan's departure on U.S. support for Syria's rebels, said it was trying to revive parts of Annan's six-point peace plan.
Tehran's position hews closely to that of Moscow, which along with China has blocked three Security Council attempts to sanction Assad's regime.
Russia and Iran believe Western criticism of Assad's heavy-handed crackdown glosses over the role of Syria's rebels in the conflict.
Iran also backs Syria's portrayals of the rebels as foreign-backed "terrorists" armed by Sunni rivals Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.

Lebanon General Security slams unfounded media reports
August 09, 2012 /The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Lebanon’s General Security slammed what it described Thursday as unfounded news reports about the security apparatus, calling on the media to verify their information prior to publishing it. “Certain local newspapers and magazines have for some time been disseminating inaccurate information relating to the Directorate General of the General Security that is false or based on statements of politicians whom 'we respect,’” General Security said in a statement. Following the deportation of 14 Syrians to their home country last week by General Security, the institution has been under attack by several politicians criticizing the move. In remarks last week, Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt went so far as to call on the Lebanese government to fire “if need be” the head of General Security over the expulsion. In its statement Thursday, General Security “called on all media outlets and concerned figures to scrutinize their information before making it public,” and added that it left the matter of judging its work to the Lebanese people and government. “The Directorate General of General Security would like to remind [people] that it is a public security institution that works for the interest of all Lebanese without exception at the behest of the political authority,” the statement said. The statement did not specify which news reports were unfounded and said that the institution would not be part of media debates.

Former Lebanese minister detained after discovery of bomb plot
August 09, 2012/By Youssef Diab The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Former Lebanese Information Minister Michel Samaha, who is close to President Bashar Assad, was detained Thursday after authorities uncovered plans to carry out several bomb attacks across Lebanon. Samaha was summoned at dawn Thursday for interrogation over an undisclosed but “sensitive” security-related issue, Acting Prosecutor General Samir Hammoud told The Daily Star. His secretary, driver and two bodyguards were also detained. A senior security source said investigation by policemen from the Internal Security Forces Information Branch has led to Samaha’s arrest. The source, speaking to The Daily Star on condition of anonymity, said 20 “highly effective” bombs ready to explode by remote were found in several areas of Lebanon. The source would not elaborate. He said explosives experts defused the bombs before they were taken to Beirut. Hammoud, the prosecutor general, said Samaha “has been taken in for questioning over a sensitive judicial matter." "We are now at the interrogation stage, the outcome of which will determine whether he will be arrested or let go," he added.
Prime Minister Najib Mikati confirmed that Samaha's detention was security-related and has nothing to do with collaboration with Israel or a U.N.-backed court probing the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri."Samaha was arrested ... for questioning over mere security issues,” Mikati told a delegation of the Editors' Association. "We are waiting for the outcome of the investigation."
Security sources told The Daily Star that authorities raided Samaha's residences in Ashrafieh, Beirut, and Khanshara, Metn, early Thursday upon orders from Hammoud.
Samaha, 64, was taken from his Khanshara home at 2 a.m., the sources added.

EU politicians ignore Muslim world’s crimes
Manfred Gerstenfeld/ 08.09.12/Ynetnews
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4266384,00.html
Op-ed: Key element of European multiculturalism is to look away as much as possible from criminality in Muslim world
Western countries are signatories of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention. This agreement aims to prevent future genocide, which is the greatest crime in the world. It also includes the commitment to act against incitement to genocide by a state. Such a transgressing nation may then be referred to an international court. However, hardly any European politicians reacted to the recent renewed calls for the annihilation of Israel by Iranian leaders. This goal can only be achieved by the genocide of Israel’s citizens. Conclusion: Many European politicians do not care much about major international laws when they are in Israel’s favor.
Furthermore, the European Union refused once again to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The EU however, does care a bit about human rights. The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, keeps herself disproportionately busy by condemning Israel if it does something against her liking.One key element of European multiculturalism is to look away as much as possible from criminality in the Muslim world, even if it is major. There are many manifestations of this. A journalist from a foreign broadcasting organization in Israel told me: "I have seen foreign correspondents with tears in their eyes when they saw Palestinian olive trees destroyed by Israelis. The same people made a major effort to explain away terrorist murders of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists."
In the morally degraded European political environment, the rare politician who addresses Muslim states’ transgressions of the Genocide Convention merits mention. A Dutch Parliamentarian, Wim Kortenoeven, who has recently left the Freedom Party of Geert Wilders, put forward some frank questions to the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs.
He wrote, "Do you share the opinion that the calls by President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian functionaries concerning the annihilation of Israel and thus genocide against its inhabitants, are a transgression of Article 3 of the Convention of Prevention and Punishment of Genocide? If not, why not?"
Kortenoeven also asked whether the minister took these calls for genocide seriously and added: "If not, why not?" He furthermore wanted to know how the Dutch government reacted to the latest Iranian call for genocide and what concrete actions the minister intended to undertake. He also inquired whether the minister was willing to request from states whose ambassadors had heard the speech of Iranian Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to publicly disassociate themselves from this call. He asked the minister if he was not willing to do so, to explain why.
A few ardent supporters
Kortenoeven furthermore inquired whether the size of the Iranian Embassy in The Hague was proportional to actual relations between Iran and the Netherlands? If not, would the minster be willing to expel these non-essential functionaries? His questions were accompanied by detailed background material.
The Israeli government could have acted forcefully in the Iranian matter in two directions. It could have tried to get more questions asked in Western parliaments regarding the points raised by Kortenoeven. Additionally, it could have exposed the huge failure of the European Union and its member states to address many of the major crimes in Muslim countries.
Such Israeli action is all the more important as Europe finds itself at a critical junction. Its most visible element is the crisis concerning the Euro. Every few days additional problems emerge whereupon new stopgap measures are announced. The European leadership is clueless about these problems magnitude and how to solve them.
This is leading to an even greater distrust by many Europeans in the democracy-deficient European Union and in their own politicians. People’s fear about their future grows. In the short term, many worry about keeping their jobs. In the long term, they fear for the nature of the society they will live in. This psychological climate has both risks and opportunities for Israel. The crisis in societal institutions has always been dangerous for Jews and is now so for Israel also. One threat comes from the entrance of populist parties into national parliaments. Some are neo-fascist, or even neo-Nazi, such as the Hungarian Jobbik and the Greek Golden Dawn. Others have anti-Semites in their ranks, such as the German Pirate Party which is likely to enter Parliament in the next election. Others attack Jewish ritual customs, such as ritual slaughter or circumcision.
On the other hand, at a time when there is increasing disaffection with Europe, one can also mobilize Israel’s friends to show how many European bodies mistreat Israel. This requires thought and a clear agenda. Otherwise, one is dependent upon individual initiatives by a few ardent supporters, such as Kortenoeven.
The Israeli government has taken economic measures to anticipate and diminish fallout from the world’s growing economic crisis. There is however, far more to be considered than plain economics.
**Manfred Gerstenfeld is a member of the Board of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, of which he has been chairman for twelve years.

Egypt: The main Jihadi groups in Sinai
By Mohammed Hassanein
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat - Following Sunday’s bloody attack on the Egyptian-Israeli border which resulted in the death of 16 border guards, Egyptian aircraft and troops carried out reciprocal strikes on Wednesday morning in an effort to rid the area of Islamic militants who aim to destroy the State of Israel.
The Sinai Peninsula is currently home to a number of armed Jihadi organisations, the most prominent of which is the “Al-Tawhid Wa Al-Jihad” group, which has called for the establishment of an Islamic Emirate in Sinai.
Since the toppling of Hosni Mubarak's regime at the beginning of last year, groups of hard-line Islamists have attacked police stations and the pipeline via which Egypt exports gas to Israel. On a number of occasions, Tel Aviv has accused Cairo of having lost control over Sinai in the wake of the revolution of 25 January, 2011 and insists that Palestinian militias across the border in Gaza are engaging in armed activity with the intention of establishing further Jihadi organizations in the peninsula.
One of the most prominent groups in Sinai is “Al-Tawhid Wa Al-Jihad,” a Salafi group linked to Al-Qaeda which communicates with the Palestinian “Jaysh Al-Islam” in Gaza. Former Egyptian Interior Minister Habib Al-Adli accused “Jaysh Al-Islam” of being behind the bomb attack at al-Qiddissin Church in Alexandria which took place on New Year’s Eve, 2010.
The group, which was discovered in 2004, is often blamed for terrorist bomb attacks on Egyptian soil. These include Taba (2004), Sharm al-Sheikh (2005), Dahab (2006) and Al-Husayn (2009). Egyptian security forces have arrested dozens of the organization’s members, with a number of them receiving the death sentence.
Since 25 January 2011 many elements of the organization have returned in the form of terrorist operations. Last January they kidnapped 25 Chinese workers in the middle of Sinai, demanding the release of five of their members who had been detained and sentenced. Currently, 25 members of the organization are on trial on charges of establishing and administering the group, which considers the country’s leader an infidel and encourages dissent from him; as well as on charges of attacking the Armed Forces and killing seven people in armed attacks at Al-Arish last summer.
In August 2011, the group pledged to turn Sinai into an "arena fit for conflict with Israel." In a statement released on the Internet, the group claimed: "The land of Egypt and Mount Sinai have entered a new stage in which they will be - God willing - the centre point of conflict with God's enemies: the Jews and their lackeys."
On 16 September 2011, Egyptian security forces discovered leaflets entitled "First and final warning" being distributed in the Sinai towns of Rafah and Sheikh Zuwayd by so-called "jihadi groups." The leaflet says that the Takfiri and Jihadi groups in Sinai “declare Sinai an Islamist Emirate embracing customs and traditions derived from Islamic Sharia, and that there is no need for the presence of army and police forces in Sinai."
Another organization which bases itself in Sinai is "Mujahidin Shura Council under the Auspices of Jerusalem," which announced its presence in Sinai last July in a recording relayed on YouTube, with the aim of engaging in "a war of martyrdom against the Zionist enemy,” and “opening new jihadi fronts against it from Sinai."
Days before the apparition of this particular organization, another group called "Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis [Supporters of Jerusalem]" claimed responsibility for one of the attacks which struck the Egyptian-Israeli pipeline. A video released by the organization detailed the different stages of planning which the group undertook in preparation for the attack.
Last June, another Islamist group in Sinai released a film to the internet in which it admitted its responsibility for a cross-border attack which resulted in the death of an Israeli citizen at a construction area dedicated to the new border barrier. In the film members of a new group called "Mujahidin Shura Council" appeared wearing military uniforms and could be seen selecting what seemed to be an Israeli security patrol and a town on the border as their target.

The fearful in Damascus
By Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Alawsat
When the Prime Minister of a regime defects approximately two months after his appointment, and information is leaked suggesting that he was negotiating to flee the country for some time prior to the decision to appoint him, then a question needs to be asked about the rest of the regime: Who is really in charge at a time when the pace of defections is increasing among staff and senior officials, and likewise we are witnessing internal infiltrations that have reached even the most important security strongholds, such as the bombing that occurred a few weeks ago killing prominent security leaders?
Since the beginning of the Syrian uprising, and the regime’s resort to the security solution in order to confront the demonstrations that were peaceful at first, a question emerged in the face of the absurdity of this solution, which any sane person knew would lead to a dead end: Who is the decision maker, is it al-Assad himself or is he a pawn for others? The passing days and bloody developments in Syria, and the leaks emerging here and there, confirm that he is the primary authority, and that the influential inner circle linked by common, perhaps family interests is running the crisis, while everyone around it has woken up and begun jumping from a ship on the verge of sinking.
Perhaps the most accurate assessment of the defection of the Syrian Prime Minister, along with two ministers and military leaders, came from the German Foreign Minister who announced that the Syrian regime is eroding quickly. It is not known whether there are signs of other splits among senior officials such as the Defense Minister, as reported, but the course of events indicates that perhaps there are many who want to jump ship from within the regime and are waiting for the right moment or the right conditions. This may be linked to guaranteeing the safety of their families, as it is noticeable that many of the defectors have only done so after securing their families and leaving with them, fearing the wrath of the regime that has said it will strike the families of those who turn against it.
It is puzzling that the narrow group that runs the regime now, headed by President al-Assad himself, seems to be infected with a state of semi-blindness, and cannot see the reality that the ship is sinking. With the increasing frequency of defections among senior executive officials and military leaders, and the loss of large parts of Syrian territory outside its control, the Syrian regime has entered a stage like the final phase of Gaddafi’s rule in Libya. It may be that the case for those remaining in the regime in Syria is different to Gaddafi in terms of the presence of external supporters both regionally and internationally, but even those will abandon the regime at some point, or bargain over it when they feel it is no longer useful.
It is certain now that this narrow group is eroding day by day and becoming even smaller, and it is likely that there are a many frightened officials in Damascus who are preparing to jump from the ship provided that they can ensure their safety. These people should be encouraged to abandon the regime as soon as possible, because jumping will be futile after the ship has sunk. It is no longer possible to defend the regime after the signs of its collapse are looming, and its decision makers have passed the point of no return after all this bloodshed. Those thinking of defecting should leave the inner circle to its fate, instead of associating with the regime any longer.

Al-Assad under Iranian guardianship
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
The photograph published by the al-Assad regime’s official news agency “SANA”, depicting the meeting between Bashar al-Assad and the Supreme Leader of Iran’s envoy, Saeed Jalili, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, sums up the political situation in Syria today. It confirms that the tyrant of Damascus is now fully under the guardianship of Iran, specifically within the cloak of the Supreme Leader!
The photograph in question, printed on the front page of Asharq al-Awsat yesterday, shows Bashar al-Assad sitting in a chair with Jalili to his right, whilst all other attendees in the meeting are from the Iranian side. The photograph does not show Walid Moallem, Bouthaina Shaaban, not even Faisal Mekdad or Jihad al-Maqdisi. According to the photograph, to al-Assad’s right and to his left, everyone in attendance is Iranian. Meanwhile, on the same day, SANA published another photograph of a separate meeting Jalili held with Walid Moallem and a team from al-Assad’s foreign ministry. This in itself is an indication that al-Assad is now fully under Iranian guardianship, and this was confirmed by Tehran through Jalili’s statements announcing that Iran stands by al-Assad, and Tehran will not accept the breakup of the so-called axis of resistance. The custom in all al-Assad’s meetings, and particularly since the outbreak of the Syrian revolution, is for the guest visitor to sit on the Syrian President’s right, with his accompanying delegation alongside him, while members of the Syrian government sit on the left of al-Assad, but this was not the case in the meeting between al-Assad and Khamenei’s envoy Jalili. Hence the Syrians today are not only fighting the tyrant of Damascus, they are also fighting Iran, which wants to impose al-Assad upon them by the force of arms!
The photograph of the al-Assad-Jalili meeting also indicates that Iran – more than ever – has become convinced that al-Assad’s days are numbered, something that was confirmed by the defection of Prime Minister Riyad Hijab. Therefore, Tehran now intends to protect al-Assad, who has become a personal cause in the hands of the Supreme Leader. This means that al-Assad is like Nuri al-Maliki and Hassan Nasrallah, but will this ensure the survival of the Syrian President? Of course not. Iran’s public defense of al-Assad, in the manner that can be seen from Jalili’s meeting with the Syrian President, confirms that the Syrians today are facing a sectarian battle being fought against them by Tehran. This will only reveal the hypocrisy and sectarian nature of the al-Assad and Iranian regimes alike, just like it will also remove the last fig leaf from Iran’s duplicity in our region.
Hence the photograph of the meeting between al-Assad and Jalili is one of the most prominent images that will remain in the mind of the Syrian rebels, the Arab region, and the international community. The picture has become clear now in Syria, where Iran is intervening – at the level of its Supreme Leader – to help the collapsing regime, and provide it with all the assistance it needs to kill unarmed civilians, amid international reluctance to arm the Syrian rebels.
The blatant Iranian interference in Syria shows that what is happening there is a purely Syrian revolution, carried out by the people of the country themselves, and not with external support as alleged by the al-Assad regime and Tehran. Iran sent Jalili to meet with the Syrian President in what may be a farewell kiss, and we will find out if this is the case very soon, for every day is full of surprises.

The phenomenon of the “frenemy”
By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat
Any group of Arab people should not pay the bill for the situations or conditions of any other group of people. The Lebanese should not suffer from the expansion of Syrian intelligence influence for more than 40 years. Kuwait’s land, people and resources should not pay the price for the madness of a ruler in neighboring Iraq. The Saudi border should not be exposed to the constant risk of arms and explosives smuggling through neighboring Yemen.
Egypt should not suffer the disaster of tons of discarded and readily available weapons following the looting of Libyan weapons stores after the civil war and the fall of Gaddafi. Jordan should not have to pay the price for the mass displacement that has occurred as a result of the wars in Iraq, Lebanon and now Syria.
Here some might say to me: This is the fate of those countries with adjacent borders, they suffer due to the geographical landscape imposed upon them.
The logical answer is yes, but within certain limits, for what we can glean from the results and lessons of World War II is that geographic proximity is no justification for the exportation of crises, war and destruction, and the violation of borders and the sovereignty of others.
Mexico is the neighbor of the United States, but restrictions, limits and deterrent measures are put in place so that the American people do not pay the price of the entry of illegal immigrants, or the smuggling of goods, weapons and drugs. Switzerland and France share a land border and citizens can move freely between the two without a visa, but a thorough and rigorous security system is also in place to prevent the transfer of criminals, contraband goods, or illegal immigrants who do not belong to either of the two countries.
As much as history and geography is to be appreciated and as much as it plays a part in political and humanitarian transactions, it is not acceptable for a sovereign state to pay a heavy price for the mistakes and sins of another political system.
I write this after the Egyptian media reported on a horrific and insane act, whereby an armed terrorist force crossed the Palestinian border from Gaza into Egypt and committed a massacre against soldiers and officers who were exchanging food during the Iftar hour of Ramadan. It was said that some of them (the martyrs) died with a tablespoon or glass of water in their hand.
It brought tears to the eye yesterday to see the amount of martyred bodies in Sinai, and the thousands of Egyptians mourning in anguish and grief, finding solace in the decree of God.
One was shouting “retribution…retribution”, but the question is retribution against whom?
Here one may respond: “retribution against the killers of course”.
But I would say: “Unfortunately, the killers are our neighbors and brothers”.

Neglecting Sinai
By Adel Al Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat
History shows us that disorder in Sinai spells trouble.
A few days have passed since an armed group targeted the Rafah border crossing and so far Egyptian security authorities have failed to announce any clear information about the group that undertook this operation, or the motives behind it. Some might say that it is too early to announce the results of an investigation, but on the other hand Israeli statements were published a few days before the operation indicating that an attack was imminent in Sinai, and the Israeli authorities even publicly warned their citizens against travelling to the region. Furthermore, according to the Haaretz newspaper, the internal Israeli security agency (Shin Bet) had informed the Israeli Ministry of Defense in advance of an imminent terrorist attack on the Egyptian border. If Israel was aware of the incident before it occurred, why did Egypt’s general and military intelligence not take notice of this warning?
According to reports, the attack took place during Iftar, the hour upon which Muslims break their fast during Ramadan. The attackers were supported by mortar fire launched from the Gaza Strip—a region under the control of Hamas—and were able to seize armored vehicles and head towards the Israeli border. If this account is correct, we are looking at government and security incompetence. It is true that security breaches in Sinai have become more common since 2007—when Hamas took over the border crossings—and there is a flourishing illicit trade via the notorious tunnels, but for border guards to be subjected to such organized attacks indicates that there are serious security flaws in the area. The central government in Cairo has become incapable of controlling the disorder, and this may expose Sinai to external interventions.
Some may think this is an exaggeration, but the fact is that Sinai has gradually started to get out of Cairo’s control. What else explains the bombings carried out by unidentified gunmen, who have targeted a gas pipeline in Sinai over 15 times in less than two years, without the authorities announcing the arrest of anyone? In his recent visit to Egypt, Khaled Mishal, head of the Hamas political bureau, promised President Mohammed Mursi his cooperation in border control, but the latest operation reveals that either Hamas is not serious about respecting the border crossing agreements which govern the Egyptian border with Israel, or it is unable to control security in the Gaza Strip—which has transformed into a shelter for extremist groups and a play-ground for external intelligence agencies.
It is surprising that the official statement issued by the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo accuses the Israeli intelligence apparatus, Mossad, of being involved in the operation. The statement absolves Hamas of responsibility by claiming that it was an attempt to “split the ranks,” without calling on the Hamas government to open an investigation as to why mortar shells were fired from within the Gaza Strip. Moreover, the Brotherhood statement ignores the fact that extremist, armed religious groups have been active within the Strip for several years. Hamas officials have admitted on more than one occasion to the presence of these extremist elements. Only last month, for example, Hamas arrested Abu Hafs al-Maqdisi, leader of the Jaysh al-Umma in Gaza, after confiscating weapons and equipment belonging to the jihadist group. Attempting to link the incident to Mossad does not distract from the shortcomings of the Muslim Brotherhood in dealing with the incident on the Rafah crossing, and it seems that the group is yet to emerge from its opposition guise. There is a real security challenge here, and to deal with it the Brotherhood must take responsibility because a significant decline in security in Sinai really could open the door to foreign intervention. Many countries will not accept the Suez Canal coming under threat from extremist groups, or a decline in Egypt’s ability to control border crossings and sea ports.
The Brotherhood could learn a lesson from Egypt’s post-1956 military experience. On January 17th 1957, in her speech before the UN General Assembly, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Golda Meir said that Israel’s stance on Sinai depended mainly on the protection of its right to access sea ports through the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Aqaba and the Strait of Tiran. At the same time Meir warned that the transformation of Sinai into a military threat would not only affect Israel’s security, but that many countries would be affected by the closure of straits and sea crossings. Unfortunately, President Nasser did not appreciate this warning, and his slogan-filled ideological discourse prompted him to reject all international treaties, and repeat threats to close the Suez Canal to all ships belonging to Israel and the states allied with it—opening the door for the armed operations of Palestinian groups within Sinai. In May 1967, after encouragement from the Ba’athist leaders in Syria, Nasser undertook a military mobilization in Sinai after expelling UN peacekeepers, and threatened the closure of the Gulf of Aqaba and the Strait of Tiran. In response, Israel implemented its threats by occupying Sinai a few weeks later.
At the present time there is an international peacekeeping force, the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO), tasked with monitoring the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. It consists of 1,656 civil and military personnel from 14 countries. Since 2006 these forces have been targeted by unidentified gunmen and an MFO annual report—published in November 201—warned of the increased smuggling of arms through Gaza tunnels, and the emergence of armed extremist forces aiming to undermine security on the border. But, unfortunately, the Egyptian authorities have been preoccupied since the January 25th uprising and are still unable to pay attention to the deterioration of security in Sinai.
There are extremist groups in every country, but what has been happening in Sinai in recent years could not have been achieved without the intervention of intelligence services and foreign powers—not necessarily Israel—working to transform the border into an ongoing crisis. Hamas, which does not accept the international treaties pertaining to the region, now finds itself in trouble. On the one hand, its mere presence caused the closure of the Rafah crossing in June 2007, after the European Union Border Assistance Mission withdrew. On the other hand, Hamas cannot stop the activities of some of the armed Palestinian factions, such as the al-Quds Brigades— the military wing of the Iranian-sponsored Islamic Jihad organization. Hamas is unable to prevent these armed activities because it practiced the very same thing before winning the 2005 elections.
The leaders of the Freedom and Justice Party—the political wing of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood—should try to steer Egypt clear of the 1967 scenario. Continuing a radical rhetoric against the peace agreement with Israel, whilst trying to provide assurances to the United States and Western countries regarding this matter, may expose Egypt’s national interests to real danger. In an interview with CNN prior to his election, President Mursi did pledge to respect Egypt’s peace agreements with Israel, but these reassurances are currently being put to the test.
Will the Egyptian government cooperate with Hamas in order to prevent Sinai from descending into security chaos? We cannot say for sure yet, but it is certain that both parties must review their radical literature and oppositionist political discourse, so that they can represent the interests of their citizens. If you want your authority to be respected, and to run a government trusted by the international community, you have to renounce the cloak of the past and work hard to prioritize national interests rather than spout empty rhetoric about “resistance” and the Palestinian cause. Egypt would do well to heed Pakistan's experience, where the role of the central government was weakened as the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan got out of its control. This provided a pretext for the Americans to intervene in Pakistani affairs, and even undertake military operations there without permission.
When a state’s influence and prestige is reduced, parties and groups will begin to disobey the central government. Therefore the security of Sinai is vital in order not to compromise the sovereignty of the state, or even an inch of it, and expose the country to foreign intervention.

Do the Assads fear Alawite anger?
August 09, 2012/ By Michael Young The Daily Star
One of the mysterious subtexts of the current uprising in Syria is how the Alawite community will react once they fully realize that President Bashar Assad and his family have led them to disaster.
Under the minority leadership that predated the takeover of power by Hafez Assad in 1970, but especially under the late president, Alawites came to play an assertive role in Syrian life. Many departed from their northwestern areas of origin for other parts of the country, including Damascus. The poverty and ruthlessness of Assad rule notwithstanding, the story of the Alawites was one of social promotion and achievement, even if many in the community did not benefit from the returns enjoyed by their military-political elite.
Today, the prospect of their having to abandon many of the districts to which they had migrated and retreat to an Alawite mini-state is anathema. If, figuratively, Hafez was one of those who guided the community down off their mountain, Bashar threatens to push them back up, and that is something no Alawite can readily stomach.
Much discussed in the last year has been the notion that once the Alawite-dominated regime realizes it can no longer prevail in the Syrian conflict, Alawites will fall back on their communal heartland and the coastal cities of Latakia and Tartous. Several massacres of Sunni villagers in the plains between the Alawite mountains and the highway from Homs to Aleppo have appeared to be cases of ethnic cleansing in the event a communal statelet is established. There are also those who interpreted the regime’s focus on recapturing Homs, especially the Baba Amr neighborhood, as an effort to secure the geographical hinge of an Alawite entity, and link it up with the Shiite-majority Baalbek-Hermel district in Lebanon.
That scenario may ultimately play out, but it poses serious political and military problems for the Assads. It is conceivable that Iran and Russia might react to it by supporting the Alawites, or doing so for a time to retain leverage over a new government in Damascus. This could be decisive (or it may not be) in containing the Alawites’ disintegration and ensuring that they regroup in an orderly way.
But an Alawite statelet would also signal the breakup of Syria, with Alawites going one way, Kurds the other, and a weak central government prevailing in Damascus, led by the fragmented, perhaps by then conceivably antagonistic leaders of the Free Syrian Army. While this disarray could provide the Iranians and Russians with footholds in a post-Assad order, the emergence of an autonomous Kurdish region would not only alarm Turkey and Iraq, it might also give dangerous ideas to Iran’s Kurds. The fact is that no one in Syria’s neighborhood has an interest in seeing the country fall apart.
Something more worrisome must also be considered. There are large numbers of Sunnis living along the coast, and an Alawite statelet would have to forcibly expel them to properly protect itself. This would represent a crime of indescribable proportions, tainting all those aligned with the Alawites. And if that were to occur, how would a rump, communally unmixed Alawite entity survive economically, even socially? The imperatives of self-preservation, buttressed by paranoia, could destroy everything invigorating in Syria’s northwest.
The Assads will continue to be masters of the Alawites for as long as they remain in Damascus. However, once they flee the capital their ability to govern their community will very likely fray severely, or even collapse. The contract between Alawites and the Assads is not one bound by devotion; it is defined by interests, minority solidarity, and frequent Assad intimidation, even assassination.
If Bashar were to abandon Damascus and move to the Alawite area, all bets would be off. Having brought only ruin to their community, the Assads could expect a harsh backlash. And if they use military power to silence their coreligionists, we could begin seeing a crucial split within the Alawite community that might, ultimately, spell the end of an Alawite state project. What better way for the uneasy Alawites to preserve their stake in a future Syria, than to turn on the family and its acolytes who brought them to the abyss?
That may be one reason why Bashar has been so resilient in combating the revolutionaries, amid persistent signs that he will never be able to reassert his authority over the whole of Syria. Deep down, he may sense that an Alawite statelet is not one that would long last, and even less his leadership over such a creation. Bashar needs to prop up the eroding façade of a Syrian state in order to avoid an alternative that is almost certain to consume him.
Which begs the question: Given that the regime’s praetorian units are still in Damascus, at what stage, if an exodus toward the Alawite mountains becomes imperative, do the Assads sound the retreat? Do the elite units fight on in the capital indefinitely, weakening them for the future, or do they decide at some point that the priority must be to defend their communal redoubt? This imposes delicate choices. Too sudden a withdrawal from the capital could provoke a rout for the Assads; too late a withdrawal could mean their forces get bogged down in a debilitating struggle that undermines the fallback plan.
The carving out of an Alawite statelet is a sincere probability, but the obstacles hindering the success of such a mission are immense. The Assads are trapped. By pursuing their repression from Damascus, they are unable to concentrate their forces; by implementing an Alawite-first scheme, they could sign their own death warrant. Sooner rather than later they will have to decide which is their priority.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Syrian leader Assad's planes pound vital prize of Aleppo
BEIRUT (Reuters) - A former Lebanese government minister with close ties to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was detained in Lebanon on Thursday for questioning over what the Lebanese prime minister described as security-related matters.
A security source said Michel Samaha, detained in the early hours, was being questioned about alleged plans to cause instability in Lebanon.
Elias Aoun, head of the Lebanese journalists' union, said Prime Minister Najib Mikati had told him Samaha had been held following an order from the acting public prosecutor.
Samaha has been an outspoken supporter of Assad during the 17-month-old uprising against his rule, echoing an official Syrian narrative that portrays the opposition as terrorists.
He served as a minister in three Lebanese governments between 1992 and 2004 - a period when Syria dominated politics and security in its smaller neighbor. Samaha is also a former member of parliament.
In 2007, he was named on a White House-issued list of Lebanese and Syrian figures suspected of working to undermine Lebanon's stability and the Western-backed government in office at the time.
The list also included Assef Shawkat, a senior Syrian security official and Assad's brother-in-law, who was killed in a bomb blast in Damascus last month.
Further details on Samaha's detention were not immediately available. Live television footage showed members of the security forces searching his house.
(Writing by Tom Perry; Editing by Alistair Lyon)

Lebanese ally of Syria's Assad detained
Mon, Aug 6 2012
Corrects meeting location in third paragraph.)
Iran is hosting a meeting on Syria that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said may help to foster “indigenous political approaches” to resolve the Syrian conflict.
The gathering of officials in the Iranian capital will be a “good opportunity to replace military conflict in Syria with indigenous political approaches to solve the differences,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying yesterday in a report published by the state-run Mehr news agency today. The president didn’t name any of the countries taking part, though Russia and Algeria said they sent representatives.
The meeting is the latest effort by Iran to aid its ally and neighbor following a series of visits by Iranian officials during the past week to Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. It comes five days before the start of an Aug. 14-15 “emergency summit” organized by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on developments in the Arab world. Ahmadinejad will attend the Mecca meeting.
The government of President Bashar al-Assad said its forces had taken a key district in Aleppo, Syria’s most populated city, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency reported, resulting in hundreds of rebel casualties. The opposition Free Syrian Army commander in Aleppo told Arabiya television that his forces killed more than 100 government soldiers in the Salaheddin district.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry said earlier this week that it has invited nations that “have a stance with principles and a realistic outlook on the developments in Syria” to participate in the meeting.
Lebanon Declines
Russia will be represented by its ambassador to Iran, the Russian foreign Ministry said yesterday. Algeria’s deputy foreign minister headed to Iran to take part to the meeting, the official Islamic Republic News Agency said in a report today. Lebanon, which was among tens of countries invited, has declined, according to an Aug. 7 Daily Star report citing an unidentified ministry official.
As many as 15 nations from Asia, Africa and Latin America will be taking part, according to Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi as cited by Shargh newspaper.

Syria Renews Attacks on Aleppo Rebels
BEIRUT—The Syrian government launched a new offensive intending to retake contested neighborhoods in Aleppo from antiregime rebels, but after a day of fierce clashes government troops had failed to substantively change the balance of power between the two sides. Meanwhile, Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi identified the majority of the Iranians taken hostage by rebels over the weekend in the Syrian capital as retired members of the Revolutionary Guards Corps and employees of government ministries, but denied that they had entered Syria on a military mission.
The weekend kidnapping of the Iranian group sparked a regional diplomatic crisis. Iran ...

Looming U.S.-Iraqi Row over Decision to Release Hizballah Commander
Matthew Levitt /Washington Institute
August 7, 2012
An Iraqi court's decision to release an indicted senior Hizballah figure could lead to more terrorist attacks on Americans.
Last week, the Iraqi Central Criminal Court rejected Washington's formal request to extradite Hizballah commander Ali Musa Daqduq to the United States to face charges of murder, terrorism, spying, and other offenses filed by a U.S. military commission. Iraqi courts had dropped similar charges against him on May 29 and then again on June 25 when the decision was appealed, seemingly giving the central court cause to reject the extradition request and approve his release. "It is not possible to hand him over because the charges were dropped in the same case," the judges ruled. But the cases are not the same, and the ruling means Baghdad could soon release one of the most senior and dangerous Hizballah commanders ever apprehended. In the words of one former CIA officer, Daqduq is "the worst of the worst. He has American blood on his hands. If released, he'll go back to shedding more of it."
BACKGROUND: ATTACK IN KARBALA
In the early evening of January 20, 2007, American and Iraqi military officers met at the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, about thirty miles south of Baghdad, to discuss local security operations. A short time later, a convoy of five black SUVs was waved through three checkpoints and allowed to access the base; the trucks were carrying about a dozen English-speaking militants dressed in U.S. military fatigues and carrying American-type weapons and fake identity cards.
The assailants headed directly for the U.S. contingent, throwing grenades and opening fire with automatic rifles. After killing one American soldier and injuring three more, they grabbed four other U.S. personnel and fled the compound. Later, Iraqi police found their abandoned vehicles; inside were discarded uniforms, radios, a rifle, and the bodies of three of the abducted soldiers. The fourth died on the way to the hospital.
CAPTURING DAQDUQ
On March 20, 2007, British special forces raided a house in Basra and arrested two wanted militants, brothers Qais and Laith al-Khazali. Also at the home was Daqduq, who pretended to be deaf and mute. Although it would be several weeks before he disclosed his true identity to coalition forces, the treasure trove of materials confiscated at the time of his arrest quickly led analysts to Hizballah, the Qods Force (an elite branch of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), and a string of attacks targeting British and U.S. forces, including the January Karbala operation.
In July 2007, after piecing all of the evidence together, coalition forces held a press conference to announce the capture of the Khazali brothers and Daqduq. The military spokesman also explained the latter's importance. An elite commander who had "led Hizballah operations in large areas of Lebanon," Daqduq first joined the organization in 1983, making him one of the earliest members of a group founded in the wake of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. By the time he was arrested in Iraq, Daqduq had already "served in numerous leadership positions" within the Hizballah hierarchy.
HARD EVIDENCE IGNORED
The Iraqi contention that terrorism and forgery charges against Daqduq had to be dropped for lack of evidence is spurious at face value. At the time of his capture, Daqduq claimed to be an Iraqi named Hamad Mohamed Jabarah Alami. He held multiple false identity cards featuring his photograph and depicting him as an employee of various Iraqi government agencies, including the Council of Ministers and the Ministry of Agriculture. In reality, however, he "was in Iraq working as a surrogate for...Qods Force operatives involved with special groups." The hard evidence underpinning the forgery charge was seized at the time of his arrest and speaks for itself.
As for the terrorism charge, documents found in Daqduq's possession detail a variety of operations targeting coalition and Iraqi forces, including the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), kidnapping plots, attacks on helicopters, and small-arms assaults. As a master trainer, Daqduq was heavily involved in preparing special operatives to execute such attacks. A training manual he carried included specific tactical tips for successful operations. For example, when conducting a rocket attack against a coalition convoy, militants were instructed as follows: "launch two rockets at the target and the third one for insurance"; "shoot the first and second vehicle"; "each vehicle shoots two rockets (four rockets for every vehicle)"; "secure the place...and shoot visible soldiers"; and "shoot single shots and don't shoot on automatic."
The documents also reveal that Daqduq was personally involved in violent operations in Iraq. For example, his personal diary recounts his role in a plot to kidnap a British soldier. "The operation is to infiltrate two brothers into the base to detain a British soldier in the first brigade from the bathrooms by drugging him," he wrote. His notes also detail a meeting with operatives who were actually present at the attempted kidnapping, which failed due to the intervention of Iraqi soldiers. Other documents refer to his involvement in attacks on British headquarters at the Basra palace and the Shatt al-Arab Hotel.
Daqduq's diary also mentions discussions with operatives involved in IED bombings and small-arms fire against Iraqis and coalition forces in Diyala province: "Met with the brothers [and] the observers of Diyala province and I listened regarding the operations...We conducted eight explosive charge operations on both sides." His use of the first-person suggests that he was either personally involved in the attacks or, at minimum, saw himself as an integral part of the plot.
But what most grabbed the attention of senior coalition leaders was an "in-depth planning and lessons learned document" about the 2007 Karbala attack, outlining the extensive pre-operational surveillance, logistical preparation, and tactical drills the operatives had carried out. Both Daqduq and the Khazalis would eventually concede "that senior leadership within the Qods Force knew of and supported planning for the eventual Karbala attack." According to Daqduq, "the Iraqi special groups could not have conducted this complex operation without the support and direction of the Qods Force."
HOLDING HIZBALLAH ACCOUNTABLE
In late February 2012, the U.S. government publicly announced the filing of military commission charges against Daqduq, as detailed in an eight-page charge sheet first issued secretly just days after he was turned over to Iraqi authorities. By the time an Iraqi appeals court upheld the decision to free him in June, Washington had already lodged a formal extradition request. To be sure, even a fair trial could have ended in Daqduq's acquittal on some or all of the charges. But failing to try him at all -- and on the basis of such clearly false procedural grounds -- suggests that something other than the rule of law is at play in the Iraqi judicial system.
For Washington, the question of whether or not this case goes to trial should be a litmus test of the Maliki administration's commitment to democratic principles, particularly the rule of law and separation of powers. At the moment, Baghdad has apparently concluded that the political cost of holding a senior Hizballah commander accountable -- in Iraq or the United States -- is too high. Baghdad wants to balance its relationships with Iran and Washington, and this case stands at the crux of the two. Accordingly, Washington must make clear at the highest levels of the Iraqi government that there will be tangible consequences to summarily freeing an Iranian proxy with American blood on his hands.
*Matthew Levitt is director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at The Washington Institute.

Iran and the Human Rights Opening
Mehdi Khalaji /Wall Street Journal
August 8, 2012
Action on Iran's domestic brutality can prevent the Islamic Republic from labeling sanctions as something they are not intended to be: an attack on the Iranian public.
With tensions mounting over Iran's nuclear program, the West has dealt the Tehran regime crippling blows on several fronts, including through sanctions, the targeted killing of scientists, and cyber operations such as the Stuxnet virus. Tehran is no doubt reeling, but regime leaders have spotted a silver lining: The West's single-minded focus on the nuclear dossier has permitted them to widen their violations of human rights.
Indeed, since the protests that followed the 2009 election, Iran's human-rights abuses have worsened substantially -- a development that has gone largely unnoticed in the U.S. and Europe. This is a tragedy with profound strategic implications for the West.
The Iranian legal system allows numerous human-rights violations, including discrimination against women and ethno-sectarian minorities, and the imposition of brutal penal sentences, such as stoning. Tehran's ruling theocrats view human rights as a Western invention used to undermine Islamic culture and sovereignty as part of what Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei considers a soft war against Iran. They therefore do not believe themselves duty-bound to uphold their basic human-rights obligations, including those under international agreements to which they are party.
Consider this example: A man, under house arrest for the past two years, learned of the death at different points of his two sisters. The state refused him the right to attend either funeral. This outrageous case did not involve an average Iranian citizen but rather Mehdi Karroubi, a presidential candidate in 2009 and the former speaker of parliament. Mr. Karroubi has remained under arbitrary house arrest since the post-election uprising along with two other dissidents, Mir Hossein Mousavi -- the opposition's leading presidential candidate -- and his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, who was heavily involved in her husband's campaign.
Political prisoners do not exist in Iran, Mohammad Javad Larijani, secretary to the judiciary's bogus "human-rights committee," recently claimed. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said similar things. In truth, dozens of political activists remain imprisoned, and hundreds of others are barred from leaving the country because of their advocacy for human rights or equal rights for women and minorities. Tens of thousands of Iranians abroad are also forbidden from returning to their home country on account of their beliefs.
Even as international attention has drifted away from the domestic scene in Iran, the mere mention of human-rights abuses still touches a nerve among regime leaders. Intelligence officials have arrested prominent lawyers who belong to the Association of Human Rights Defenders, claiming their activities are illegal.
Abdul Fattah Sultani, one of the association's founding members, was sentenced to 18 years in prison and disbarred for 20 years last April. His only "crime" was accepting an international human-rights award while Iranian government officials themselves committed or condoned rights violations.
Although Iran's nuclear program and the bloodshed in Syria dominate U.S. attention in the Middle East, human-rights abuses in Iran must remain on the Western radar.
Reports of gross abuses from prisoners and other evidence have led human-rights activists and groups to press strongly for action by democratic countries to counter abuses inside the country. Such action, activists believe, would significantly reduce the frequency of violations, given the Islamic Republic's deep concerns about its image both domestically and abroad. From the regime's perspective, this same logic underlies efforts to forbid journalists and activists from reporting these cases to the media.
Thus any publicity given to such cases could help persuade Iran to alter its behavior for the better. Western reaction to human-rights abuses can include statements, declarations, sanctions and travel restriction on officials involved in human-rights abuse.
It is helpful to recall that past efforts by the international community have yielded results. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a woman in her early 40s accused of adultery and condemned to death by stoning, was spared her death sentence after the international community voiced its outrage and disgust over the decision. On a more local scale, prisoners have revealed that international pressure has even influenced their treatment by guards and officials.
Support for human rights in Iran is more than a moral duty for any democratic nation. It should also be a strategic pillar of the West's policy toward the Islamic Republic. The Iranian people's full voice will never be heard as long as the repression continues. By speaking out, the United States and other Western powers can reassure Iranians that they have allies, empowering them to continue fighting for their cause: a free and democratic Iran -- a cause shared by the Iranian people and the West.
Whatever the fate of the nuclear crisis, Western states that joined together to impose sanctions on Iran must keep an open line of communication with the Iranian people. Likewise, these states must refrain from imposing additional sanctions without addressing the suffering of the Iranian people.
On the human-rights question, persistent and steady action offers the best way for the West to demonstrate its concern over Iranian abuses. Such action will also prevent the Islamic Republic from labeling Western sanctions as something they are not intended to be: a Western attack on the Iranian public.
*Mehdi Khalaji is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute.

Washington’s self-defeating policy
Tony Badran/Now Lebanon/August 9, 2012
Obama administration officials have said they want to preserve state institutions in post-Assad Syria, a policy that is self-defeating for the US. (AFP photo)
In a steady stream of leaks and public statements in recent days, a number of US officials have offered a window into the Obama administration’s current thinking on Syria. Specifically, the administration has sought to highlight its top priorities in post-Assad Syria. Regrettably, its views reveal that the incoherence that has marred Washington’s approach is now leading to strategically self-defeating policy.
The US interest in Syria was always straightforward: breaking the Iranian alliance system through regime change in Damascus. Instead of relentlessly pursuing this strategic objective, the administration’s policy in Syria appears to be geared toward as much regime continuity as possible. As one unnamed American official put it, “You can’t have a complete dissolution of that [system].”
The Obama administration is aiming for this outcome by pushing the preservation of Syrian so-called “state institutions.” “We have to make very sure that state institutions stay intact,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stressed earlier this week.
But it was Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta who had earlier clarified just what institutions the administration has in mind. “[T]he best way to preserve … stability,” Panetta told CNN, “is to maintain as much of the military, the police, as you can, along with the security forces, and hope that they will transition to a democratic form of government.” Apparently, this constitutes such a priority for the administration that it is reportedly “warning” the rebels against disbanding Assad’s security apparatus.
The administration’s overriding concern is obvious. President Obama does not want Syria to become an albatross around his neck in the same way he perceives that Iraq was for his predecessor, George W. Bush. Consequently, the Iraqi template is now being applied wholesale, and uncritically, to Syria. For instance, administration officials have raised issues such as “de-Baathification” and the need to prevent its repetition in Syria. However, when applied to the Syrian context, the issue is really about the dominant position of the Alawites in these security organs.
Generic terms such as “state institutions” obscure the real nature of Syria under the Assad dynasty. If the Syrian revolution has done one thing, however, it has unmasked all of the regime’s pretenses, laying bare the country’s sectarian realities. These realities have been manifest precisely in the Syrian military. Defections have been overwhelmingly along sectarian lines, while the regime has largely relied on predominantly Alawite divisions, whose loyalty is not in question.
Accordingly, the Syrian army cannot possibly remain “intact,” as the Obama administration desires, nor should Washington want it to. What’s certain is that it is not in US interests to prevent the “de-Alawization,” of the military and security services—the same forces that have propped up the Assad regime for four decades and have been the primary supporter of Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah in Lebanon. The success of the revolution, as Lee Smith recently wrote, “can only be defined according to whether or not such institutions are destroyed once and for all.”
Similarly, the administration has been advocating an inclusive form of government post-Assad—shorthand for a power-sharing agreement. However, such scenarios, too, open the door to the preservation of an Iranian foothold in Damascus.
It is worth recalling here the revealing comments made by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, in April. Lavrov expressed his belief that the fall of the Assad regime would usher in a “Sunni regime.” What Lavrov was articulating in sectarian terms was a concern that such a “Sunni regime” would alter Syria’s current strategic alignment, bending away from Russia and Iran and more in line with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Needless to say, this is precisely what the US should want to see happen in Syria, but is balking at, either inadvertently or intentionally. In contrast, a power-sharing arrangement would only allow the Iranians to keep a seat at the table—a net loss for the US and its allies.
All of this, of course, is assuming that Syria remains a unitary state. In fact, the Obama administration’s policy seems to be a series of false assumptions. It assumed that economic and diplomatic pressure would convince Assad to leave. It then assumed that the conflict could be managed with ceasefires and negotiations leading to a “peaceful transition.” It thus failed to game for the prospect that the fighting may continue until one side had attained total victory. Now the White House seems to be assuming that the opposition can attain such a victory without the US doing much to help, and that somehow this victory can be squared with preserving “state institutions” after Assad falls.
But the picture is never this neat. For instance, Assad may well fall in the Syrian interior and even in the major cities Aleppo and Damascus. However, he could well survive in Latakia and the Alawite coastal mountains.
An Alawite enclave would allow Assad to preserve his regime in contracted form. This enclave would essentially serve as an Iranian (and Russian) protectorate on the Mediterranean, thereby enabling Iran to maintain a bridgehead along the border with Lebanon and Turkey.
It is imperative, then, for the US not to lose sight of its actual strategic priority in Syria. That is the elimination of any scenario that allows Iran to keep a foothold in Syria, be that an Alawite enclave or a power-sharing deal. In other words, any measure of regime continuity is decisively not in the US interest. Ensuring the Syrian army and other illustrious “state institutions” like the mukhabarat remain intact is, therefore, not only delusional, but also self-defeating.
*Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He tweets @AcrossTheBay.