Matthew 18 Who Is the Greatest

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 24/2012

Bible Quotation for today/The Question about Paying Taxes
Luke 20/19-26: "The teachers of the Law and the chief priests tried to arrest Jesus on the spot, because they knew that he had told this parable against them; but they were afraid of the people. So they looked for an opportunity. They bribed some men to pretend they were sincere, and they sent them to trap Jesus with questions, so that they could hand him over to the authority and power of the Roman Governor. These spies said to Jesus, Teacher, we know that what you say and teach is right. We know that you pay no attention to anyone's status, but teach the truth about God's will for people. Tell us, is it against our Law for us to pay taxes to the Roman Emperor, or not? But Jesus saw through their trick and said to them, Show me a silver coin. Whose face and name are these on it? The Emperor's, they answered. So Jesus said, Well, then, pay to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, and pay to God what belongs to God. There before the people they could not catch him in a thing, so they kept quiet, amazed at his answer.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Washington’s Syria policy is imaginary/By Michael Young/February 23/12
Iran will bend when facing an unwinnable conflict/By David Ignatius/February 23/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 23/12
DEBKAfile/Iran cuts down to six weeks timeline for weapons-grade uranium
U.S. ‘closely consulting’ with Israel over Iran nuclear program
Lieberman: U.S., Russian warnings against Iran strike will not affect Israel's decision
Russia: Israeli strike on Iran would be 'catastrophic'
Russia warns Israel not to attack Iran
Iran defiant as U.N. nuclear talks fail
IAEA official: No 'way forward' on nuclear talks with Iran
IAEA: Iran refuses access to suspect nuke site
Report: Iranian terror cell in Thailand hid bombs in portable radios
US Study: Iran research center had key role in atom work
Israeli threat against Iran must be ‘credible'/J.Post
Peres to tell Obama Israel should not strike Iran soon, officials say
America's hypocritical friendship with Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia says no use in dialogue in Syria
Syrian bankers face struggle to survive as turmoil spreads
2 Western journalists killed as Syria shells Homs
Russia, Iran oppose foreign intervention in Syria-Kremlin
Dozens killed in Syria as top military officer defects with hundreds of soldiers
Israeli envoy: W. Africa a Hezbollah power base
Anthony Shadid’s ashes scattered in Marjayoun
U.N. extends STL mandate for 3 years
Jumblatt shows support at anti-Assad vigil in Beirut
Sleiman, Mikati accept Nahhas resignation, decree’s fate uncertain
Norway donates $2 million for Nahr al-Bared reconstruction

US Study: Iran research center had key role in atom work
By REUTERS 02/23/2012/J.Post/Research conducted by Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security will likely cast further doubt on Tehran's denials that it's seeking atomic bombs; new IAEA report on Iran due out in days. By REUTERS
UNITED NATIONS - An Iranian research center that has been investigated by UN nuclear inspectors appears to have played a key role in Tehran's atomic program, which Western powers fear is aimed at producing weapons, according to a new report released on Wednesday. The study by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) will likely cast further doubt on Tehran's denials that it is seeking atomic bombs as the UN nuclear agency prepares to publish a new report on Iran in the coming days. Iran's Physics Research Center was established in 1989 "as part of an effort to create an undeclared nuclear program," according to ISIS's president David Albright, a nuclear expert and former inspector for the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as well as Andrea Stricker and Paul Brannan. "Although Iran has admitted that the PHRC was related to the military and had a nuclear purpose in the area of defense preparedness and radiation detection, its actual nuclear role appears much more extensive," the ISIS report said. The Iranian research center was established a year after the end of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, in which Saddam Hussein's troops used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers. According to the UN nuclear watchdog's November 2011 report on Iran, the Physics Research Center was established at Lavizan, a complex near a military installation in Tehran. Lavizan was completely razed in late 2003 and early 2004. Western diplomats and intelligence sources said at the time that they suspected Tehran was conducting undeclared nuclear activities at Lavizan and was determined to cover them up. ISIS said it has acquired more than 1,600 telexes relating to the nuclear procurement activities of the Physics Research Center and Sharif University, another Iranian institution involved in Tehran's nuclear research, in the 1990s. "Iran has failed to declare all of PHRC's activities to the (IAEA)," the Albright group's report says. "Iran has stated to the IAEA that the PHRC procurements were not related to a nuclear program. The information assembled in this ISIS report, however, contradicts this claim."

Israeli threat against Iran must be ‘credible'
By OREN KESSLER 02/23/2012 /J.Post
Analysis: There is a real danger if you’re not prepared to follow through, former top Israeli official tells closed security forum. Israel must maintain a credible threat of military action against Iran’s nuclear program, analysts said Wednesday, and must follow through on that threat if all other options fail. “There is a real danger in making a threat if you’re not prepared to follow through on it.The threat has to be credible,” a former highranking Israeli official said in a closed seminar at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). “Israel is independent – it will do what it has to do,” he said. “I would remind you that the Israelis have surprised the world in the past, and we could do the same again.”The ex-official said time remains to explore non-military options against Tehran, including negotiations with Iran’s government, covert action and most importantly, levying harder-hitting sanctions on the Islamic Republic’s ailing economy. Iran has been subject to four rounds of UN Security Council sanctions, and last month the European Union agreed to an oil embargo and a freeze on assets in the Iranian central bank.
“Crippling sanctions can be effective,” he said. “Now the Iranians are paying attention – during the first four rounds of sanctions, they weren’t.”
In October the US revealed it had foiled a suspected Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Last week Tehran was implicated in failed attacks on Israeli diplomats in Georgia, India and Thailand, and on Tuesday authorities in Azerbaijan uncovered the second foiled plot against Israeli officials there within a month.
INSS researchers said Iran’s increasingly erratic – and, they said, amateurish – behavior is evidence of a regime growing desperate under ever-tightening international pressure.
The former official said he believes Iran intends to reach “breakout capacity” whereby it would develop all the capabilities to build an atomic weapon but would remain at the nuclear threshold until a time of its choosing. “Iran will likely be at that threshold for years, not months,” he said. A policy of containing or deterring a nuclear Iran, he said, is all but impossible: “Are we able to contain a non-nuclear Iran? Hardly. How then will we ever contain or deter a nuclear one?” Critics of an Israeli strike say a military operation would destabilize the Middle East, but the official said that conclusion is predicated on the wrong variables. “The proper comparison is not between the regional stability we have today and what we would have after a military strike,” he said. “The comparison should be between today and the day after Iran gets the bomb.” The Iranians’ ability to respond to an Israeli strike, he said, falls far short of their leaders’ bluster to eliminate the Jewish state. He acknowledged that while Iran's nuclear program could not be eliminated in a single strike – as Israel did with those of Iraq and Syria in 1982 and 2008 respectively – a surgical strike could deliver a powerful message of what might be in store should Tehran stay its current course.
We will not see the doomsday prophecies Iran has warned of,” he said. “That would be against Iran's interest, and beyond its capabilities. Iran is very vulnerable.”
“If Iran is struck surgically, it will react – no doubt,” he added. “But that reaction will be calculated and in proportion to its capabilities. Iran will not set the Middle East on fire.”
INSS researchers gave contrasting predictions about the scope of an Iranian counterstrike.
The ex-official predicted a response tantamount to the sum total of three attacks on Israel and its interests in the past two decades: Saddam Hussein’s 1991 Scud missile attacks during the Gulf War, the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Israeli targets in Argentina and Hezbollah’s rocket barrage during the 2006 Second Lebanon War.
Two Israeli civilians were killed and more than 200 wounded by Scuds fired from Iraq. More than 100 people were killed and hundreds were injured in the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, which were later attributed to Hezbollah and Iran. In the 2006 war with Hezbollah, 44 Israeli civilians were killed and more than 100 seriously or moderately wounded. Israel suffered an estimated $3.5 billion in total damages, and had to evacuate more than 350,000 people living in the country’s North to bomb shelters or locations farther south.
The former official said Hezbollah would likely respond to a strike on its patron Iran with another rocket assault, and this time the casualties and damage would be far greater than in 2006. “This time it will also launch missiles on Tel Aviv,” he said. “Is 40 missiles on Tel Aviv nice? No – but it’s better than a nuclear Iran.”Another INSS researcher disagreed, predicting Hezbollah may stage a limited response or remain on the sidelines altogether. “Hezbollah is not interested in a confrontation now,” the researcher said, pointing to recent remarks by its leader Hassan Nasrallah that the group would decide for itself – and not under Tehran’s direction – whether to respond and with what method.
The Iranians, the analyst said, are working to expand their ballistic missile range as widely as possible – and it is crucial for the international community to realize a nuclear Iran is not an Israeli problem but a global one. Last month The New York Times quoted former CIA director Michael Hayden as warning that an effective strike on Iran is “beyond the capacity” of Israel, while this weekend the paper quoted an unnamed US defense official as conceding that the Pentagon does not have “perfect visibility” regarding Israel’s military capacities. On Wednesday the Israeli ex-official dismissed the idea that Israel is incapable of waging an effective strike by posing a question of his own: “In that case, why is everyone so worried?”

Iran cuts down to six weeks timeline for weapons-grade uranium
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 22, 2012, 9:06 AM (GMT+02:00) Tags: Iran nuclear Israel US-Iran US-Israel Parchin nuclear centerTehran this week hardened its nuclear and military policies in defiance of tougher sanctions and ahead of international nuclear talks. The threat by Iran’s armed forces deputy chief Gen. Mohammad Hejazi of a preemptive strike against its “enemies,” was accompanied by its refusal to allow UN nuclear watchdog inspectors to visit the Parchin facility, following which the IAEA chief cut their mission short.
Western and Israeli intelligence experts have concluded that the transfer of 20 percent uranium enrichment to the underground Fordo site near Qom has shortened Iran’s race for the 90 percent (weapons) grade product to six weeks.
The International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said Tuesday night, Feb. 21: “It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin.” This is the site were Iran conducts experiments in nuclear explosives and triggers.
This diplomatic understatement came amid three major reverses in the quest for a non-military solution to halt Iran’s drive for a nuclear weapon:
1. Iran placed a large obstacle in the path of resumed negotiations with six world powers on which US President Barack Obama had pinned his strategy for averting a war to arrest its nuclear weapon program. This strategy depended heavily on Iran eventually consenting to making its nuclear projects fully transparent, as his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon assured Israeli leaders earlier this week.
The day after Donilon wound up his talks in Israel, the UN inspectors were sent packing empty-handed from Tehran, putting paid to any hope of transparency.
They were also denied an interview with Mohsen Fakrrizadeh, director of the Parchin project and also believed in the West to be the paramount head of Iran’s military nuclear program.
2. The transfer of 20 percent uranium enrichment to Fordo is taken by Western and Israel intelligence experts to have accelerated the pace of enriching large quantities of 20 percent enriched uranium to weapons grade and shortened to an estimated six weeks the time needed for arming a nuclear bomb after a decision in Tehran.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz explained to the US official that Israel cannot afford to live with an Iran capable of build a nuclear bomb in the space of few weeks.
3. The threat that Iran will not wait for “its enemies” – Israel and/or the US - to strike and will act first.
White House spokesman Jay Carney responded to these reverses by saying Tuesday night: “Israel and the United States share the same objective, which is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” adding, however, “There is time and space for diplomacy to work, for the effect of sanctions to result in a change of Iranian behavior.”
Seen from Israel, Iranian behavior has already changed - and for the worse. Its tactics in recent days have exacerbated the threat hanging over its head from Iran and brought it that much closer.
Senior Israeli military and intelligence sources said Wednesday, Feb. 22, that Israel’s strategic and military position in the Middle East has taken a sharp downturn. The failure of the IAEA mission and the threat of preemptive action from Tehran present the double threat of Iran’s earlier nuclear armament coupled with military action to sabotage Israel’s preparations for a strike on its nuclear facilities.
As one Israeli source put it: “Since Wednesday the rules of the game have changed.”

Iran defiant as U.N. nuclear talks fail
February 22, 2012/ By Fredrik Dahl, Parisa Hafezi /Daily Star
VIENNA/TEHRAN: The U.N. nuclear watchdog ended its latest mission to Iran after talks on Tehran's suspected secret atomic weapons research failed, a setback likely to increase the risk of confrontation with the West. In a defiant response, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran's nuclear policies would not change despite mounting international pressure against what the West says are Iran's plans to obtain nuclear bombs. "With God's help, and without paying attention to propaganda, Iran's nuclear course should continue firmly and seriously," he said on state television. "Pressures, sanctions and assassinations will bear no fruit. No obstacles can stop Iran's nuclear work." As sanctions mount, ordinary Iranians are suffering from the effects of soaring prices and a collapsing currency. Several Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed over the past two years in bomb attacks that Tehran has blamed on its arch-adversary Israel.
In response, Iran has issued a series of statements asserting its right to self-defense and threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil tanker route.
The collapse of the nuclear talks came as Iran seems increasingly isolated, with some experts seeing the Islamic republic's mounting defiance in response to sanctions against its oil industry and financial institutions as evidence that it is in no mood to compromise with the West.
Elections on March 2 are expected to be won by supporters of Khamenei, an implacable enemy of the West.
The failure of the two-day visit by the International Atomic Energy Agency could now hamper any resumption of wider nuclear negotiations between Iran and six world powers as the sense grows that Tehran feels it is being backed into a corner. In the view of some analysts, the Iranians may be trying to keep their opponents guessing as to their capabilities, a diplomatic strategy that has served them well in the past. "But they may be overdoing the smoke and mirrors and as a result leaving themselves more vulnerable," said professor Rosemary Hollis of London's City University.
A team from the IAEA had hoped to inspect a site at Parchin, southeast of Tehran, where the agency believes there is a facility to test explosives.
"During both the first and second round of discussions, the agency team requested access to the military site at Parchin. Iran did not grant permission for this visit to take place," the Vienna-based IAEA said in a statement.
"It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin. We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached," said IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano.
A Western official added: "We think that if Iran has nothing to hide why do they behave in that way?"
"It is another missed opportunity," French Deputy Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal said. "This refusal to cooperate adds to the recent statements made by Iranian officials welcoming the progress of their nuclear activities."
Iranian analyst Mohammad Marandi said providing the West with any more access than necessary to nuclear sites would be a sign of weakness.
"Under the current conditions it is not in Iran's interest to cooperate more than is necessary because the West is waging a war against the Iranian nation," he told Reuters.
Earlier, Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said Tehran expected to hold more talks with the U.N. agency, but Amano's spokeswoman said no further meetings were planned.
Iran rejects accusations that its nuclear program is a covert bid to develop a nuclear weapons capability, saying it is seeking to produce only electricity.
But its refusal to curb sensitive atomic activities which can have both civilian and military purposes, and its record of years of nuclear secrecy has drawn increasingly tough U.N. and separate U.S. and European measures.
The United States and Israel have not ruled out using force against Iran if they conclude that diplomacy and sanctions will not stop it from developing a nuclear bomb.
"This was only to be expected, given Iran's evasions," a senior Israeli official said.
The failure of the IAEA's mission may increase the chances of a strike by Israel on Iran, some analysts believe.
But this would be "catastrophic for the region and for the whole system of international relations," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said.
An IAEA report in November suggested Iran had pursued military nuclear technology and helped precipitate the latest sanctions by the European Union and United States.
One key finding was information that Iran had built a large containment chamber at Parchin to conduct high-explosives tests. The U.N. agency said there were "strong indicators of possible weapon development".
The IAEA said intensive efforts had been made to reach agreement on a document "facilitating the clarification of unresolved issues" in connection with Iran's nuclear program.
"Unfortunately, agreement was not reached on this document," it said in an unusually blunt statement on Wednesday.
The IAEA mission's failure may reduce the chance of any resumption of wider nuclear negotiations between Iran and the six world powers - the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany.
The West last week expressed some optimism at the prospect of new talks, particularly after Iran sent a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton promising to bring "new initiatives", without stating preconditions.
But the United States and its allies may be reluctant if they feel that the Islamic state is unlikely to engage in substantive discussions about its nuclear activities.

Lieberman: U.S., Russian warnings against Iran strike will not affect Israel's decision
Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, says in TV interview that Israeli decision is ‘not their business’; says security of Israel’s citizens is ‘Israeli government’s responsibility.’
By The Associated Press and Reuters
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said in an interview on Wednesday that Israel will not bow to U.S. and Russian pressure in deciding whether to attack Iran.
Speaking on Channel 2 news, Avigdor Lieberman rebuffed suggestions that American and Russian warnings against striking Iran would affect Israeli decision making, saying the decision "is not their business."
He said "the security of the citizens of Israel, the future of the state of Israel, this is the Israeli government's responsibility." Russia warned Israel not to attack Iran over its nuclear program on Wednesday, saying that military action would have catastrophic consequences. "Of course any possible military scenario against Iran will be catastrophic for the region and for the whole system of international relations," Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said. "Therefore I hope Israel understands all these consequences ... and they should also consider the consequences of such action for themselves," Gatilov said at a news conference. This week, the U.S. military chief said an Israeli attack would be "not prudent." Meanwhile, a top UN nuclear official said on Wednesday his team could "could not find a way forward" in attempts to persuade Iran to talk about suspected secret work on atomic arms. Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency says the talks in Tehran were inconclusive, although his mission approached the talks "in a constructive spirit." Nackaerts spoke to reporters at Vienna airport shortly after returning from the Iranian capital. An IAEA statement published overnight already acknowledged the talks had failed. Iran denies it has experimented with nuclear arms programs but has refused to cooperate with an IAEA probe on the issue for nearly four years.

U.S. ‘closely consulting’ with Israel over Iran nuclear program
By Natasha Mozgovaya, Reuters and The Associated Press
State Department says failure of UN nuclear watchdog mission to Tehran a ‘disappointment'; White House spokesman chides Iran over lack of progress in talks. State Department Deputy spokesman Mark Toner said on Wednesday that the U.S. closely consults Israel over its policy regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
Addressing the failure of the International Atomic Energy Age
ncy’s mission to Tehran this week, Toner said, "This is a disappointment. It wasn't all that surprising, frankly. But, you know, we're going to look at the totality of the issue here and the letter and what we think is the best course of action moving forward". "let's be very clear that we consult very closely with Israel on these issues,” he added. “We are very clear that we are working on this two-track approach. We believe, and are conveying to our partners, both Israel and elsewhere, that this is having an effect.” Also on Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney criticized Iran over the failure of the IAEA mission’s failure, saying it again showed Tehran's refusal to abide by its international obligations over its nuclear program. “We regret the failure of Iran to reach an agreement this week with the IAEA that would permit the agency to fully investigate the serious allegation raised allegations, rather, raised in its November report,” said Carney.
“Unfortunately this is another demonstration of Iran's refusal to abide by its international obligations,” he added. Carney also said the United States was continuing to evaluate Iran's intentions after it sent a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton last week, raising hopes for the prospects of renewed talks with world powers. "This particular action by Iran suggest that they have not changed their behavior when it comes to abiding by their international obligations," Carney told reporters, expressing U.S. regret that the IAEA mission had ended in failure.
Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency said his team "could not find a way forward" in attempts to persuade Iran to talk about suspected secret work on atomic arms.
Nackaerts said the talks in Tehran were inconclusive, although his mission .approached the talks "in a constructive spirit." An IAEA statement published overnight already acknowledged the talks had failed. Iran denies it has experimented with nuclear arms programs but has refused to cooperate with an IAEA probe on the issue for nearly four years.

Russia: Israeli strike on Iran would be 'catastrophic'
Deputy Russian FM warns Israel against striking Iranian nuclear sites, saying Israel must understand consequences of such an action.
By Reuters and The Associated Press
Russian warned Israel not to attack Iran over its nuclear program, saying on Wednesday that military action would have catastrophic consequences.
"Of course any possible military scenario against Iran will be catastrophic for the region and for the whole system of international relations," Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said.
"Therefore I hope Israel understands all these consequences ... and they should also consider the consequences of such action for themselves," Gatilov said at a news conference..
A top UN nuclear official said on Wednesday his team could "could not find a way forward" in attempts to persuade Iran to talk about suspected secret work on atomic arms.
Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency says the talks in Tehran were inconclusive, although his mission approached the talks "in a constructive spirit."
Nackaerts spoke to reporters at Vienna airport shortly after returning from the Iranian capital.
An IAEA statement published overnight already acknowledged the talks had failed.
Iran denies it has experimented with nuclear arms programs but has refused to cooperate with an IAEA probe on the issue for nearly four years.

America's hypocritical friendship with Saudi Arabia
Just as Obama said to Mubarak a year ago, 'Now is now,' we expect him to tell the Saudi government: 'Enough is enough!'
By Salman Masalha
“Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are,” goes the proverb. So it’s worth directing our gaze for a moment at the friends of U.S. President Barack Obama and of his predecessors in the White House. In September 2009 there was a media uproar over the fact that the president of the greatest power bowed down before the Saudi king at the meeting of the G-20. It seems that since that bow Obama has been walking around with a bent back in the face of one of the most unenlightened regimes in the world. Obama, who called for the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at the outbreak of the Egyptian uprising, is remaining silent in the face of the outrageous actions of the Saudi government. Recently we heard one story that exposes the benighted nature of the Saudi regime, which is the darling of the West, including Israel.
A Saudi journalist named Hamza Kashgari made the mistake of opening a Twitter account. Several tweets that he posted are liable to cost him his life. What aroused the anger of the masses and the fury of the palace are the comments he made about religious “values” of Islam and its prophet Mohammed
An examination of the tweets that got Kashgari into trouble paints a picture of someone who is just the opposite of a heretic. It turns out that the young journalist is a strong believer. He has only one small problem. He uses his common sense and raises thoughts and questions about all sorts of issues that he feels contradict his sense of morality.
On the birthday of the prophet Mohammed, Kashgari wrote: “I liked your revolutionary spirit, which has also inspired me. But I don’t like the halo surrounding you. I won’t pray for you.” And another tweet: “On your birthday I see you wherever I go. I say that there are things I liked about you, other things I hated, and there are things that I’ve never understood.”
Social groups, with thousands of members, quickly organized and demanded his head. He felt threatened, quickly erased what he had written and even tweeted an apology to the effect that “things were taken out of context.” But the uproar did not die down, and Kashgari boarded a plane and left the kingdom.
Saudi sheikhs, self-appointed defenders of God and guardians of the prophet, convened and discussed the burning issue. After a “profound discussion” they decided that the journalist’s tweets were words of “heresy” and that he must be tried according to the laws of Islam practiced in the kingdom. In such cases, as we know, the accused can expect the death penalty.
The issue was even placed on the table of the Saudi king himself. He ordered the arrest of the journalist, who tried to get to New Zealand. Kashgari was arrested at a stopover at the airport of the Malaysian capital. The many protests to the Malaysian government against the arrest made by international organizations were to no avail. Malaysia handed Kashgari over to Saudi security people, who flew him back to Saudi Arabia.
“Saudi women won’t go to hell, because it’s impossible to go to hell twice,” wrote the “heretic,” in a tweet on the position of women in his country. Now he is personally experiencing the difficulty of escaping that hell. That is life in the kingdom of oil. Kashgari, who tweeted and endangered himself, is in evil hands, awaiting his fate.
The time has come for lovers of freedom, both in the West and in the Arab world, to peel off some of the layers of hypocrisy regarding this regime. All the more so for the man who sits in the White House, the one who bowed down and danced in the club that is filled with the smell of oil.
Lovers of freedom, wherever they are, must distance this smell from their noses and stand erect when dealing with the kingdom of darkness. Just as Obama said to Mubarak a year ago, “Now is now,” we expect him to tell the Saudi government: “Enough is enough!”

Anthony Shadid’s ashes scattered in Marjayoun
February 23, 2012/By Mohammad Zaatari/The Daily Star
MARJAYOUN, Lebanon: New York Times correspondent Anthony Shadid’s ashes were spread Wednesday afternoon in the garden of the house he rebuilt in his hometown of Marjayoun.
His immediate and extended family honored the will of the man who many lauded as one of the finest journalists in the Middle East of this generation. Shadid was the recipient of two Pulitzer prizes.
Shadid, 43 died in Syria last week near the Turkish border from an asthma attack apparently triggered by a horse allergy. Shadid, known for his skill with words and gift of explaining and humanizing complex stories from the Middle East, was working on a story about the Syrian opposition fighting President Bashar Assad’s regime.
Born to Lebanese parents, he was Raised in Oklahoma. Shadid spent his career living and working in the Middle East trying to explain the complexities of the region to American and international audiences. He worked for the Associated Press, The Boston Globe, Washington Post and most recently The New York Times. He was no stranger to conflict. Shadid had been captured in Libya, shot in Ramallah and reported throughout Iraq’s post-occupation civil war. Based in Beirut, Shadid had become engrossed with understanding his family’s history in southern Lebanon and how it tied into larger narratives of the nation. That is the subject of his newest book “House of Stone: A Memoir of Home, Family, and a Lost Middle East.” Shadid went to his grandmother’s home in Marjayoun and retraced his family’s flight to the U.S. and unraveled his need to understand his past. “‘House of Stone’ is an unforgettable memoir of the world’s most volatile landscape and the universal yearning for home,” as the book is described on his website. The book is now being published posthumously and publishers Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Trade decided to push forward the release of the book by a month due to his death. The book will now be published Feb. 28. Publishers have asked Shadid’s colleagues to promote the book across the United States in his stead. He is the author of two other books: “Night Draws Near,” which retells the American occupation of Iraq through Iraqi eyes, and “Legacy of the Prophet,” which explains the transformation of 21st century Islamic politics.

UN extends STL’s mandate
February 22, 2012
The United Nations on Wednesday extended the mandate of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon investigating the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The tribunal faces strong opposition from the Hezbollah, but in announcing the three-year extension of the inquiry, UN leader Ban Ki-moon said he was determined to "send a message that impunity will not be tolerated."The work of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon has now been extended for three years from March 1, UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky said in a statement. The tribunal was set up by the UN Security Council in 2007 and has announced that it will put four Hezbollah members on trial even though they have not yet been detained.The four -- Salim Ayyash, Mustafa Badreddine, Hussein Anaissi and Assad Sabra -- have been charged for the February 14, 2005 car bombing in Beirut that killed Hariri and 22 others, including a suicide bomber. Warrants have been issued for the four, but authorities in Lebanon, where the government is dominated by the Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hezbollah, have failed to arrest them. The United Nations is preparing to announce a replacement for the tribunal's chief prosecutor, Daniel Bellamare, who will leave at the end of the month.But Ban visited the court in Lebanon last month in one sign of support.And the announcement of the mandate extension included a new signal of support from the UN leader. "The secretary general reaffirms the commitment of the United Nations to the efforts of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to uncover the truth regarding the terrorist attack" that killed Hariri "so as to bring those responsible to justice and send a message that impunity will not be tolerated," said the UN statement.-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Mikati accepts Nahhas’ resignation
February 22, 2012 /Prime Minister Najib Mikati on Wednesday accepted Labor Minister Charbel Nahhas’ resignation after Energy Minister Gebran Bassil handed over the labor ministers’ notice, the National News Agency reported. “Mikati received Bassil at 9:00 p.m. at his residence in Verdun and received Nahhas’ resignation from the cabinet. After consultations between Mikati and President Michel Sleiman, it was agreed to accept the resignation,” the report said.Nahhas has said that he refused to sign the decree on transportation allowances, which was agreed upon in Baabda between the Economic Committees and the General Workers Union, because it was “illegal for the cabinet to stipulate transportation allowances.” The labor minister then handed over his resignation to Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun on Tuesday. Later Tuesday, Aoun said “the problem has now become between Nahhas and the bloc and not between the former and the cabinet.” -NOW Lebanon

Israeli envoy: W. Africa a Hezbollah power base
February 23, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Israel’s envoy to the U.N. reportedly told the Security Council that Western Africa has become Hezbollah’s “power base,” as UNIFIL chief Maj. Gen. Paolo Serra called a tripartite meeting between the Lebanese and Israeli armies Wednesday.
Ron Prosor was quoted by Ynetnews Wednesday as telling the U.N. Security Council a day before that: “Israel is particularly concerned over Hezbollah’s use of the area [West Africa] as a base of terror operations. Criminal initiatives bolster Hezbollah’s efforts to create sleeper-cells in the area.”
He urged the council to act swiftly. “The world can’t stand idly by – this endangers not just Africa but innocent lives the world over, as we have seen in New Delhi, Tbilisi and Bangkok.”
Hezbollah, like Iran, has denied Israel’s accusations of involvement in several plots targeting Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia and Thailand.
Ynetnews also reported that Prosor told the Security Council that “Israel could play a key role in the global fight against the infiltration of crime-backed terror activity into Western Africa,” offering Israeli help in forming an international intelligence agency that would work to foil “terror” attacks worldwide.
There have been several media reports tying the financing of Hezbollah to businessmen in West Africa, who have allegedly aided the resistance group in arms smuggling operations.
A New York Times report released in mid-December said a U.S. probe into the Lebanese Canadian Bank, charged by the U.S. Treasury with money laundering and financing a “terrorist organization” last year, found that several businessmen – mainly Shiite, often known Hezbollah supporters – used the bank for businesses based in West Africa that appeared to be a front to enable Hezbollah to move funds.
In a speech earlier this month, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah denied media reports that his group was involved in money laundering or drugs trafficking to fund the group’s resistance against Israel.
He also denied media reports that Hezbollah was involved in any commercial ventures in or outside Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Serra called for a tripartite meeting to place Thursday at the Ras al-Naqoura crossing between the Lebanese and Israeli armies, to discuss increased security measures along the Blue Line around the town of Kfar Kila, the site of previous security incidents between the two sides.
“In my contacts with both the parties, they made it clear that they do not want problems along the Blue Line,” Serra said. “They asked UNIFIL to assist them in putting in place additional security measures particularly in this area to prevent any escalatory incident that is clearly not in the interest of either side.”
In January Israeli military sources told AFP that Israel was liaising with Lebanese and U.N. officials on the idea of building an anti-sniper wall along the border between the Israeli settlement of Metula and Kfar Kila.

Iran will bend when facing an unwinnable conflict
February 23, 2012/By David Ignatius/The Daily Star
“We are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor,” said General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last Sunday on CNN. That sounds about right to me, but his comment raises a tricky question: How much pressure will it take to get this “rational” country to curb its nuclear program? The answer here isn’t comforting: Recent history shows that the Iranian regime will change behavior only if confronted with overwhelming force and the prospect of an unwinnable war. Short of that, the Iranians seem ready to cruise along on the brink, expecting that the other side will steer away.
I count two clear instances when Iran has backed down, and two more “maybes.” These examples remind us that the Iranian leaders aren’t irrational madmen – and also that they drive a hard bargain. Here are the two documented retreats:
First, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in July 1988 “drank the cup of poison,” as he put it, and agreed to end the Iraq-Iran war. He accepted a U.N.-sponsored truce, but only after eight years of brutal fighting, Iraqi rocket attacks on Iranian cities, and the use of poison gas against Iranian troops. Khomeini’s decision followed the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner on July 3 by the USS Vincennes – unintended, but a demonstration of overwhelming American firepower in the Persian Gulf.
And second, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s regime halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 because of “international pressure,” according to a 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate. The decision came after the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, which the Iranians apparently feared was the prelude to an attack on their soil. The Iranians also agreed in 2003 to start talks with European nations on limiting their enrichment of uranium – beginning the haggling that continues to this day.
Two other examples are less obvious, but they illustrate the same theme of rational Iranian response to pressure. In both cases the trigger was a strong back-channel message from the United States:
In March 2008, Iran restrained its Shiite allies in Iraq after a U.S. warning about shelling the Green Zone. The Mahdi army had been firing heavy rockets and mortars into the enclave, causing rising U.S. casualties. Gen. David Petraeus, then U.S. commander in Baghdad, sent a message –“Stop shooting at the Green Zone”– to Gen. Qassem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force. The intermediary was Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who had close relations with both generals. The shelling tapered off.
And last month, Iran toned down its threats to close the Strait of Hormuz after a U.S. back-channel warning that any such action would trigger a punishing U.S. response. The private message paralleled a public U.S. statement: “The United States and the international community have a strong interest in the free flow of commerce and freedom of navigation in all international waterways.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi subsequently offered reassurance: “Iran has never in its history tried to prevent, to put any obstacles in the way of this important maritime route.”
The Iranians’ behavior in negotiations, too, has seemed to wax and wane based on their perception of the West’s seriousness. When Russia and China supported U.N. sanctions in 2010, the Iranians got nervous. When India and China reduced oil purchases recently, Tehran took notice.
Clear messaging to Iran – and to Israel, too – is important as the tension mounts over a possible Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear targets. The most direct public message yet came from Dempsey in his appearance on Fareed Zakaria’s show, “GPS.” It’s worth looking carefully at just what the nation’s top military officer said.
“The Iranian regime has not decided that they will embark on the effort to weaponize their nuclear capability,” Dempsey said, thereby offering Tehran a chance to save face in any deal. He argued that because Iran isn’t yet building a weapon, it would be “premature” and “not prudent” for Israel to attack. “A strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives,” he cautioned. But he conceded that the United States hasn’t yet persuaded Israel to hold off.
The signal to Israel was very clear: Don’t attack! But what about the message to Iran? History shows that the clerics in Tehran won’t accept a deal unless they conclude there’s no alternative but a punishing war. Somehow, the U.S. must convince Iran this confrontation is deadly serious – and then work to find the rational pathway toward agreement.
*David Ignatius is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR.

Washington’s Syria policy is imaginary
February 23, 2012/By Michael Young/The Daily Star
The administration of President Barack Obama has often been ridiculed for what it describes as “leading from behind.” More often than not this has been an excuse for not leading at all, and nowhere has American vacillation been more on display than in Syria.
For instance, it is the United States that has lent credence to accusations by the Syrian regime that Al-Qaeda is assisting the Syrian opposition. Last week, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believed Al-Qaeda in Iraq had infiltrated Syrian opposition groups, and was behind bombings in Damascus and Aleppo. Clapper needn’t have made that statement publicly. Not surprisingly, the Syrian opposition read it as a sign of American hostility toward its aspirations.
Politically as well, Washington has been all over the place. In an interview with France 24 just over a week ago, the U.S. ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, said that the Obama administration was looking for a “peaceful political solution” in Syria. “Even the Syrian people do not want a military solution to this crisis,” he said, before adding: “We believe [President Bashar] Assad should step down, but at the end of the day the Syrian people will make the decision, not the U.S.”
A few days later, Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, sounded less affirmative. While also defending a political solution, she observed, “[I]f we can’t get Assad to yield to the pressure that we are all bringing to bear, we may have to consider additional measures.” To many people this suggested that the U.S. might possibly endorse arming Syria’s opposition if that became necessary. Evidently, the Obama administration – amid the carnage in Homs and elsewhere in Syria, and rising calls in the Arab world and even in the U.S. Congress for Assad’s opponents to be supplied with better weapons – feared that it would fall behind the policy curve.
There are no easy answers in Syria, but Washington’s trouble is that it has no strategy for the country. This is proving very damaging indeed, given that the Russians and Iranians do have one, and it can be summarized quite simply: Actively support the repression by the Syrian army and security services, bringing the opposition, or a portion of the opposition, to the negotiating table. Introduce reforms, albeit cosmetic reforms, to return the political initiative to Assad. Integrate willing opposition figures into a national unity government, thereby neutralizing the discontent on the ground. And give the regime the latitude to govern again, in order to snuff out pockets of dissent.
This scheme is unlikely to work, but at least it is straightforward. Moscow and Tehran have dispatched military and intelligence units to Syria to impose their will. There are reports that the U.S. has also sent people into Syria to organize the Syrian opposition, but apparently in numbers so infinitesimal as to be virtually useless.
But what did Ford mean when mentioning a peaceful political solution? The Russians and the Iranians also want such a solution, however the Obama administration has opposed Russia’s approach to Syria. Officially, the U.S. backs the Arab League plan calling for Assad to step down and hand over to a vice president. Ford echoed that thought, then threw in his silly caveat about Syria’s people being the final arbiter of their own future. But is it the Syrians alone, or Syrians backed by the Arab League and the determination of the international community, who will ultimately shape outcomes in Damascus?
The U.S. finds itself lost between a desire to see the back of Assad and fear of a Syrian civil war. Doesn’t almost everybody? Yet most governments have prioritized their objectives. For Russia and Iran, the red line is preserving their interests, and both feel today that this requires Assad to remain in office. The Gulf states, in turn, want Assad to be gone, denying Iran a key ally in the Levant. The U.S. has no reason to engage with the Iranians, but Russia is different. If Russian estimates about Assad’s survivability are faulty, as they may well be, then U.S. diplomacy must work on that front. The Russians will defend Assad to the hilt, but once they deem him to be a liability for their relations with the U.S., the Europeans and the Arab world, and once they realize that his leadership is all but finished, they will contemplate alternatives, if only to protect what is theirs in Syria.
Many Arab regimes have already concluded that the only way to undermine Assad is to arm the Free Syrian Army. That debate replicates one that took place two decades ago over Bosnia. At the time, the George H. W. Bush administration and European governments opposed lifting an arms embargo on Bosnia, effectively ceding the advantage to the better-armed Serbs. The Clinton administration sought to change that policy, while a further impetus to arm the Bosnian Muslims came from within Congress. In the end, the Bosnian army did acquire more weapons and, with NATO and Croatian assistance, obliged the Bosnian-Serbs to accept a settlement.
A Syrian civil war is a fearful prospect, but American indecision is not going to prevent one from taking place. If Washington and the Europeans dither, the Gulf states won’t, and weapons will enter Syria anyway, as they already are. Better for the Obama administration to devise a political approach that embraces, while also controlling, a military dimension that would push Assad to reconsider his options. The starting point for any resolution in Syria must be the departure of the current regime. A transitional project can be a modified form of the Arab League plan, with guarantees to Syria’s minorities. Russia must be brought into the effort, perhaps with assurances that its interests will be looked after in a post-Assad Syria, because its backing is what is truly propping up the Syrian leadership.
Washington needs to get a grip. Its policy toward Syria has been strangely disconnected from its other regional priority, namely containing Iran. It took many months for the administration to acknowledge the Syrian crisis as a major issue. By insisting, on the record and off, that there is nothing they can do in Syria, American officials have effectively ensured that they will do nothing. Their performance has been craven and one-dimensional – in a word, pathetic.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.