Matthew 18 Who Is the Greatest

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 13/2012

Bible Quotation for today/Jesus Raises a Widow's Son
Luke 07/11-17: "Soon afterward Jesus went to a town named Nain, accompanied by his disciples and a large crowd. Just as he arrived at the gate of the town, a funeral procession was coming out. The dead man was the only son of a woman who was a widow, and a large crowd from the town was with her. When the Lord saw her, his heart was filled with pity for her, and he said to her, Don't cry. Then he walked over and touched the coffin, and the men carrying it stopped. Jesus said, Young man! Get up, I tell you! The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. They all were filled with fear and praised God. A great prophet has appeared among us! they said; God has come to save his people! This news about Jesus went out through all the country and the surrounding territory.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Killing the brains in Iran/Ynetnews/ January 12/12
Do discard the ‘resistance axis’ hoax/By Michael Young/January 12/12
Assad finds his margin to maneuver/By: Tony Badran/January 12/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for January 12/12
U.N. chief to discuss Syria, Hariri court in Lebanon
Lebanese Cabinet seeks unified stance on Ban visit
Eichhorst Meets Miqati: We Hope Lebanon Will Continue Supporting Int’l Resolutions, STL
Israeli Military official: Iran, Hezbollah stepping up efforts to save Assad regime in Syria
Covert war on Iran – prudent strategy
Turkey halts Iranian arms corridor to Syria, balks at nuclear Iran
Amir Oren / Assassins of nuclear scientists are sending a double message to Iran
U.S., EU slam Iran nuclear enrichment activity at Security Council meet
IDF official: Iran, Hezbollah stepping up efforts to save Assad regime in Syria
Ahmadinejad in Cuba: Iran has done nothing wrong
Former U.S. President Carter doubts Egypt military will fully submit to civilian rulers
Hamas leader to visit Iran in new trip
Doubt hangs over Arab monitoring mission in Syria
Second Arab monitor may quit Syria over violence
French Journalist among 7 Dead as Rocket Hits Reporters in Homs
EU demands probe into death of French journalist in Syria
Thousands of Yemenis protest against Saleh immunity
Rai, Hezbollah officials meet
MP, Ahmad Fatfat asks Ghosn to deploy army along border with Syria
U.S. expresses concerns over impact of Syria crisis on Lebanon
Bomb hits south Lebanon liquor store
Car accident death, shooting, robberies in and around Beirut
Cocaine smuggling thwarted at Lebanon airport
Lebanon's Arabic press digest - Jan. 12, 2012
Ex-Ogero Employee Charged with Spying for Israel
Hizbullah, PSP Agree to Improve Ties, Deal Calmly with Differences
Mansour: Libya Promised to Speed up Probe into Fate of Moussa al-Sadr
President Gemayel Praises Azhar Bill of Rights on Basic Liberties
Geagea: Decisions should be in state’s hands
Amal slams killing of Iranian scientist, blames Israel
Hezbollah slams “terrorist” killing of Iranian scientist

IDF official: Iran, Hezbollah stepping up efforts to save Assad regime in Syria
Military Intelligence chief says face of Middle East is changing in such a way that it is no longer recognizable.
By Gili Cohen/Haaretz /Iran and Hezbollah are strengthening their efforts to ensure the survival of the Bashar Assad regime in Syria, Military Intelligence Chief Major General Aviv Kochavi said on Wednesday. "They are providing [Assad] with knowledge, weapons and other means and recently with active involvement," Kochavi said. Kochavi also said that the face of the Middle East is changing in such a way that it is no longer recognizable. "It may be that the winds of change carry opportunities and promise, but in the short and medium term the risks are increasing," he stated. On Tuesday, IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz said that the turmoil in Syria could cause Assad to seek military confrontation with Israel. "Assad cannot continue holding on to power and his downfall is expected to cause a crack in the radical axis," Gantz said. "Assad and the Syrian regime may have a hard time acting against us in the short-term, but we also need to take into account that Syria has advanced weapons systems. They have advanced Russian arms such as Yakhont missiles." The IDF chief said that he was not sure whether the Golan Heights, on the border with Syria, will remain quiet in the near future.

'Covert war on Iran – prudent strategy'
Former Israeli defense official tells NYT ambiguous policies are best when it comes to efforts to prevent all-out war with Iran. Tehran says retaliation will 'reach beyond region'
Dudi Cohen /Ynetnews
Published: 01.12.12, 11:32 / Israel News
The covert war waged against Iran is a practical strategy, a former top Israeli defense official told the New York Times Thursday. The comment followed the assassination of yet another Iranian nuclear scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan – who served as the deputy director of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility – in Tehran on Wednesday. Iran immediately accused Israel and the United States of perpetrating the hit. Washington and Jerusalem have remained largely mum on the subject. The Iranian website Raja News, which is affiliated with Tehran's regime quoted an intelligence source as saying that the Islamic Republic's retaliation over the assassination will "reach beyond Iran and beyond the region," i.e. – the Middle East. The source added that Iran has "good intelligence… none of those involved in ordering this operation should feel safe anywhere."
The Israeli official, meanwhile, stressed that the ambiguity was effective: "It’s not enough to guess," he said. "If you can't prove it, you can't retaliate. When it's very, very clear who's behind an attack, the world behaves differently." Iran, he added, has carried out its fair share of enemy assassinations, targeting mostly Iranian opposition members during the 1980s and 1990s.
"In Arabic, there's a proverb: If you are shooting, don't complain about being shot," he said.
He added that such covert strategies aim to prevent all-out war: "I think the cocktail of diplomacy, of sanctions, of covert activity might bring us something. I think it's the right policy while we still have time," he told the paper. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is currently on an official tour of Latin America, has yet to comment directly on Roshan's assassination. Ahmadinejad spoke before students at Havana University on Thursday and stated that the West was "punishing Iran for no reason." "Have we ever attacked anyone? Have we sought more than we need? Never. We only want to pursue justice," he said .

Killing the brains
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4174792,00.html
Op-ed: Killing of nuke scientists aims to ensure that Iran can’t recover following strike
01.12.12,/Ynetnews
The killing of nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan Wednesday joins a series of assassinations that left five Iranian scientists and experts dead in the past two years. These were central “knowledge bases” in the Islamic republic’s military nuclear program and their assassination disrupted the quest for an Iranian bomb.
Uranium enrichment is the largest vital component in Iran’s program and therefore also the most vulnerable to a military strike. For that reason, Tehran recently started to operate a new, well-fortified underground enrichment facility in a Revolutionary Guards base near the city of Qom. We can assume that Professor Roshan was intimately involved in establishing the new enrichment site. Hence, his elimination will disrupt Iran’s plans and undermine the timetable of the entire nuke project. Since January 13, 2010, five top Iranian scientists and experts in the nuclear and missile fields were eliminated. Four of them were scientists and one, Brigadier General Hassan Moghaddamm, headed the ballistic missiles project and was apparently an expert in the field. We can assume that many more lower-ranked missile experts were killed in several explosions in recent years at various Iranian sites.
The assassination of Iranian experts is meant to deter other scientists, including foreign ones, from getting involved in such projects. The eliminations also slow down these projects and force Tehran to reorganize. Moreover, killing key figures in vital projects greatly embarrasses the Iranian regime and security forces. Such operations portray the establishment as an incompetent bunch that time after time fails in safeguarding vital interests.
Mossad fingerprints?
The most important aspect of the assassinations is the killing of people who constitute “knowledge bases.” It is clear that any military strike on Iran would only thwart the nuclear and missile projects by a few years, but the elimination of key figures may extend the programs’ recovery period, if and when they’re attacked.
All indications show that a state organ is behind the assassinations. Only a state has the resources required to carry out the kind of operations executed in Iran. This includes investment in intelligence gathering that identifies the targets and prioritizes them, the investment of time and sophisticated means in preparing an operation against people or locations that are usually under heavy guard, as well as the recruitment and training of the perpetrators. National spy agencies are virtually the only ones that possess such capabilities.
For these reasons, the Iranians and the international media tend to point to the CIA or Israel’s Mossad as the parties responsible for the assassinations and blasts in Iran. However, official American and Israeli spokespeople have not claimed responsibility for such operations.
According to the Iranians and global media outlets, the method of assassinating the scientists is reminiscent of the modus operandi utilized by Mossad in targeting top Palestinian terrorists in the past 30 years. The Iranians claim that Mossad’s fingerprints are evident in two aspects at least: First, the strict focus on the elimination target, while avoiding as much as is possible collateral damage and civilian casualties. Second, the utilization of motorcycles and masked assassins, thereby hiding the killers’ faces and making the getaway easy even on crowded streets.
In a recent investigative report by the New York Times, Western intelligence experts said there is clear evidence that the blasts at Iranian sites and the elimination of Iranian experts are securing their objective. We can already see a slowdown in the pace of the projects and damage to “assets” that the Iranians have already accumulated.
Iran’s silence
The most curious question in the face of these incidents is why Iran, which does not shy away from threatening the world with closure of the Hormuz Straits, has failed to retaliate for the painful blows to its nuclear and missile program? After all, the Revolutionary Guards have a special arm, Quds, whose aim (among others) is to carry out terror attacks and secret assassinations against enemies of the regime overseas. Moreover, if the Iranians do not wish to directly target Western or Israeli interests, they can prompt their agents, that is, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other groups, to do the job. In the past, Iran did not shy away from carrying out terror attacks in Europe (in Paris and Berlin) and in South America (in Buenos Aires,) so why is it showing restraint now?
The reason is apparently Iran’s fear of Western retaliation. Any terror attack against Israel or another Western target – whether it is carried out directly by the Quds force or by Hezbollah – may prompt a Western response. Under such circumstances, Israel or a Western coalition (or both) will have an excellent pretext to strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear and missile sites.
Moreover, Tehran fears that Israel will take advantage of an Iranian attack in order to strike the immense missile and rocket arsenals funded or built by Iran in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. The main aim of these arsenals is to serve as Iranian deterrence against a military strike.
Hence, it is no wonder that Iran does not wish to jeopardize these strategic assets only to satisfy its hunger for revenge and restore the regime’s prestige. This is also the reason why the Iranians made sure in recent years that Hezbollah would not fire rockets at Israel, carry out attacks in Israeli territory, or avenge the assassination of the group’s military commander, Imad Mugniyah.
Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are apparently showing restraint and sustaining the assassinations and explosions with clenched teeth, while ensuring that Bashar Assad and Hassan Nasrallah do not act foolishly, so that the retaliatory means remain intact and are available once the major confrontation takes place.

U.N. chief to discuss Syria, Hariri court in Lebanon
January 12, 2012/By Natacha Yazbeck /Daily Star
BEIRUT: U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon's fourth visit to Lebanon, which starts on Friday, is expected to focus on the controversial Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) and the deadly crisis in neighboring Syria.
A government source told AFP, on condition of anonymity, Ban was expected to address Lebanon's duties to the STL, a U.N.-backed court that has charged four Hezbollah operatives in the 2005 assassination of ex-premier Rafik Hariri.
Hezbollah dominates Prime Minister Najib Mikati's government, and has refused outright to cooperate with the STL.
The Syria- and Iran-backed movement was at the center of a political storm that rocked the Beirut government after Mikati transferred 32 million dollars Lebanon owed the STL from a fund allocated to the premier's office.
Lebanon's mandate with the U.N. secretary general on the Netherlands-based court expires at the end of February. Under the protocol establishing the STL, the mandate may be renewed if the court has not completed its work.
Days ahead of Ban's visit to the region, which will also take him to the United Arab Emirates, top Hezbollah official Sheikh Mohammed Yazbeck said the U.N. leader was "not welcome" in Beirut.
An analyst said the group's stance was not surprising.
"Hezbollah has never been that welcoming to Ban Ki-moon... What Hezbollah said is very much expected," said Timur Goksel, a political science lecturer at the American University of Beirut and former spokesman for the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)."More than Ban, I think their reaction is mainly against the U.N. reports," Goksel told AFP of U.N. Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1701 calling for the disbanding and disarmament of all groups in Lebanon other than the army.
Reports on the implementation of both resolutions regularly denounce Hezbollah's arsenal and call on the group to give up its weapons.
Hezbollah is the only Lebanese group not to have disarmed after the 1975-1990 civil war, arguing that its weapons were necessary to fight Israel.
It has repeatedly warned that its military might is not open to discussion.
According to the government source, Ban will also address the deadly crackdown on dissent in Syria, as well as its repercussions in Lebanon and border violations by Syrian troops.
Since October, six people have been killed by Syrian troops during regular incursions into Lebanon, where they have opened fire on border villages.
Lebanon and Syria share a 330-kilometre (205-mile) border but have yet to agree on official demarcation, an issue that is also on Ban's Lebanon agenda, according to the government source.
Ban's visit to Lebanon comes amid a U.N. "strategy" review of UNIFIL troops, who have been the target of several attacks in recent months.
He is expected to visit the peacekeeping force stationed at south Lebanon's border with Israel.
The U.N. chief is also slated to attend a two-day conference organised by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) on the Arab world's transition to democracy.

Hizbullah, PSP Agree to Improve Ties, Deal Calmly with Differences
by Naharnet /A meeting was held between Hizbullah and Progressive Socialist Party officials on Wednesday to set the stage for improved ties between the Shiite party leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, and PSP chief Walid Jumblat, An Nahar daily reported.Minister Wael Abou Faour, who is a PSP official, told As Safir newspaper on Thursday that the meeting came as part of dialogue between the two sides and keenness to improve bilateral relations.Discussions focused on the local situation and regional developments, he said.
The meeting was held at the home of Minister Ghazi Aridi, who is loyal to Jumblat, and was attended by Hizbullah Ministers Mohammed Fneish and Hussein al-Hajj Hassan, MP Hassan Fadlallah and another Hizbullah official Wafiq Safa.Other than Aridi and Abou Faour, MP Akram Shehayyeb was part of the delegation that represented Jumblat in the talks.
Abou Faour said that the two sides agreed to resolve their dispute on controversial issues and deal with them in a calm manner.
In remarks to Tele Liban on Thursday, Aridi denied that Hizbullah-PSP relations were strained.
He stressed the importance of preserving the ties between the two parties to guarantee stability in the country.
According to As Safir, the conferees agreed to consolidate stability, strengthen the work of the government, engage in dialogue and protect Lebanon from the negative repercussions of the regional turmoil.
The newspaper also quoted sources close to Hizbullah as saying that the meeting was “friendly” and included a “beneficial dialogue” on several issues locally and regionally

Turkey halts Iranian arms corridor to Syria, balks at nuclear Iran
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report/January 12, 2012/When IDF Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi accused Iran and Hizballah Wednesday, Jan. 11of directly helping Bashar Assad repress the uprising against him with arms, Turkey had just taken a stand against the Iranian corridor running weapons to Syria via its territory, debkafile's military sources report. Earlier this week, Ankara reported halting five Iranian trucks loaded with weapons for Syria at the Killis Turkish-Syrian border crossing and impounding its freight. According to our intelligence sources, the Iranian convoy was not really stopped at Killis but at the eastern Turkish Dobubayazit border crossing with Iran, near Mount Ararat. This supply route for Syria had been going strong for months. Ankara's decision to suspend it has reduced its volume by 60 percent.
The Turks kept very quiet about the Dogubayazit route because disclosure would have exposed them as working two sides of the Syrian conflict – letting Tehran set up a clandestine arms route for helping the Assad regime crack down on protest, while publicly posing as the leading champions of the Syrian protest movement – even to providing the Free Syria Army with bases and training facilities.
The influx of Iranian arms supplies via Turkey gave the Syrian army a major boost in quelling the uprising especially in the restive towns of Hama, Homs and Idlib, where demonstrations have dwindled. Now Ankara is worried about the consequences. Thursday, President Abdullah Gul raised fears of the Syrian uprising mutating into civil war. Our sources report that Ankara is concerned that sectarian conflict in Syria could spill over into Turkey.
In fact, as debkafile’s military and intelligence sources report exclusively, Ankara changed course against Iran after Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu visited Tehran on Jan. 5. His mission was to warn Iranian leaders including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whom he met that Turkey will not stand for Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb and would act to disrupt its program.
Although his visit was officially presented as an effort to broker the resumption of long-stalled nuclear talks between Tehran and the five world powers plus Germany (P5+1), Davutoglu in fact informed Ahmadinejad in no-nonsense terms, “Turkey can't live between two nuclear powers, one to the north (Russia) and one to the east (Iran)." The minister warned that if Tehran goes into production of a nuclear weapon, Ankara's first step would be to open the door for NATO forces to deploy along its border with Iran.
According to debkafile sources, Davutoglu gave Ahmadinejad a week to clarify the information reaching the West that Tehran had already begun assembling a nuclear weapon, so belying the persistent Iranian claim that its nuclear program is peaceful. After that, he said, Ankara would embark on progressively tougher counter-action.
And indeed, when clarifications from Tehran had not been received by Tuesday, Jan. 10, Turkey went into action to halt the Iranian weapons convoy to Syria.
Taking advantage of the new opportunities presented by the US military departure from Iraq last month, Iranian officials the next day, Wednesday, Jan. 11, ordered Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to shut the Iraqi-Jordanian border to convoys carrying Turkish export goods to Persian Gulf destinations.
The following day, Thursday, Iran's Speaker of Parliament, Ali Larijani, turned up in Ankara to try and sort things out between Iran and Turkey before they got out of hand.

Doubt hangs over Arab monitoring mission in Syria
12/01/2012/BEIRUT, (Reuters) - Several Arab League monitors have left Syria or may do so soon because the mission has failed to halt President Bashar al-Assad's violent crackdown on a popular revolt against his rule, an Algerian former monitor said on Thursday. Syrian opposition groups say the monitors, who deployed on December 26 to check whether Syria was respecting an Arab peace plan, have only bought Assad more time to crush protests that erupted in March, inspired by Arab uprisings elsewhere. Anwar Malek, an Algerian who quit the monitoring team this week, said many of his former colleagues shared his chagrin. "I cannot specify a number, but many. When you talk to them their anger is clear," he told Reuters by telephone, adding that many could not leave because of orders from their governments. He said a Moroccan legal specialist, an aid worker from Djibouti and an Egyptian had also left the mission. Their departures could not immediately be confirmed, but another monitor, who asked not to be named, told Reuters he planned to leave Syria on Friday. "The mission does not serve the citizens," he said. "It doesn't serve anything." The Arab League, which will hear a full report from the monitors on January 19, is divided over Syria, with Qatar its most vocal critic and Algeria defending steps taken by Damascus. The mission, the first of its kind the League has mounted, is led by Sudanese General Mohammed al-Dabi, who has come under fire from rights groups over his role in the Darfur conflict.
"CHILLINGLY CYNICAL"
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that the monitoring mission cannot continue indefinitely and dismissed Assad's speech on Tuesday as "chillingly cynical.
Assad, breaking a six-month public silence on Tuesday, disparaged the Arab League, which suspended Syria in November over its bloody handling of the unrest. Assad blamed the upheaval on "terrorists" whom he would punish with an iron fist. The conflict in Syria, in which insurgents have joined what began as a mostly peaceful movement to end 41 years of Assad family rule, has killed more than 5,000 people, by a U.N. tally. The government says 2,000 soldiers and police have been killed.
A French journalist, Gilles Jacquier, was among nine people killed in the rebellious city of Homs on Wednesday in what the state news agency SANA said was a mortar attack by "terrorists."Jacquier, the first Western reporter killed in Syria in 10 months of unrest, was in a government-escorted media group visiting a pro-Assad neighborhood of the divided city, which has been wracked by protests, crackdowns and sectarian violence. As with three deadly explosions in Damascus in the past few weeks, Assad's critics have suggested the authorities staged the Homs attack to reinforce their argument that Syria is facing foreign-backed militants, not a broad pro-democracy revolt.
"The journalists were attacked in a heavily militarized regime stronghold," said Wissam Tarif, of the Avaaz campaign group. "It would be hugely difficult for any armed opposition to penetrate the area and launch such a deadly attack." The Arab League put off plans to expand the monitoring team, now about 165-strong, after pro-Assad demonstrators injured 11 monitors in the port of Latakia on Monday.
"REPUGNANT ACTIONS"
Malek's withering public criticism dealt a further blow to a mission that the Syrian authorities had long resisted.
"I resigned from the monitoring mission when it reached a dead end and I became certain that I was serving the Syrian regime, (which) was exploiting us for propaganda," he said. Malek, who is now in Qatar, said violence by security forces had continued unabated during his stay in Homs. "We were giving them cover to carry out the most repugnant actions, worse than was taking place before the monitors came," he said. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, who heads the Arab League committee on Syria, said doubts were growing about the effectiveness of the monitors. "I could not see up until now a successful mission, frankly speaking," he told a joint news conference with Clinton in Washington. "We hope we solve it, as we say, in the house of the Arabs, but right now the Syrian government is not helping us."
However, Algerian Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci said Assad's government had taken some actions to defuse the crisis, citing a withdrawal of heavy weapons from cities, the release of a few thousand prisoners and an opening up of the media. He acknowledged that all of these were incomplete responses to the terms of the Arab peace plan, but said it was the taking up of arms by the opposition that threatened wider violence.
"The feeling is that the government of Syria is in the process of making more of an effort, but the Arab League is especially having problems with the armed opposition," he said. Any admission that the monitoring mission has failed will pile pressure on the Arab League to refer Syria to the U.N. Security Council, although a Western diplomat there said Algeria, Iraq and Egypt were likely to oppose such a step. Western powers say Russia, a long-standing ally of Damascus, has blocked any tough moves by the council against Damascus and only a direct appeal by the league could shift Moscow's view.

Bomb hits south Lebanon liquor store
January 12, 2012/The Daily Star
SARAFAND, Lebanon: An explosion ripped through a liquor store in Sarafand, south Lebanon early Thursday morning, causing damage but no casualties, the third attack targeting places that sell alcohol since November.Security sources told The Daily Star the bomb, consisting of 500 grams of TNT, targeted Ali Ahmad Hamdan's store in Sarafand, on the highway between the southern coastal cities of Sidon and Tyre.The explosion, which occurred at 2:20 a.m., inflicted heavy damage to the store and shattered windows in five nearby shops. The attack is the third in as many months that have targeted places serving alcohol in the south. Last month, Tyros restaurant in Tyre was targeted while in November the city’s Queen Elissa Hotel and a nearby liquor store were the victims of a twin bomb attack. "This is a crime [wave]. It started in Tyre and now spread to Sarafand," Hamdan, the shop owner, told The Daily Star at the scene of the blast. "I will reopen soon after the damage has been repaired," he added. Hamdan did not accuse any group of being behind the blast, but called on Lebanese authorities to investigate the bomb attack and find the culprits as soon as possible.

EU demands probe into death of French journalist in Syria
January 11, 2012 /The European Union's top diplomat Catherine Ashton on Wednesday condemned the killing of French television journalist Gilles Jacquier in Syria and demanded a rapid investigation.
"The High Representative calls for a rapid investigation to clarify the circumstances leading to this tragedy," said a statement by Ashton's press office on the death of the France 2 reporter and others in the city of Homs.Jacquier is the first Western reporter to die in Syria since the anti-regime protests erupted in March."The Syrian authorities have a responsibility to guarantee the safety of journalists in their country," the statement said."The press must be allowed to carry out its vital role of providing independent information on events in Syria without fear of violence or repression."An AFP photographer at the scene said Jacquier died when a shell exploded amid a group of around 15 journalists covering demonstrations on a visit organized by the authorities.Several other people were reported wounded, including a Belgian journalist and a Dutch photographer. -AFP/NOW Lebanon

Geagea: Decisions should be in state’s hands
January 12, 2012 /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said on Thursday that a “real state” cannot be established if strategic decisions are not in the state’s hands, according to a statement issued by the LF.During a visit to the Notre Dame University, Geagea also said that the state should implement laws and protect citizens if they are subjected to foreign aggression.He also said that societies will be negatively affected if a wise policy is not adopted, adding that economy cannot improve amid the presence of statelets.
-NOW Lebanon

Amal slams killing of Iranian scientist, blames Israel
January 12, 2012/The Amal Movement slammed on Thursday the killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran and accused Israel of being behind the attack.“[Evil] Israeli hands are clearly behind this aggressive act,” Amal said in a statement.The party added that “this is a new crime that will be added to the series of Zionist terrorist acts that target the path of science and development.”
Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan died on Wednesday immediately in the blast outside a university campus in east Tehran. His driver and bodyguard also later died of his wounds, the Fars and ILNA news agencies reported. A third occupant of the Peugeot 405 was wounded and in hospital.The scientist specialized in making polymeric membranes to separate gas. Iran uses a gas separation method to enrich its uranium.
Tehran said Washington and Israel were responsible for the attack.-NOW Lebanon

Hezbollah slams “terrorist” killing of Iranian scientist
January 11, 2012 /Hezbollah slammed on Wednesday the “terrorist crime” that led to the killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist by a car bomb.“The assassination of the martyr, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, is a terrorist crime that targets a large scientific power that contributes to the progress of Iran,” Hezbollah said in a statement.The Shia group added that “such an operation comes as part of the western media’s attacks that target the Iranian nuclear program.”“This crime will not obstruct the Islamic Republic’s development path.”Roshan, 32, died immediately in the blast outside a university campus in East Tehran. His driver and bodyguard also later died of his wounds, the Fars and ILNA news agencies reported. A third occupant of the Peugeot 405 was wounded and is in hospital.The scientist specialized in making polymeric membranes to separate gas. Iran uses a gas separation method to enrich its uranium.Tehran said Washington and Israel were responsible for the attack. NOW Lebanon

Rai, Hezbollah officials meet
January 12, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai is currently holding a closed-door meeting with Hezbollah officials Thursday in Bkirki. Pro-Hezbollah newspaper Al-Akhbar said in an article published Thursday that Rai and a Hezbollah delegation would meet to launch dialogue between the Maronite Church and the resistance party. The newspaper also said that the two parties will discuss the issue of arms, which has been contested by the March 14 coalition as falling outside the jurisdiction of the state. Rai has escalated his demand for the international community to implement U.N. resolutions related to the conflict between Lebanon and Israel in order to deny Hezbollah the pretext to maintain its weapons. Hezbollah has said that its possession of arms is the only means to defend Lebanon from repeated Israeli aggression. It has also praised the tripartite formula of the “people, army, and resistance” as the only eligible defense strategy, as supported by a number of top officials in the country. The patriarch and a Hezbollah delegation met on Jan. 2 when Hezbollah warned that the unrest in Syria might affect Lebanon. Since his appointment last year Rai has reached out to Hezbollah, setting a different approach to his predecessor, former Patriarch Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, who repeatedly criticized Hezbollah's arms and voiced support for the March 14 party

Fatfat asks Ghosn to deploy army along border with Syria
January 12, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Future Movement MP Ahmad Fatfat asked Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn Thursday to deploy the Lebanese Army along the border with Syria, adding that Ghosn’s statement regarding the presence of Al-Qaeda in Lebanon hurt tourism. “I request that you deploy the army along the Lebanon-Syria border,” Fatfat was quoted by local media as saying, adding that his party has been calling for the demarcation of the border with Syria but to no avail. The Lebanese and Syrian armies have intensified their presence on the border since the uprising in neighboring Syria began last year in a bid to control illegal activity along the poorly demarcated boundary between the two countries. The deployment has slowed the flow of Syrian refugees into Lebanon. Fatfat’s request for further deployment comes after the defense minister said there were members of Al-Qaeda in Lebanon under the guise of Syrian opposition members in the northern town of Arsal. Ghosn’s statement sparked a nationwide controversy with the Future Movement accusing him of targeting Arsal because of its majority Sunni community. Fatfat Thursday also slammed Ghosn’s statement, saying they had hurt the country’s economy which heavily depends on tourism, adding that his statement served the interest of the Syrian regime. Syria has blamed “armed gangs” and sometimes Al-Qaeda for several attacks against its security and police forces which Damascus says has resulted in the death of around 2,000 of its personnel.“Since 2005 we have been calling for the demarcation of the border with Syria and the Syrian authorities declined in order to carry out their financial and arms smuggling operations, and today the tables have turned,” Fatfat said.

U.S. expresses concerns over impact of Syria crisis on Lebanon
January 11, 2012 04:25 PM The Daily Star
BEIRUT: U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly expressed during a meeting with Prime Minister Najib Mikati Wednesday her government’s hope that the crisis in Syria, now in its tenth month, would not contribute to instability in Lebanon. “She [Connelly] underscored U.S. concerns that developments in Syria not contribute to instability in Lebanon,” a U.S. Embassy statement said.
During the meeting at the Grand Serail in Beirut Connelly and Mikati discussed the situation in Syria as well the political and security situation in the country.
“She renewed the commitment of the United States to a stable, sovereign and independent Lebanon,” the statement added.

Reform Party of Syria
Assad Torturing Toddlers, Syrians Blame the Arab League
Farid Ghadry Blog
The video below, taken on January 10, 2012, shows a dead 4-month old girl toddler named Afaf Mahmoud Salaki with torture marks on her back. She and her mother travelled to Tartous, a region controlled by the Shabeeha. The toddler was returned to her father but the mother is still missing.
The men commenting in the video curse the Assad regime but they also curse the Arab League and its leadership. This is a new phenomenon in the Arab world of a street getting smarter about how touchable these men are. The west should be very concerned about this new Arab anger that may look aimless today but may morph into a new and unpredictable threat. Support of despotic and corrupt regimes is not the answer. Syrians are divided into two recipients-of-information groups today: The YouTube generation and, those unable to YouTube, the al-Jazeera generation. Both have tremendous effect on public opinion but more so the You Tubers because of the average age of Arab youths (In Syria, it stands at 21).
The above video was watched on YouTube over 17,000 times. But unlike in the west where one million hits happen in the comfort of one's home and a video is completely watched, 17,000 hits in the Arab world is misleading. Why? Because viewers watch long enough to understand but stop short of finishing in the hope systems monitoring their precise Internet page visits will be unable to score that visit. It's a natural response to the mechanism of police states.
Often, they also stop watching because of the horrors they see before their eyes. A tortured 4-month toddler is not exactly a rock concert.
The effect of the YouTube generation is still making its mark. No Arab government can control that generation and it is a question of time before al-Jazeera loses its grip the way many news programming in developed nations are losing their readerships and viewers to Blogs and Internet news outlets controlled by their peers.

Do discard the ‘resistance axis’ hoax
January 12, 2012/By Michael Young/The Daily Star
This past week several British parliamentarians were in Beirut to learn more about the situation in Lebanon and Syria. They met with politicians, academics and journalists, and an argument they took home with them was particularly intriguing. It pertains to what has become known in the West as the “resistance axis.”
As a parliamentarian put it to me, they had heard from one of those with whom they chatted not to underestimate the solidarity between members of the “resistance axis” – mainly Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas – and the intensity of the ideological principles uniting them. With Syrian President Bashar Assad facing an existential threat to his rule, his fellow “resisters” would ride forcefully to his aid.
So, what did I think of this view?
Certainly, I replied, Iran and Hezbollah have bolstered Assad and his acolytes, and will continue to do so as they slaughter their own population. They may be preparing for the possibility of Assad’s downfall, but they are also doing everything to ensure that repression succeeds. Yet rather than representing a common culture of “resistance,” this team spirit merely reflects parallel interests. At the leadership level, the alleged moral underpinning defining “resistance” is secondary.
The notion of a “resistance axis” has been a casualty of the revolts in the Arab world. Using the term displays willful blindness to what has taken place during the past year. Resistance, the way the word is currently understood in the Arab world, implies resistance to injustice and hegemony, principally imposed by the United States and Israel. Yet when Iran and Syria, pillars of the axis, have been at the vanguard in violently and unjustly suppressing freedoms at home, the term “resistance axis” elicits only laughter. And yet there are people who need to keep the term alive, with its moral implications, because their professional agenda is invested in its being taken seriously.
The most prominent of these is Alastair Crooke. He is a former MI6 agent who heads Conflicts Forum in Beirut, which promotes dialogue between the West and Islamist groups. However, Crooke has become less a mediator between the two sides than an interpreter, advocate and relayer of the Islamists’ messages to the West, above all those of Hezbollah. This drift into partisanship has pushed Crooke to take positions in defense of the Assad regime that have exposed him to ridicule, as when he wrote in Asia Times last July that “Syrians also believe that President Bashar al-Assad shares their conviction for reform” and that there is “no credible ‘other’ that could bring reform.”
Lebanon has also attracted inferior knock-offs of Crooke, but their message is similar and their attitude toward the carnage in Syria as mercenary and inexcusable. They realize that with Assad facing a popular uprising, the conceptual edifice that they have spent years building up is about to collapse. The only thing that can save them is for the Syrian leader to prevail. That is why they have hemmed and hawed on Syria, when they have mentioned it at all, admitting to the regime’s brutality before tossing in caveats playing down such behavior, showing how unnerved they are with the prospect that they may lose a rationale to fund their enterprises.
Why is the conceptual edifice of Crooke and his imitators in danger? The Arab revolts have already brought Islamists to power through democratic means in Egypt and Tunisia. If Assad goes, two things risk happening in Syria: the Muslim Brotherhood will enter the political mainstream, even if it is unlikely to replicate the successes of its brethren in Egypt; and Hezbollah’s regional star will rapidly dim, as a majority of Syrians turn against the party for supporting Assad.
Both dynamics are problematic for would-be mediators like Crooke. The legitimization of Islamist parties through elections has forced Western governments to seriously contemplate dealing with them directly, without passing through non-governmental organizations. And if Hezbollah is perceived in the West as being weaker, there will be far less of an impetus to sponsor dialogue initiatives with the party, and far more to push for Hezbollah’s marginalization. That won’t happen quickly, so those like Crooke will still hold a job for awhile; but it will be principally a cleaning up job, because the profitable nexus that they have hitherto depended upon, that of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas – the “resistance axis” – will be no more.
How odd that proponents of the “resistance axis” have failed lately to feed Hamas into their equation. Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, has found it tricky to stand with Assad against the Syrian Brotherhood. From the moment the prominent cleric Sheikh Yusif al-Qaradawi declared last March that the train of revolution had reached Syria, it was apparent that Hamas would one day have to make a choice. It has delayed doing so, but with Assad calling the Syrian Brotherhood “brothers of Satan” in a speech on Tuesday, a pillar of the resistance coalition may be nearing disintegration.
The template of those peddling a “resistance axis” line is the same as the one highlighting the perils of Western neo-imperialism in the Middle East, with its Arab nationalist pedigree. In the name of the struggle against Israel and neo-imperialism, Arab societies were turned into leviathans of subjugation. Yet the overriding message in the Arab revolts is that Arab populations, whatever their outlook toward the outside, now want their domestic tribulations to be given priority.
No fantasy of a “resistance axis” can survive in such an atmosphere. Resistance against whom? On whose behalf? Arabs want to resist the cruelty of their own leaders, to secure their future as free citizens and that of their children. Opportunists flogging schemes that ultimately benefit the tyrants will not convince the Arabs otherwise.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR and author of “The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle.” He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Mansour: Libya Promised to Speed up Probe into Fate of Moussa al-Sadr
by Naharnet /
Libya is probing the mysterious disappearance of revered Lebanese Shiite Imam Moussa al-Sadr who went missing in Tripoli 33 years ago, Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour told reporters on Thursday.
"The investigation is on... there is a commission of inquiry chaired by the Libyan attorney general" which is probing the case, Mansour said after meeting Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the head of Libya's ruling National Transitional Council (NTC).
"We agreed to have follow-ups between Lebanese and Libyans, and there will be a judge representing the Lebanese side, Hassan al-Shami, to follow the issue and arrive at a positive outcome."
Mansour said that Libyan officials had given assurances about "speeding up the work" in the case.
Mansour, heading a Lebanese delegation, arrived on Wednesday in Tripoli to discuss the case of al-Sadr in the first visit to Libya by a Lebanese diplomat in more than 30 years.
Sadr, a charismatic and revered Shiite spiritual leader, had been officially invited to Libya in 1978 during the rule of Moammar Gadhafi along with an aide and a journalist.
But the three men have not been heard of since and Tripoli had always maintained that the cleric had left Libya for Italy.
Since the mysterious disappearance of Sadr, ties between Libya and Lebanon have been strained.
"The shadow of this case has hung over bilateral relations between Lebanon and Libya for more than 33 years," said Mansour.
"We want to turn this black page and establish fraternal and constructive bilateral relations and that is why it is of great importance that we reveal the truth" about the case, he added.
On Wednesday, NTC member Fathi Baja said the NTC was ready to form a joint commission with the Lebanese to investigate what happened to Sadr, but that so far Abdel Jalil and other Libyan officials had no information about the circumstances of his disappearance.
He said some clues of the case could possibly be found in files obtained by the new rulers which belonged to the intelligence, foreign affairs and police authorities of the ousted Gadhafi regime.
Baja also dismissed recent reports that Sadr had died of natural causes in a prison cell in 1998.
A Gadhafi aide, Ahmed Ramadan, had previously said on television that Sadr was "liquidated" after he met the former strongman in Tripoli in 1978.
Sadr's trip to Libya was aimed at negotiating an end to Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war.
The Iranian-born cleric arrived in Tripoli on August 25, 1978, with two companions Sheikh Mohammed Yacoub and journalist Abbas Badreddin. They were seen for the last time on August 31, 1978.
His disappearance had been a source of tension between Lebanon and the Gadhafi regime, which was ousted late last year following an eight-month armed uprising.
Source/Agence France Presse.

Assad finds his margin to maneuver
Tony Badran , January 12, 2012 /Now Lebanon
One of the more curious things about Bashar al-Assad’s latest rambling speech on Tuesday was his aggressive and typically condescending attack against his Gulf Arab foes. Coming 10 days before the Arab League monitoring mission is due to file its report, the timing of the Syrian dictator’s tirade was noteworthy. It seems that Assad, recognizing the divisions within the League’s ranks, estimated that the Arab body is paralyzed to move against him. With the international community equally immobilized, Assad is convinced he has a margin to maneuver.
What has allowed for Assad’s triumphalist posturing has been Russia’s unwavering support at the UN Security Council. With Moscow’s help, Assad succeeded in freezing the earlier momentum of the Arab camp, spearheaded by Qatar, which had been pushing to refer the Syrian case to the Security Council. Furthermore, having exacerbated Arab divisions by agreeing to the monitor mission, Assad is confident that there will be no consensus at the League to push for international action.
The Obama administration, meanwhile, is waiting for the monitors’ report before determining how to proceed. Leaks have emerged about the options the administration is mulling, and those continue to revolve mainly around plans for a strong Security Council resolution. However, this option remains unlikely in the near future, given the likelihood of continued Russian resistance. In other words, there seems to be nothing drastic on the horizon that would change the existing dynamic in Syria.
What has been remarkable about the administration’s policy is its apparent failure to anticipate the current quandary. In looking for the Arab League to assume leadership, Washington badly misread Arab dynamics. In that sense, betting so much on the Arab initiative was effectively a self-laid trap, of which Russia took full advantage.
The result of this approach has been to cede the initiative to the Russians. One thing Moscow has apparently tried to do is sponsor a national-unity government bringing together Assad and elements of the opposition, namely the National Coordination Body (NCB) led by Haitham Mannaa. This plan had Iranian support as well, as Tehran had reached out to Mannaa months ago.
This proposal was the other notable thing Assad referenced in his speech. While claiming openness to dialogue with the opposition, Assad set out to define his interlocutors and the terms of the dialogue. On the one hand, he rejected dialogue with an opposition “that sits in [foreign] embassies” – a reference to the Syrian National Council (SNC). On the other hand, Assad added, “We don’t want an opposition that talks to us in secret, so as not to upset anyone.”
The latter reference was to the NCB. In order not to discredit themselves, Mannaa and the NCB hid behind the Arab League initiative’s call for a national dialogue, and for a unified opposition, which Mannaa wanted to become the body that dialogues with the regime over the transitional period, as he told LBCI on Tuesday.
Assad wanted to corner the NCB into either entering into dialogue on the regime’s terms, or to push it to reject dialogue, thereby shifting the blame onto it. Indeed, following the speech, an NCB spokesperson rejected participating in a dialogue, let alone a joint government, with the regime before it ends all violence and detentions, releases all political prisoners, and allows peaceful protests – none of which will happen, of course.
Moreover, it’s possible that Assad also sought to impose his terms on the Russian initiative. Rejecting the moniker “national-unity government,” he instead called for an “expanded” government that would include oppositionists, alongside technocrats, loyalists and “independents.” In other words, Assad will not even allow for parity between him and the opposition. With Moscow’s proclivity to criticize the opposition’s supposed rigidity, the Syrian president may well figure that the Russians might continue to pressure the NCB. Either way, he buys more time.
It is obvious then that Assad still believes he can set the parameters of any initiative – as he continues to strike the protest movement “with an iron fist.” This cockiness is typical for Assad, but such tactics are also all he’s got. Furthermore, with the US still shying away from real leadership, the vacuum is being filled with such problematic proposals that only provide Assad with more time to act with impunity.
In the end, what is most alarming is the fact that the Obama administration continues not to advance a serious policy option. It also seems unsure how to proceed following the crashing failure of the Arab League initiative on which it had banked.
Having allowed others to call the shots, Washington has wasted time and must now operate in an even messier context. This all but ensures that the situation in Syria will get a lot worse, as Assad, playing a zero-sum game, feels he has little to fear in terms of active intervention to stop him.
**Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He tweets @AcrossTheBay.

Nuclear Deterrence For A Nuclear-Armed Iran,The U.S./GCC Dilemma
Sabahat Khan, Senior Analyst, INEGMA
January 12, 2012
Following the political fall-out between Washington and its Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) allies after the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, relations between the GCC bloc, in particular Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. have recovered – largely driven by the necessity of the multi-dimensional security challenge Iran has come to posit. The rise of Iran – in part catapulted by the United States-led wars in Afghanistan and in particular Iraq, and the growth in status of proxy groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas – has presented a number of capitals in the GCC (some more so, admittedly, than others) with a renewed set of mutual interests to drive relations with Washington forward for potentially the next two decades. At the pinnacle of mutually shared security threats between the U.S. and GCC states are the suspected activities of Iran to enrich uranium to weapons-grade and then 'weaponize' the fissile material, closely followed by the increasingly sophisticated growing Iranian cruise and ballistic missile arsenals.
While remaining imbued with considerable ambiguities, the idea of a defense umbrella to GCC allies floated by U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in fall 2009 has unavoidably carried undertones of Cold War-era 'extended deterrence' strategies – especially in the event Iran makes a breakthrough as a nuclear weapons state. The concept of 'extended deterrence' is traced back to the Cold War when the U.S. and the Soviet Union declared their willingness employ their nuclear arsenals for the protection of allies. What 'category' of a defense umbrella the U.S. could extend to its GCC allies remains unclear. For example, would such a defense umbrella be framed within bilateral or multilateral arrangements, and would it be designed only to offer GCC allies a defensive missile shield with deployed in-theater U.S. military assets? Or, would the United States' umbrella go as far as extended deterrence whereby a potential nuclear attack on GCC allies by Iran would be met with Washington retaliating in kind?
Extended deterrence for GCC allies could simultaneously serve two core long-term policy objectives for Washington: Firstly, to support the security of indispensable energy partners in the GCC, and; Secondly, to offer an convincing alternative to GCC states that could consider their own nuclear weapons programs if Iran became a nuclear armed state. For now, however, it can be presumed on the basis of prevailing policy position that the U.S. will extend its military assets only in support of what could eventually evolve into an integrated regional air and missile defense shield against Iranian air and missile capabilities. To enable such, Washington would authorize – as it already is – sales of modern air defense systems such as the PAC-3 and THAAD systems, simultaneously with advanced weapons sales – also as it has already declared – to bolster GCC counterforce capabilities for offensive operations. At another level, presumably, Washington would entertain some tacit understanding to either lead or support military operations against Iran if it chose to attack GCC states, or destabilize them beyond a level of tolerability.
However, the posture outlined above only looks at dealing with Iran as a conventional power: The acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran could render a defense umbrella for GCC states redundant in the absence of a nuclear deterrent – prompting GCC states to consider their own. It is entirely conceivable if not increasingly certain that a GCC state or the GCC bloc would feel compelled to develop an indigenous nuclear deterrent. So it becomes necessary to consider at least in theory the possibility of a U.S. extended deterrence to GCC allies – firstly, as means to protect GCC allies, and secondly, as a strategy to contain a regional nuclear arms race.
Assuming the United States did eventually offer extended deterrence to GCC states, a number of important questions arise: The biggest ask where the U.S. would deploy its nuclear arsenal, how quantitatively large any such deployment would be, and – crucially – how much, if any, control GCC states party to such an arrangement would have. The latter presents several more questions – for example, where would the United States' nuclear deterrent be positioned within either individual command and control structures for GCC states, or within an as-yet-unrealized regional command and control structure? If the nuclear deterrent was in the form of air-to-ground bombs deliverable by aircraft, who would be assigned to deliver them? Alternatively, if the deterrent was in the form of ground-launched missiles, would their launch be automated (and to what degree) or not in retaliation to a nuclear attack – and who would take responsibility in the event of miscalculation?
Indeed, any extended deterrence for the GCC would need to be deployed in-theater (i.e., on GCC territory), for nuclear missiles housed on U.S. aircraft carriers or naval ships would be exposed to unnecessary and potentially untenable risks – and for now no known submarine bases exist anywhere on the peninsula. However, even the deployment of U.S. submarines with nuclear weapons could create problems with regards to the balance of power between the U.S. and Russia, and increasingly, China – the implications of which could be an even more dangerous regional arms build-up than what Iran threatens by itself. Within that backdrop, it is almost certain that GCC states would want some level of control over U.S. nuclear weapons deployed on their territories – this could in fact be an essential element of any U.S. efforts to convince GCC states to voluntarily forgo efforts to launch their own nuclear weapons programs.
The idea of some level of joint control of deployed U.S. nuclear weapons seems feasible at least in theory – and perhaps the most useful model to contrast the possibility of such is the current NATO arrangement with Turkey. Under a decades-old Cold War-era NATO arrangement, Turkey still hosts as many as 90 B61 gravity bombs that can be delivered with F-16 jets at its Incirlik Air Base (IAB). Reportedly, U.S. pilots are assigned to deliver 50 of the 90 B61 bombs stored at IAB, and the rest are assigned for delivery by the Turkish Air Force. Similarly, the U.S. keeps upwards of 100 nuclear bombs at NATO bases in Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, and Italy. One particular feature in the Turkish arrangement may however be unacceptable to GCC states – that there is no permanent deployment of a nuclear-capable F-16 wing at IAB (only the B61 gravity bombs here are permanently stored).
Yet, even if the U.S. came around, firstly, to extended deterrence for GCC allies, and second, to some level of joint control for it, further obstacles remain in a workable long term arrangement. For instance, assuming Iran acquired a nuclear weapons capability and then, having acquired a capable modern air defense system such as future variants of the Russian-made S-400, begun stockpiling an unlimited number of nuclear warheads – would a presumed U.S. extended deterrence meet the threat of an expanding Iranian nuclear arsenal with some degree of quantitative parity? And as we are exploring future scenarios – would an implosion of the Islamic regime in Iran and its replacement with a democratic, pro-Western regime that, for instance, halts its nuclear weapons production but does not entirely disassemble its arsenal, prompt the U.S. to review and possibly withdraw its extended deterrence to GCC allies, in part or principle?
GCC states cannot entirely discount the possibility of a paradigm shift in the center of gravity for political power in Iran profoundly impacting their own relationships with Washington, reducing their dispensability to overarching U.S. interests and potentially leaving them isolated in fifteen years from now. GCC states look back to 1960s and 1970s when Washington was helping build its regional policeman under the Shah of Iran, much to the discomfort of Arabian Gulf states. Ironically, there are high-up circles in the GCC that have already subscribed to the belief that the potential nuclear weapons breakthrough of Iran is a Western conspiracy to undermine the Sunni Arabs. The issue here is about whether Saudi Arabia or GCC states would ever be prepared to live in the shadow of a nuclear-armed Iran per se, regardless of the nature of its government. Thus even an extended deterrence for GCC allies – while offering them a sense of protection, and an important one – may not be sustainable as a long-term substitute to dissuade all GCC states from exploring the feasibility of a national nuclear deterrent.
Some analysts feel that the development of a nuclear weapons capability would be too costly and draining on national resources for a nation like Saudi Arabia, for example – and combined with the likelihood of defying the U.S., which could fundamentally jeopardize the single most important strategic security relationship Riyadh has, the Saudis would be unlikely to pursue nuclear weapons capability. Similar arguments are made for the UAE – the next GCC state with theoretical weight to be able to embark on such an effort – which has become the first GCC state to launch a civilian nuclear program, poised to set new benchmarks for international safeguards and transparency. However, while such analyses may hold some weight, they represent an "outside-in" look into the security perceptions of Saudi Arabia rather than how the Saudis themselves – and indeed their GCC partners – view regional nuclear weapons proliferation, and feel compelled to channel their national and collective powers to counter the looming threat of nuclear weapons from what is perceived to be an interventionist and aggressive regional force. Quietly, some observers look at the closeness of Saudi-Pakistani bilateral relations – exemplified by historical Saudi support for Pakistan's nuclear program – to consider the possibility of Pakistan deploying part of its own arsenal in the kingdom.
Some time ago the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas M. Freeman, noted that "[S]enior Saudi officials have said privately that, if and when Iran acknowledges having, or is discovered to have, actual nuclear warheads, Saudi Arabia would feel compelled to acquire a deterrent stockpile." In fall 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal – a U.S.-educated former Saudi intelligence chief and former Saudi envoy to the U.S. – declared in an unofficial capacity that the leadership of Saudi Arabia has a "duty" to its people to look into "all options we are given, including obtaining these weapons ourselves" if "the efforts of the world community, fail to convince Israel to shed its weapons of mass destruction and to prevent Iran from obtaining similar weapons." Although Prince Turki's remarks were made in a personal capacity to not reflect official policy, it should be noted that the remarks by Prince Turki – once a champion of a nuclear-free Middle East – suggest not only that a regional nuclear arms race is a real possibility in the event of a nuclear-armed Iran, but that even moderates are accepting its inevitability.
Any U.S. extended deterrence for the GCC remains only a conceptual exercise – but could feature as a future add-on to a "defense umbrella" which for now only focuses on combining advanced air and missile defense and GCC counterforce capabilities. GCC states have been working away at upgrading missile defense capabilities, and hope with renewed energies a regional integrated air and missile defense architecture can be realized within the decade. For that to happen, GCC states will need continued U.S. support – operationally, at least in the short-term, and technologically much longer. How dependency on the U.S. for defense needs would affect the self-drive of a state like Saudi Arabia or the UAE to consider a nuclear weapons capability if Iran acquired such remains unclear. Although the U.S. could in theory threaten withdrawal from regional air and missile defense set-ups – either by refusing to take part in or ultimately suspending sales of its missile defense systems – it may be reluctant to take such measures. Ultimately, in the prevailing environment, Washington could pay a much heavier price by deserting regional forces that are friendly to its greater interests, paving the way for competing powers to capitalize on a vacuum any U.S. retreat from longstanding relationships with GCC allies could create.