LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 04/2012

Bible Quotation for today/Holy
Saint Luke 8,40-56.
Now when Jesus returned, the crowd welcomed him, for they were all waiting for him. Just then there came a man named Jairus, a leader of the synagogue. He fell at Jesus’ feet and begged him to come to his house, for he had an only daughter, about twelve years old, who was dying. As he went, the crowds pressed in on him. Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years; and though she had spent all she had on physicians, no one could cure her. She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his clothes, and immediately her haemorrhage stopped. Then Jesus asked, ‘Who touched me?’ When all denied it, Peter said, ‘Master, the crowds surround you and press in on you.’But Jesus said, ‘Someone touched me; for I noticed that power had gone out from me.’ When the woman saw that she could not remain hidden, she came trembling; and falling down before him, she declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.’
While he was still speaking, someone came from the leader’s house to say, ‘Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the teacher any longer.’ When Jesus heard this, he replied, ‘Do not fear. Only believe, and she will be saved.’ When he came to the house, he did not allow anyone to enter with him, except Peter, John, and James, and the child’s father and mother. They were all weeping and wailing for her; but he said, ‘Do not weep; for she is not dead but sleeping.’And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. But he took her by the hand and called out, ‘Child, get up!’ Her spirit returned, and she got up at once. Then he directed them to give her something to eat. Her parents were astounded; but he ordered them to tell no one what had happened.

 

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
The Obama administration has essentially acquiesced to a nuclear Iran/By Robert Joseph/March 03/12
Iran: between regime change and change within the regime/By Amir Taheri/March 03/12
The Iranian spring is inevitable/By Diana Mukkaled/March 03/12
The Syrian crisis: caught between Western-Russian bickering and Israeli calculations/By Osman Mirghani/March 03/12
Aoun-goals, day after day/By: Michael Young/March 3/12
Ahmad al-Asir/By: Hazem al-Amin/March 3/12
Resisting history/By: Alex Rowell/March 03/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March 03/12
Obama cautions against “a premature attack” on Iran, rejects red lines
Obama: Israel knows that U.S. isn't bluffing on action against Iran
Netanyahu and Obama play high-stakes poker over Iran
Netanyahu warns against diplomatic path with Iran
Netanyahu says he won't set 'red lines' for action on Iran
Netanyahu: Israel reserves the right to defend itself against Iran
Netanyahu faces a tough decision should Obama not give him a green light on Iran
Peres: Obama is a great president, security ties are 'the best we’ve ever had'
Canada wants 'peaceful resolution' on Iran
Talk of Israel strike on Iran soars but is it bluff?
Israel pre-announces missile test to stem Iran war fears
Khamenei's outlook dims hope for Iran nuclear deal
Incidents suggest Israel-Iran 'cold war' intensifying
France to shut Syria embassy, awaits U.N. mandate to act
Russian bank shuts down accounts of Iran embassy staff
U.K.’s Cameron: Day of reckoning is coming for Assad regime
Scorched earth tactics ravage Homs
Ban Ki-moon condemns atrocities in Homs, calls Assad to allow ICRC into Homs
Syria prevents Red Cross from entering embattled Homs district
Lieberman: Israel ready to provide aid to wounded Syrians
Lebanon's March 14 threatens boycott if spending draft law not discussed
Lebanese Authorities scramble to avert clash over anti-Assad protest
Envoy defends Russia’s stance at U.N.
STL prosecution seeking to amend indictment
Preacher holds Nasrallah responsible for safety of Sunday protest
Khamenei supporters likely winners in Iran elections
Mufti criticizes Baalbek kidnapping  
Maronite patriarchate’s new website now online

Obama cautions against “a premature attack” on Iran, rejects red lines
DEBKAfile Special Report March 2, 2012/In a widely reported interview to The Atlantic Friday, March 2, US President Barack Obama held to the line which he claimed “the Israelis share” that “Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time…” debkafile: This assessment is certainly not shared by the Israelis. In a New York Times article published Thursday, former Israel Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin wrote:
“Asking Israel's leaders to abide by America's timetable, and hence allowing Israel's window of opportunity to be closed, is to make Washington a de facto proxy for Israel's security - a tremendous leap of faith for Israelis faced with a looming Iranian bomb.”The two views represent the crux of the fundamental disagreement between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu three days before they meet at the White House on how and when to stop Iran going nuclear. When Obama stressed: “I don’t bluff …When the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say,” he was stating that his policy on Iran remain unchanged ahead of that meeting. He went on to reiterate the effectiveness of diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions on Iran’s regime. In recent days, senior US officers and Pentagon sources were enlisted to aim tough talk at Iranian ears and tell Israelis the administration was committed to their security and making available the military means for demolishing the Iranian nuclear threat. This was an exercise to soften up Israeli and Jewish opinion ahead of the president’s Atlantic interview and his negation of the Israeli government’s positions. The interview told Israel and the 14,000 delegates attending the AIPAC convention opening in Washington Sunday, March 4, not to expect President Obama’s speech to augur any shift in America’s Iran policy. When Obama said “I think the Israeli people understand it,” in reference to the refrain “all options are on the table,” he ignored the widening gap between his take on the state of Iran’s nuclear program and the conclusions reached by Israel’s political, military and intelligence leaders and experts. The Israeli view was laid out clearly by Yadlin when he wrote, “That moment of decision will occur when Iran is on the verge of shielding its nuclear facilities from a successful attack – what Israel’s leaders have called the zone of immunity.”
debkafile’s military and intelligence sources note that not only Israel, but US intelligence and the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, are convinced that Iran is already in the second stage and possibly the third of its operation to shielding its nuclear facilities in one or more zones of immunity. This ominous development is ignored in the US president’s interview.
Israel knows that the US had the means to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities even when they are buried in “zones of immunity.” Israel lacks those means.
When he declared, “The Israeli people understand that the United States isn’t bluffing when it says ‘all options are on the table,’” Obama no doubt recalled the disagreement with Netanyahu going back six months when the Israeli prime minister asked him privately on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly to lay down a US-Israeli consensus on red lines for Iran’s nuclear program, beyond which the US President would be committed to strike Iran. In return, Israel would promise to refrain from attacking Iran and follow America’s lead on the issue.
The US president turned him down. Israel has not relinquished its position, which Yadlin put very clearly: “What is needed is an ironclad American assurance that if Israel refrains from acting in its own window of opportunity - and all other options have failed to halt Tehran's nuclear quest - Washington will act to prevent a nuclear Iran while it is still within its power to do so.”
The absence of that American assurance is keeping Israel from a commitment to refrain from attacking Iran notwithstanding all the verbal ammunition thrown at its government from Washington.

Netanyahu faces a tough decision should Obama not give him a green light on Iran
By Yossi Verter/Haaretz
How the United States would act were Israel to disregard its position is impossible to determine. In this respect, the decision that Netanyahu must make is much tougher than what faced Olmert in summer 2007. The prevailing view is that at the summit meeting in Washington on Monday, the cards will be put on the table. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will beseech U.S. President Barack Obama to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, or at least make a credible threat to strike them. If Obama turns him down, Netanyahu - who waxes effusively in interviews about his loneliness as a leader - will leave the White House as the loneliest person in the world.
Apart from Netanyahu, only one person alive in Israel today has experienced firsthand the excruciating dilemma of reaching a similarly weighty, life-or-death decision: Ehud Olmert, Netanyahu's predecessor as premier. According to memoirs (including those of former President George W. Bush, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ), Olmert went to the White House in June 2007. This was not a routine visit. At the time, nobody knew that Olmert had demanded of Bush that the United States destroy the nuclear reactor in Syria, whose existence had been discovered a few months earlier, hidden in the desert. Israeli officials possessed information suggesting that the reactor would become operational by the autumn. Rice thought the reactor's existence should be disclosed to the world, and that a campaign of economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure ought to be launched. Vice President Dick Cheney supported Olmert's position. Bush equivocated. Olmert returned empty-handed to Israel.
A few weeks after the White House meeting, Bush and Olmert talked on the phone. According to the president's memoirs, Bush informed Olmert in this conversation that he had now taken Rice's side on the question. The United States, he said, could not attack a sovereign country without the recommendation of the intelligence branches. At the time, America's intelligence organizations were unable to corroborate Israel's feeling that the reactor was close to being operational. Bush proposed that Rice leave immediately for Israel, and that she stage a joint press conference with Olmert in which the two would disclose the reactor's existence to the world.
Bush's advisers told Olmert's aides that Olmert had said to the president, "Your strategy is very disturbing to me. I will act on the basis of Israel's national interest" - whereupon the president apparently turned to his aides and said, "Do you see why I like that guy? He has balls." In his book Bush writes that Olmert did not ask for a green light for the Israeli strike which, according to foreign sources, it apparently carried out on September 6, 2007. And Olmert never obtained such a green light.
The risks were staggering. Syria could have declared war in response to the aerial raid. Under such a scenario, Hezbollah would probably have joined forces with Damascus. The entire region was in danger of conflagration.
Yet, nothing happened. Olmert's gamble paid off.
Now, as then, an existential threat is posed to the State of Israel. Now, as then, Israel's prime minister demands of the U.S. president that he act to remove the threat facing Israel. Now, as then, American intelligence forces are not persuaded that circumstances warrant a military act. Now, as then, Israel is liable to find itself in a corner, alone, defended only by its own capabilities. Now, as then, it is clear that no Israeli prime minister will ask for advance authorization from the American head of state for a strike, and that no U.S. president would give his approval for such an operation at this time.
There are also differences. In the Syrian case, the reactor was a secret. Today, everything is out in the open. Today, the price that Israel and the world are liable to pay for such a military strike - a wide-ranging war, international terror strikes, elevated oil prices - is much higher, in view of Iran's capabilities.
But the most significant difference is the lack of mutual trust between the two country's leaders. Bush and Olmert enjoyed a rare relationship of congeniality and mutual respect. Had something gone wrong, America would presumably have come to Israel's assistance, even though it never signaled a green light. Olmert knew this was the case.
No such trust and respect binds Netanyahu and Obama. How the United States would act were Israel to disregard its position is impossible to determine. In this respect, the decision that Netanyahu must make is much tougher than what faced Olmert in summer 2007.
'It's a black hole'
"Nobody understands Histadrut politics," opines MK Eitan Cabel (Labor ), a self-appointed candidate for the position of chairman of the Histadrut labor federation. "There's nothing like it, certainly not national politics. People think they know what's going on at the Histadrut, but they haven't got a clue. It's a black hole. Had I not served as Labor Party secretary in the past, I also wouldn't have a clue. Nobody can imagine the depth of the corruption, violence and aggressiveness. Who knows that 70 percent of its members do not come out to vote in elections? Or that the remaining 30 percent who do vote are, by and large, organized? I'm trying to reach the 70 percent. If I succeed in bringing some of these people out to vote, I've done my part."
Relying on some peculiar arguments, the Histadrut labor federation's election committee this week disqualified both Amir Peretz and Cabel as candidates. Next week, the controversy over their candidacies will be decided, one way or another. Should Cabel be deemed eligible, Peretz says he will withdraw his candidacy and proffer his support to him. Cabel believes he can get people to leave their homes and cast ballots, mainly because he is totally unlike current Histadrut head Ofer Eini, and all that Eini represents. Cabel also hints that he views himself as being quite unlike all that Peretz represents.
Should Peretz be deemed eligible, and Cabel remain ineligible, Peretz will keep his hat in the ring. Should both remain disqualified, the Histadrut chairman elections will resemble, not for the first time, referenda in Syria, such as the one staged this week.
A theory took hold this week in the political arena and in Histadrut circles: Peretz wants to run for the Histadrut slot not because he really wants to head the labor federation. He's looking ahead to the next Knesset election campaign. Suppose he does not oust Eini, but his Otzma faction wins 20 percent or 30 percent of the Histadrut vote. Such an achievement would bring to his own coffers more than NIS 10 million. And where there is money and there's a faction - there is a basis for the formation of a new party. With a party of his own, Peretz would not be dependent upon Labor chair Shelly Yachimovich. That would help Peretz, should he discern that Yachimovich is taking steps to liquidate him politically in primaries for the selection of Labor's next Knesset list.
It's a gas
Ehud Barak likes to quote something Ariel Sharon told him during Barak's first days in politics: "When we fought on the battlefield, whoever was lost, was gone, forever. On the political battlefield, you read day after day that this person or that person is gone, that his career is over, that he's taken a mortal blow. But you always see the same exact people around you."
Once again, Netanyahu faces a dilemma: Should he come across as a serial capitulator, this time with regard to gas prices, and do the right thing, by making life a bit easier for Israeli drivers? He's chosen a unique policy path: He isn't capitulating and he isn't making anyone's life easier. As always, his decision was reached at the last minute.
For a week, discussions have been held at the Prime Minister's Office, in an effort to do something about the unprecedented prices at the gas pumps. PMO director general Harel Locker was given the assignment of devising a solution; he failed. Meanwhile, public pressure mounted, along with media reports and rumblings evinced by Likud MKs who (unlike Netanyahu ) get around the country - and the pressure forced Netanyahu into reaching a decision. Without finding a budgetary source to fill in the gap, he decided on Wednesday to reduce gas prices by 10 agorot per liter.
That's a decision Netanyahu could have reached on Monday or Tuesday, in an orderly fashion. But in the PMO, an opportunity is never missed to miss an opportunity.
It's a new Mideast
Next Tuesday, as part of his 11-day, coast-to-coast North America visit, and after he meets with Obama and speaks at the AIPAC conference in Washington, President Shimon Peres will visit Silicon Valley. He will meet with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and the two will officially open an international Facebook page for Peres, oriented to young people in the Arab world. That's as New as the New Middle East gets. The initiative was announced a week ago by Peres' office. Telephones in the PMO's started to work overtime. The target: Facebook's inner sanctum. The goal: organizing a meeting for Netanyahu with Zuckerberg, early next week. Since Netanyahu is a busy man, he is unable to criss-cross the U.S. like Peres. So the prime minister's men came up with an idea: Zuckerberg should show his respect for Netanyahu by meeting him in the nation's capital. Zuckerberg didn't buy it. Perhaps we can do a video conference, Netanyahu's aides proposed. That also did not move mountains. The PMO waved a white flag. So only Peres will meet Zuckerberg. Only Peres will get an international Facebook page. Perhaps some consolation and comfort can be gleaned from this Facebook drama: If, on such a fateful/crucial/dramatic trip, Netanyahu and his staff have had time to deal with Facebook pages and concomitant issues of ego and respect - perhaps circumstances are not so fateful/crucial/dramatic after all.

Netanyahu says he won't set 'red lines' for action on Iran
By Jim Hollander  AFP Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Friday he will not set "red lines" for military action against Iran, insisting he wanted to preserve the Jewish state's freedom to maneuver."I have not set down red lines to the United States and will not set down red lines," he said. "I want to reserve Israel's freedom to maneuver in light of threats, every country would demand that." Netanyahu arrived in Canada on Friday ahead of White House talks next week expected to focus on halting Iran's controversial nuclear drive. Shortly after his arrival in Ottawa, Netanyahu met privately with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a keen backer of Israel. He was to travel on to Washington on Sunday. At a news conference with Harper, Netanyahu laid out Israel's demands for Iran: to dismantle its underground nuclear facility in Kum, stop uranium enrichment and get rid of all enriched material in Iran beyond what would allow it to make medical isotopes or generate nuclear power. Netanyahu and Obama are to meet Monday and are expected to discuss further measures to slow or halt Iran's nuclear program, which Israel views as its greatest strategic threat. Western nations have stepped up sanctions on Iran, accusing it of pursuing nuclear weapons in the guise of a peaceful program, charges denied by Tehran.

Talk of Israel strike on Iran soars but is it bluff?
By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent |
LONDON (Reuters) - As tension rises over Iran's disputed nuclear programme, chatter indicating a potential Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear targets has never been higher. But in the smoke-and-mirrors world of Middle East geopolitics, such talk can often be a diplomatic weapon in its own right and sometimes an alternative to genuine action. To an extent, the recent storm of speculation and newspaper stories are just an escalation in a long-running game of words. Tehran says its programme is purely peaceful, not designed to yield nuclear weapons, but U.S., Israeli and other Western officials have often warned that, if it continues unabated, Israel might take unilateral action and bomb key facilities. But the United States and Israel in particular have never gone to such lengths to suggest that a strike might be imminent. Discussion of potential military and other options - and an increasingly public discussion between the United States and Israel over what to do next - will move further into plain sight on Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington to meet President Barack Obama. While U.S. officials say they want to dissuade Israel from striking, Obama's Republican opponents are eager to paint him as too tough on Israel and too soft on Iran ahead of November's presidential election. Netanyahu wants more U.S. support, including endorsement of any action Israel might take.
"The drumbeat for military action is getting louder," says Michael Denison, research director for London-based consultancy Control Risks and a former senior adviser in Britain's Foreign Office. "But that doesn't necessarily mean it will happen soon." U.S. officials have repeatedly briefed journalists - including those from Reuters - to say that they no longer know what those in charge in Israel might be planning, and that Washington does not expect advance warning of an attack. European officials say they too are pushing hard to restrain Israel from action that might spark a wider regional conflict, but increasingly fear they will be unable to do so.
Israeli officials have been more reticent, and many recent stories in the Israeli press may in part be lifted from European and U.S. media. But recently, Israeli officials too have held background briefings in London with businesses and think tanks. Some have gone beyond the usual threatening statements, usually on no options being ruled out, that have come to be expected from Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak. The precise message has varied, particularly over the time it might take Tehran to genuinely be able to build a nuclear bomb. But the thrust is clear: As Iran's nuclear enrichment and wider development moves forward and its facilities are dug ever deeper into the ground, time is running out. Israel, widely believed to harbor the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, sees Iran's atomic campaign as a mortal threat.
A USEFUL BLUFF?
Trailing an attack in advance might have certain advantages, analysts say. Financial markets would be largely prepared, reducing the economic shock.
Benchmark Brent crude oil prices have gained some $15 a barrel over the last month to around $125. Almost all of that, oil experts say, has been down to escalating tensions with Tehran: partly speculation of an Israeli strike, partly the loss of Iranian crude supply due to tightening Western sanctions.
But the real agenda, some suspect, is much more about shaping the diplomatic battlefield.
"Barak and Netanyahu think that this (talk of an Israeli attack) is the only tool that gets the players moving," Udi Segal, diplomatic correspondent for Israel's top rated Channel Two television news, said in a commentary last week.
"And even if this is a bluff, it is a bluff that should not be allowed to be ruptured because it makes the Iranians feel fear, the Americans take action, the Europeans impose sanctions, and everyone worry."
If Netanyahu and those around him had genuinely decided to strike, many experts say they would simply do so rather than pre-briefing the media.
Few doubt Israel does have the ability to strike targets deep inside Iran, using either jets, long-range drones or submarine- or land-launched launched missiles.
But in reality, it finds itself hugely constrained.
A strike could provoke a massive backlash, both diplomatic and through Iranian-backed groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Tehran might make good threats to hit international oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.
Even were such a conflict relatively brief, it could send oil prices rocketing and jeopardize a fragile global economy.
"NO GOOD OPTIONS"
And few experts believe an Israeli strike would put the Iranian weapons programme back more than a few months or years.
Worries about the broader impact - particularly from Washington - are seen as having deterred Israel from a strike in 2008-9, another period of heightened speculation. Instead, Israel, perhaps working with the United States, is believed to have gone for a more covert approach including the computer worm Stuxnet, which affected Iranian nuclear technology.
But such attacks are only ever partially effective, experts say, and assassinations of nuclear scientists widely blamed on Israel - which has made no comment on the matter - have also proved increasingly controversial.
"The Israelis do not have any good options and so they are simply sending every signal under the sun," Anthony Cordesman, a veteran former U.S. intelligence official and now chair of strategy at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Reuters last month.
Some experts question to what extent an Iranian bomb would truly be a strategic game changer.
Tehran is already believed to have ballistic missiles with chemical warheads able to strike Tel Aviv. Even if Iran successfully assembled the four bombs that Israel says it has the uranium to build, Israel would still have many more, and the ability to inflict much more catastrophic damage.
Intelligence experts and officials, some of them Israeli, say it is still far from clear that Tehran has made a final decision to build a nuclear warhead.
But the further the nuclear programme moves forward, the quicker Iran could have one should it make that final decision. For a country that has had to fight several times for its survival in the 65 years since it was founded by the survivors of a genocide, the risks may simply be too high. "The important thing is that the Israelis believe it would be an existential threat," said one Western official heavily involved with the Iran issue. "That is the point. That's really what it has always been about."
(Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem and Mark Hosenball in London; Editing by Kevin Liffey and Mark Heinrich)

Netanyahu warns against diplomatic path with Iran
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday global powers would be falling into a trap if they pursued talks with Iran and he challenged Tehran with a series of demands before he meets U.S. President Barack Obama. But at the same time, Netanyahu was careful at a news conference with Canada's leader to avoid widening a rift with Obama over what Washington fears could be an Israeli rush to attack Iranian nuclear facilities before economic sanctions and diplomacy run their course. Israel, Netanyahu said, has not set nor does it intend to set red lines for the United States in preventing Iran from using its uranium enrichment program to obtain nuclear weapons. Facing sanctions that could cripple its oil exports, Iran said last month it wanted to resume talks on its nuclear program, negotiations frozen since January last year. But six big powers, represented by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, have yet to respond to the offer. "It (Iran) could do again what it has done before, it could pursue or exploit the talks as they've done in the past to deceive and delay so that they can continue to advance their nuclear program and get to the nuclear finish line by running up the clock, so to speak," Netanyahu said. "I think the international community should not fall into this trap," he told reporters, with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a staunch ally of Israel, at his side. A report by the IAEA last week said Iran was significantly stepping up uranium enrichment, a finding that sent oil prices higher on fears tensions between Tehran and the West could escalate into military conflict.In some of his strongest comments yet on Iran, Obama said in an interview published on Friday that "all options are on the table" for dealing with Iran's nuclear plans and added that the final option was the "military component." Setting what a spokesman for Netanyahu called new benchmarks, the Israeli leader demanded Iran dismantle an underground nuclear facility near the city of Qom, stop uranium enrichment and remove all uranium enriched above 3.5 percent from the country. Israel fears the Fordow enrichment site, in a mountain outside Qom, would create "a zone of immunity" from Israeli air strikes.
Iran two years ago started refining uranium to a fissile concentration of 20 percent at another more vulnerable site, Natanz -- far more than the 3.5 percent level usually required to power nuclear energy plants. Tehran says it will use 20 percent-enriched uranium to convert into fuel for a research reactor making isotopes to treat cancer patients, but Western officials say they doubt that the country has the technical capability to do that. Nuclear bombs require uranium enriched to 90 percent, but Western experts say much of the effort required to get there is already achieved once it reaches 20 percent concentration, shortening the time needed for any nuclear weapons "break-out."
(Reporting by Jeffrey Heller, David Ljunggren and Randall Palmer; Editing by Anthony Boadle)

Canada wants 'peaceful resolution' on Iran
CBC – Canada wants a "peaceful resolution" to prevent further development of Iran's nuclear program, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday during a news conference in Ottawa with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Harper's counterpart, however, said "all options" to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons should be on the table.
Instability in the Middle East, including the situation in Syria, topped the agenda when the two leaders began meeting on Parliament Hill on Fridiay morning.
But among the "sea of troubles," the most disturbing is Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, Netanyahu told reporters during a brief news conference.
"The international community must do everything it can to stop it," he said.
Netanyahu's government has recently been suggesting that Israel is considering launching a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
"I think there is agreement right now on the main powers that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that all options should be left on the table in order to assure that that doesn't happen," he said. Harper was asked whether Canada would support a pre-emptive strike on Iran, and he said the country's intentions and capabilities remain "a serious concern" to Canada.
"In terms of hypothetical situations, I think, as the prime minister is aware, Canada's position is very clear," Harper said. "We of course recognize the right of Israel to defend itself as a sovereign state, as a Jewish state. That said, we want to see a peaceful resolution of this issue and we want to see every action taken to get a peaceful resolution of the situation."
Netanyahu said everyone wants to see a peaceful resolution, but he expressed doubt that renewed talks with Iran are the way to stop its nuclear development. He and Harper discussed that idea, and Netanyahu said he believes Iran would exploit talks in order to "deceive and delay so that they can continue to advance their nuclear program and get to the nuclear finish line by running out the clock so to speak.""I think the international community should not fall into this trap," he said. Harper said Canada will keep working with the international community to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, to allow international inspectors inside the country and to comply with United Nations security council resolutions.
"And of course, we will continue to uphold Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in peace and security," he said. "Canada will continue to do our part to help achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region." The two leaders had a brief meeting after Netanyahu arrived on Parliament Hill, greeted by a military honour guard, and they are continuing their talks over a working lunch. Later Friday, Netanyahu will meet with Gov. Gen. David Johnston. During a photo opportunity earlier in the day, Netanyahu said he wanted to talk to Harper about the "remarkable turbulence that is shaking the Middle East" and about Iran's "relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons."
"I know from many conversations that we've had that you share my view that this is a grave threat to the peace and security of the world and I think it is important that the international community not allow this threat to materialize," Netanyahu said to Harper as they posed for photos in Harper's office. "As for Israel, like any sovereign country, we reserve the right to defend ourselves against a country that calls and works for our destruction. "On that note, I can say that it is particularly gratifying to be among such good friends here in Ottawa on a cold day with warm friendship."
Netanyahu is travelling to Washington after his visit in Ottawa. He and U.S. President Barack Obama will both deliver speeches at a policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Harper has been strong in backing Israel's view of Iran's program, saying he has "no doubt" that Iran is lying when it says it is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes and is not building a nuclear bomb.
In an exclusive interview with CBC chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge in January, Harper said the Iranian regime frightens him.
"In my judgment, these are people who have a particular, you know, a fanatically religious worldview, and their statements imply to me no hesitation about using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes. And … I think that’s what makes this regime in Iran particularly dangerous."
Houchang Hassan-Yari, a Middle East expert at Queen's University and Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., said he doesn't expect Friday's meeting to be a one-way conversation dominated by Netanyahu. Harper has some leverage, he said.
"Prime Minister Harper, because of his very close relations and defence of Israel and the Israelis, is in a very good position really to tell Mr. Netanyahu what President Obama, the prime minister of the [United Kingdom], the president of France and others have tried to say: that Israel would be better off if it waits for some time to see what would be the real effect of sanctions before engaging in any military activities," he said.
"This is the leverage that our prime minister has, I believe, and he can use it. He's in a position to advise Mr. Netanyahu to be more cautious."
The cautious approach is one the Americans have been urging Israel to take, and Hassan-Yari said there could be some significance to Netanyahu visiting Ottawa before heading south of the border.
"I think the fact that he is coming to Canada before the U.S. might show that he has more faith in the Canadian prime minister than the U.S. president," he said.
Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae said Friday that the meeting between Harper and Netanyahu comes at an important time.
Rae said Canadians want Canada to be "an important source of advice and expertise on peace and mediation as well as on the security of Israel."
He said steps taken with Iran should be taken multilaterally.
"None of us want to see a nuclear-armed Iran," Rae said at a news conference on Parliament Hill. "None of us want to see an increase in tensions and conflict in the Middle East. But I think it's very important that we look at this not simply as an issue between Israel and Iran, but understand it is an issue that has much broader implications for the whole world."

Incidents suggest Israel-Iran 'cold war' intensifying
CBC /Iran's nuclear program has fuelled an escalating war of words between Israel, which believes the Islamic state is well on its way to developing atomic weapons, and Iran, which maintains the nuclear technology it is developing is solely for civilian use. The two countries have publicly threatened military action against each other, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to ask Prime Minister Stephen Harper to support an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran when he visits Ottawa on March 2. But there are growing indications that Israel and Iran have actually been fighting a covert war for years. In the past two years, at least five Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed in car bombings. No links have been proven, but some intelligence experts think they were directed by Israel's spy agency, Mossad. In mid-February 2012, Iran appeared to respond with a series of co-ordinated, though unsuccessful, bomb attacks on Israeli officials in India, Georgia and Thailand.
Experts say this secret war has been simmering since the mid-2000s. "It's something we've been tracking since about 2006," says Scott Stewart, vice-president of tactical intelligence for Stratfor, a geopolitical analysis firm based in Austin, Tex. There have been a number of incidents that suggest the two countries have been engaged in sabotage, but these have been impossible to verify given that neither side has claimed any responsibility.
According to Stewart, one of the first signs of a "cold war" between the two countries was the disappearance — sometime between December 2006 and February 2007 — of Ali Reza Asgari, a general in Iran's Revolutionary Guard, an elite wing of the military charged with defending the regime, and a former deputy defence minister. Asgari, who had reportedly been in Turkey to meet a European arms dealer, was thought to be a treasure trove of information for Western intelligence agencies and Mossad. There is debate about whether he defected or was kidnapped.
Stewart claims the Iranians retaliated by abducting Bob Levinson, a former FBI agent, in Iran in 2007 and later attacking an Israeli attaché for agriculture in Paris.
In January 2010, Massoud Ali Mohammadi was killed by a bomb blast outside his home in Tehran, the first of several Iranian nuclear scientists to die in mysterious circumstances. An Iranian man, who was thought to be a spy for Israel, confessed to the crime.
While Israel has never acknowledged complicity in such cloak-and-dagger activity, it has been quite vocal in denouncing Iran's nuclear aims.
For its part, the U.S. has publicly stuck by a 2007 U.S. intelligence assessment that said Iran had abandoned efforts to develop an atomic bomb in 2003. But in November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Association, which has been given access to some but not all of Iran's nuclear facilities over the years, said for the first time that it suspected Iran was conducting experiments whose only purpose was the manufacture of nuclear arms.
In 2010, the world first heard about a computer virus called Stuxnet. While it initially spread through Microsoft Windows, the worm specifically targeted Siemens software and equipment, which is the basis of Iran's uranium-enrichment infrastructure. Thought by computer security experts to have been created by Israeli or U.S. programmers, Stuxnet did significant damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities. "Stuxnet was successful, in a short-term sense, by stalling Iran's program for a year and resulting in at least 1,000 gas centrifuges being effectively destroyed," says Paul Brannan, senior analyst at the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, D.C. Brannan makes a distinction between sabotage of the Stuxnet type, which he considers a valid way of undermining Iran's nuclear program, and harsher tactics such as assassinations, which he says "should stop."
"They're counterproductive," said Brannan. "They're targeting people who are scientists; they're not soldiers. And I don't think they're going to have any effect on Iran's program."The consensus among military experts seems to be that with a couple of possible exceptions, the scientists who have been killed did not have unique knowledge of Iran's nuclear capabilities and were, ultimately, replaceable. "The feeling is that this is more of an attempt to intimidate the scientific community than seriously slow down the work of the nuclear program," says Jeremy Binnie, Middle East and Africa editor for Jane's Defence Weekly. There are many theories about who might be physically carrying out such assassinations, including Iranian Jews and members of the Kurdish community, which seeks independence from Iran. The most widespread theory is that Mossad is using members of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an exiled militant Iranian opposition group that was once supported by Saddam Hussein. "Supposedly, the Israelis are trying to train these guys and send them back into Iran," says Binnie.
Espionage between Iran and Israel predates the current conflict over nuclear capability. During the Israel-Lebanon war in the early 1980s, Iran is thought to have provided financing and operational support to Lebanese Shia militant groups Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Over the next couple of decades, Iran was accused of using Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad to carry out attacks on Israeli nationals. One such incident was the 1992 attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which was thought to have been revenge for Israel's assassination of a high-ranking Islamic Jihad operative. Events in the past half-decade suggest this tit-for-tat continues. After Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan died in a car bombing on Jan. 11, 2012, there were several incidents that security experts saw as Iran-sponsored attempts at retaliation. Police in Bangkok apprehended a Lebanese national who had procured a large amount of fertilizer, which could be used to make explosives, while authorities in Azerbaijan reported that a group with ties to Iran had been targeting Israeli teachers in the capital, Baku.
Since this is espionage we're talking about, many of the attacks entail a series of proxies. Sometimes, the cast of characters can seem downright odd.
In October 2011, U.S. officials alleged they had uncovered a bizarre plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. (Saudi Arabia is one of Iran's bitterest enemies.) According to the U.S., members of the Quds force, a special unit of Iran's army, had engaged a used-car salesman from San Antonio, Tex., to reach out to Mexico's Los Zetas drug cartel to do the deed. The Iranian leadership denied the charge and demanded an apology from the Obama administration.
"Honestly, when we heard [about the plot], we were kind of shaking our heads, thinking, this is really strange," says Stewart. "But then when we started looking at it, and we saw a previous case that was exposed by WikiLeaks of the Iranians using an unemployed house painter from Michigan to try to assassinate a dissident in Los Angeles as well as a dissident in London, it kind of becomes more believable."
To date, it seems as though Iran has incurred the greater losses in these clandestine operations. In addition to the deaths of five Iranian nuclear scientists, Israel is believed to be behind a November 2011 explosion at a military base near Tehran that killed 17 people, including Brig.-Gen. Hassan Moqqadam, the head of Iran's missile development program. Stewart says the deployment of the sophisticated Stuxnet virus in 2010 was a watershed moment for cyber-warfare, and believes it also underscores the urgency of the mission to undermine Iran. "The fact that they were willing to unveil this totally new form of warfare shows the importance they're placing on stopping the Iranian nuclear program," Stewart says.

Resigning to Iran
The Obama administration has essentially acquiesced to a nuclear Iran.
By Robert Joseph/National Review Online
After more than ten years of diplomacy and duplicity, we are at an endgame with Iran. Only days after the second failed visit by IAEA inspectors in a month, the latest Agency report records substantial progress in Iran’s nuclear-enrichment program. This includes the start of operations at the new, and well-defended, Fordow site, which is producing 20-percent-enriched uranium, allowing a clear path to breakout. Most significant, the alarming questions raised about weaponization in the November report have not been answered. Instead, Tehran has continued to stonewall, denying access to the people, facilities, and documentation necessary to address the inspectors’ concerns.
Time is not on our side, no matter how hard we may try to convince ourselves otherwise. Sanctions are taking an increasingly heavy toll on Iran’s government and economy, but there is no evidence that they are having any effect on the nuclear program. In fact, despite the hope that economic penalties will compel the mullahs to slow the program, all evidence is to the contrary. Further, despite the Obama administration’s assessments that Iran has not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon (and that, once they did decide, it would take an additional two years to complete), all evidence is to the contrary. The description of recent weaponization activities presented in the last IAEA report is just that, evidence of weaponization. To conclude that Iran has not decided to build the bomb based on the absence of definitive proof, like a formal decision memorandum signed by the supreme leader, is simply self-deluding.
Contrary to our wishful thinking, Iran’s religious and secular leaders may have concluded that accelerating their weapons program is the best way to end the sanctions. Looking at the international community’s response to previous proliferators, they may well believe that, once they have gone nuclear, the worst will be over and that, over time, the sanctions will be lifted (especially given the world’s growing appetite for oil).
Perhaps even more important, these leaders may well have concluded that they do not intend to share Qaddafi’s fate. The logic is simple: Qaddafi gave up his nuclear-weapons program; the West intervened in Libya; and he was hunted down and killed by his own people. The lesson: Possession of nuclear weapons will allow the regime to pursue its aggressive agenda in the region and repress its own people without threat of outside intervention. Supreme Leader Khamenei underlined this point by stating that, unlike Libya, Iran will not give in to Western pressure but will increase its nuclear capabilities “against the wish of the enemy.”
It is in this context that Tehran has recently renewed calls for negotiations, an old but effective tactic. Iran has repeatedly dangled the prospect of negotiations before the United States and others whenever it appeared useful to buy time or divide opposing coalitions. But negotiation has always meant negotiating about the negotiations; Iran has never been willing to deal in good faith over its nuclear program. Why would this time be different from the ten, eleven, or twelve previous times? Some would argue that this time is different thanks to the bite of sanctions, and the likelihood of more to come. But this answer, like most proffered about Iran, neglects the hard reality that there are no easy or even good solutions to this complex and dangerous challenge. For far too long, U.S. policy has reflected the triumph of hope over experience, while the mullahs have marched forward toward a nuclear weapon.
The Obama administration has apparently ruled out the two remaining steps that have any chance to end the program. First, despite the administration’s claim that “all options are on the table,” it has given Iran every reason to believe force will not be used — from statements by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the secretary of defense to public pressure on Israel not to attack. An Israeli attack would not stop the program, but could delay it by one to three years, allowing for a permanent solution to emerge. Second, the administration has been loath even to suggest regime change — the only permanent way to end the weapons program. In 2009, the United States turned its back on the protesters in the streets of Tehran, and, in 2012, it remains unwilling to provide effective support to the opposition, vainly hoping that dialogue and engagement are still possible. By imposing these limits on its policies — by declining to use force or aid the opposition — the administration is abandoning what may be the only effective tools to achieve its goal. Like all dictatorships, Iran most fears its own people and outside intervention. Yet, instead of feeding these fears and employing these instruments to pressure the regime, the Obama policy is to back away from intervention, showing weakness both to Iranian leaders and to our friends and allies in the region (who have urged such actions in private). In their view, failure to act will lead to a nuclear Iran, compelling them to seek their own nuclear capability.
Despite many high-profile statements about not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons, the administration appears to have adopted the message put out by Iran’s leaders, that the cost of a military strike would be prohibitively high. While the administration will seek to impose additional sanctions, it now seems willing to live with the failure of its policy and rely on the belief that a nuclear-armed Iran can be deterred and contained. It is this core belief that defines the difference between U.S. and Israeli perspectives and policies. For Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat; Israel cannot exist in such a world. Our president seems already resigned to it.
*Robert Joseph, a senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy, was undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from 2005 to 2007.

Iran: between regime change and change within the regime
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
Today, some 52 million Iranian eligible voters are invited to vote in an election for the 290-seat Islamic Majlis, the country’s ersatz parliament since the mullahs seized power in 1979.
The question is: should anyone care?
For a number of reasons, the answer may well be: no. To start with this is really not an election because voters are asked to choose from among pre-selected candidates approved by the regime. Applicants must meet a long list of conditions. These include tangible ones such as holding a master’s degree, and intangible ones such as “being faithful to Walayat al-Faqih” or rule by a mullah.
But, how many Iranians hold a master’s degree? And, more importantly, how many wish to spend the rest of their lives ruled by a mullah? Whatever the answer, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of Iranians are excluded from candidacy from the start. Next, because decision-making on major issues is the exclusive prerogative of the “Supreme Guide”, there is little possibility of choosing from among different policies. To be sure, the candidates cannot criticise the “Supreme Guide”. Nor could they offer alternatives to main domestic and foreign policies of the president. More interestingly, they cannot criticise each other either. The voter is not even able to compare different analyses of the situation. The one-week campaign is not long enough to cover even the major issues. This is not a real election for two more reasons.
First, the election is not organised and supervised by an impartial body as is the case in most countries where genuine elections are held. The Ministry of Interior could announce whatever results it is asked to do. Secondly, the so-called Council of the Guardians could cancel the victory of any candidate or, even, all of them. Some leading Khomeinist figures go further and deny the right of the regime to hold elections. “This government is illegal and thus has no right to hold elections,” says Muhammad-Reza Khatami a former Deputy-Speaker of the Majlis.
“We cannot accept this election because we do not accept the decisions of the Council of Guardians,” says former Deputy Premier Behzad Nabavi.
Initially, some 4000 people applied to be pre-selected as candidates. The Council of Guardians endorsed 67 per cent of them. In the first days of the campaign, however, over 300 pre-selected candidates dropped out, leaving just over 3000 individuals contesting the 290 seats.
Despite all the above reasons why the exercise might not merit much interest, it would be wrong to dismiss it out of hand. Despite obvious limitations, today’s elections could offer some indication to the present political mood in the country. The first thing to look for would be voter turnout. No doubt the regime will massage the figures to claim a massive turnout. Nevertheless, no measure of massaging could fool the people who would see, and thus know, how many actually went to the polls. This is the first electoral exercise since the fiasco of the presidential election in 2009 that split the Khomeinist establishment. Some analysts claim that Iranians are no longer interested in change within the regime as offered by Mir-Hussein Mussavi. What Iranians now want is regime change, these analysts assert. A low turnout might be an indicator in support of that claim. Other analysts, however, believe that one or more factions within the regime might be willing and able to break with the despotic mould imposed by the “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei. Even a modestly big turnout plus the defeat of the more hardline Khomeinsits might lend some credence to such an analysis.
The daily Kayhan, published by Khamenei, reports opinion polls indicating that voter turnout may rise to 60 per cent in the provinces but remain below 20 per cent in Tehran.
Another indication to the political mood, at least inside the Khomeinist movement, would be the success or failure of the various lists.
Leaving aside some 50 independents that may have a base in their respective constituencies there are 21 lists in the race. With political parties banned, these lists act as substitutes.
Of these lists, only three have put “faith in the Supreme Guide” and/or commitment to “Walayat al-Faqih” in their campaign slogans.
The other lists make no mention of “Walayat al-Faqih”. Instead, they advocate “rationality”, “moderation”, “prosperity” and “ justice” in their slogans.
Although former Presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani and Muhammad Khatami have supposedly boycotted the election, their supporters are present with two lists and over 300 candidates. Only the entourage of Mussavi and former Majlis Speaker Mehdi Karrubi has been totally excluded. Mussavi and Karrubi remain under house arrest and have called for a boycott of the election.
More interesting is the position of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s faction which is emerging as the principal rival of the Khamenei faction within the ruling establishment.
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly claimed that he supports no candidates. And, yet, his supporters are present with several lists and have campaigned for restoring the institutions of the state and giving the government a bigger say in shaping policy. On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad implicitly predicted victory for his supporters by saying that, with Friday’s elections he “smelled the spring”.At the other end of the spectrum, General Salar Abnush, a commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander, warned that a victory for “ supporters of the deviant tendency” could trigger “a deep crisis” and intervention by the military. Khamenei’s supporters use the label “deviant tendency” to describe the faction led by Ahmadinejad.
In a sense, the back story in this election is the rivalry between Khamenei, who wants Iran to remain a vehicle for the Khomeinist revolution regardless of the cost, and Ahmadinejad who argues that the time has come for Iran to start behaving as a nation-state.

The Iranian spring is inevitable
By Diana Mukkaled/Asharq Alawsat
The Arab revolutions are a subject of concern for Iran. After the “new media” was successful in helping to overthrow regimes and oust rulers in the Arab world, the Iranian regime has persistently tried to immunize itself against a possible repeat of the 2009 protests, which the authorities managed to quell. Since then, the regime has begun to fear the danger of the internet and social networking websites, for the Iranian [protestors] were the first to coordinate their movements via Twitter. Therefore, Iran has adopted a policy to control, restrict and sometimes shutdown the use of the internet, fearing the possible outbreak of demonstrations. This has even prompted the Iranian authorities to announce the establishment of a local Iranian internet network - beginning next year - that will gradually replace foreign servers and search engines.
The restrictions imposed on the internet have intensified on several occasions in recent weeks, prior to the parliamentary elections scheduled for tomorrow. Hence, the Iranian people have been left bewildered by the authorities shutting down the majority of internet websites and services without paying attention to the amazement and indignation of the public.
It is likely that the Iranian regime reveled in its successful curtailment of the youth revolution in 2009. However, Iran today seems greatly interested in what is going on around it, especially in the state of Syria – its regional ally, without being conscious of the widespread public discontent on the Iranian street. Last week, Iran celebrated the anniversary of the [Islamic] revolution, during which the regime’s ceremonies attempted to merge the Islamic Revolution of 1979 with the current Arab revolutions, but of course ignoring the events in Syria. This, however, did not prevent some activists from standing in the conference hall where President Ahmadinejad was delivering his speech to chant slogans in support of the Syrian rebels. In fact, this received great applause, before the situation was soon put under control.
The official Iranian reactions to the Arab awakening suggest that the Islamic republic is largely turning its nose up to such events, even though something similar could take place in Tehran despite all the security controls and restrictions imposed upon the use of the internet there. Regardless of what may happen in the future, the Arab popular uprisings have exposed the fact that the Iran’s revolutionary ideology is now bankrupt, not only within Iran, but among its neighbors in the region as well. This is something that neither censoring the internet nor suppressing youth and opposition movements can remedy.
It is clear that something is happening in the cities of Iran, where a mixture of frustration and high alert prevails. The residents of Tehran are whispering about the fact that it was them who sparked off the Arab Spring in our region, and that the Iranian regime's initial success [in aborting their revolution] should not mean the end of the matter, for other societies have refused to surrender to the violence of their regimes.
Tightening the grip on the tools of communication has never proved successful in any country, for there are proxy servers and hundreds of alternative programs. The people of Tehran, as well as those of other Iranian cities, are experts in professionally circumventing their regime's internet censorship, as shown by statistical reports on global rates of internet usage and censorship evasion.
The regime in Iran may prevent those living abroad from truly knowing what is going on there, yet reason and logic dictates that Iran cannot remain immune from our Arab Spring.

The Syrian crisis: caught between Western-Russian bickering and Israeli calculations
By Osman Mirghani/Asharq Alawsat
As it approaches the one year landmark, the Syrian crisis has entered the stage of a race against time. On the one hand, the regime continues to commit excessive violence and killings, benefiting from the slack international community as well as regional and international complexities. On the other hand, the rebels have so far been able to withstand all, as opposition groups seek to increase pressure on the regime and convince hesitant international parties of their ability to organize themselves and present a ready alternative capable of reassuring – and gaining the support of – different components of society. The already complicated scene has been further compounded by the Russian-Chinese veto in the Security Council, and later by the "Friends of Syria" conference, which frustrated all those who pinned hope upon it and built up high expectations. The conference merely produced a general statement lacking in clear, practical steps that could change the reality on the ground. It only served to expose the gap between the different parties concerned, after the Westerners once again upheld their old stance rejecting military intervention, and their reservations even towards calls to arm the Syrian opposition.
The Syrian crisis will continue, until further notice, to remain captive of regional and international calculations and complexities. The ongoing bickering between a number of Western capitals, most prominently Washington on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other, reflects such complexities. Russia, despite its recent move to justify using its veto, still upholds its pro-Damascus stance and claims to be seeking a peaceful solution to ward off the evils of a civil war in Syria. At the same time, Moscow rejects using the United Nations as a tool for regime change.
In order to understand the Russian stance, we require an explanation that goes beyond the argument that Moscow felt deceived previously by the Security Council's resolution on Libya, and therefore it is now objecting to any resolution that leaves the door open for possible military intervention in Syria. Moscow is not only suspicious of Western stances towards Syria, but is also skeptical of Western movements near its vicinity. Russia still feels deeply humiliated as a result of the decline in its international influence, with the Western tern encroaching upon the former Soviet republics adjacent to its border.
In her memoirs published late last year, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a detailed account of her meeting with Vladimir Putin, in the wake of the “color revolutions” that broke out across a number of former Soviet republics. Rice says: "Putin told me he was opposed to any revolution from the street." Although he did not say explicitly during the meeting that his country considered these revolutions to be a Western plot, Rice interpreted Putin's words as an insinuation that such revolutions were a Western tool to divert Russia from its path. Such rhetoric may reflect Putin’s skeptical vision towards the current Arab revolutions, and the harmony he maintains with the position of the Syrian President, who also describes the uprising against his regime as a plot.
The irony of this situation is that the Western states that launched a fierce campaign against the Russian stance towards Syria now seem to have come to an agreement with Moscow, with regards to the need to find a political solution to end the crisis. Indeed, it has transpired that some Western states have advised the Arabs and the Syrian opposition not to close the door on Russia's calls for dialogue between the regime and the revolutionaries. How can this be explained? The West's strategy fluctuates between its desire to undermine the Syrian-Iranian axis and take Israel’s fears into account. Hence, the stance objecting to the armament of the Syrian opposition is understandable; for this could lead to a large-scale war provoking unrest along the Israeli border. The excuse of a “divided Syrian opposition” in order to justify not arming the rebels does not seem convincing when the same Western capitals previously backed the Libyan rebels with air-raids and intelligence information, and remained silent about their armament, although the Libyan opposition were far more dispersed than their Syrian counterparts.
Likewise, we can also refute the claim that arming the Syrian opposition would not necessarily ensure the overthrow of the al-Assad regime, as the balance of power would remain considerably in favor of the regime, and the increase of weapons in the battlefield would only mean more civilian victims. However, we could say that this situation also applied to the Libyan case; the Gaddafi regime was in possession of huge arsenal in the face of the rebels, and nevertheless, the West had no objections to arming the rebels; rather it encouraged such an endeavor.
The sole reason why the West is currently warning against arming the Syrian opposition is that the West is concerned about Israel. Washington, alongside a number of Western capitals, fears that an internal full-scale war may erupt, and uncontrolled security chaos may prevail. As a result, weapons may proliferate among parties stationed along the Israeli border, with the possible involvement of Jihadist groups.
The fears regarding Israel also include the possibility that the fall of the al-Assad regime may result in the Muslim Brotherhood rising to power, along the lines of Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco. The last thing Israel would want is to find itself besieged by Muslim Brotherhood regimes along its border from Egypt to Syria, and pro-Iran movements from Hezbollah in Lebanon to Hamas in Gaza.
Such factors may help to explain the convergence between the West and Russia, and the preference for a political solution along the lines of Yemen. This would mean the handover of power whereby President al-Assad would leave, but part of his regime would remain in power alongside the opposition in order to maintain stability, and prepare for a gradual internal change. If this solution proves impossible and the crisis is further prolonged, then Israel would also derive benefits, provided that confrontations with heavily armed fighters do not extend towards its border. Prolonging the crisis may grant Washington and Israel more time to make a decision with regards to launching a military strike against Iran, as Syria would then be preoccupied with its internal situation, and Hezbollah would be lacking its main supply route. The only factor that can disrupt these complicated elements lies in the Syrian people's ability to escalate their uprising in a manner that undermines the regime and intensifies the pressure on the international community, prompting it to reconsider its calculations.

Aoun-goals, day after day
Michael Young, March 2, 2012
Michel Aoun has made countless contradictions in his political career. (NOW Lebanon)
Keeping up with Michel Aoun’s contradictions is a full-time job. On Tuesday, the general said he objected to the fact that Lebanon’s new history books omitted mention of October 13, 1990, when Syrian warplanes bombed Aoun out of the presidential palace at Baabda,
Yet recall that Gaby Layoun, the culture minister named by the Change and Reform Bloc (and Aoun’s nephew by marriage), has defended the exclusion of the Independence Intifada of 2005 from the history books. You have to wonder what Aoun’s sense of priorities is. The protests that year were a splendid moment for the Aounists. They were in the vanguard of the demonstrations after Rafik Hariri’s assassination, the culmination of years of valiant struggle against Syria amid reprehensible indifference from many Lebanese. Instead of highlighting that triumph, however, Aoun prefers the manuals to evoke the whimper that he has the temerity to imagine is an illustration of his military fortitude. What can possibly be worth remembering from that sordid day? Aoun’s craven abandonment of his wife and daughters and flight to the French Embassy? That the general was told by countless emissaries on the eve of his ouster that the Syrians intended to attack the next day, and that he dismissed all the warnings? That his stubbornness led to the pointless death of many of his soldiers, whom he refused to order to surrender even when all was lost, as he settled into the safety of France’s mission?
Rather quickly we took the modest measure of our patriotic changer and reformer. Aoun is thorough when it comes to making mistakes. Despite the large number of ministers he controls, few are the fights the general has managed to win. Every day, it seems, brings a new October 13, as Aoun’s political program is exposed as no more than a vulgar grab for Christian supremacy—catch-up for all those years when he and his entourage were denied the pickings of office. The Charbel Nahhas embarrassment was only one in a long line of embarrassments. Aoun cried loudest against financing for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, only to quiet down when Hezbollah let the moneys through. He has positioned himself as the prime defender of the Christians, while leaving no stone unturned to undermine the authority of the chief Christian representative, President Michel Sleiman, who holds the office Aoun still craves in old age.
And ever the enemy of nepotism and patronage politics, the general has insisted that he decide on the bulk of Christian administrative appointments, even as he has named more family members to the government and to his own movement than any other politician. Aoun’s big problem is that he is caught between the interests of Hezbollah, Syria and Prime Minister Najib Mikati, and his ambitions have rarely been considered important enough by these three actors for his blackmail to succeed. Hezbollah’s priority today is to ensure that the government remains in place, and the party knows that on certain matters Mikati would prefer to resign than to cede ground. Paying Lebanon’s fees to the Special Tribunal was a case in point. So, Hezbollah has been flexible with the prime minister, at the same time striving to calm relations between Sunnis and Shia. Because Aoun cannot topple the government, he has been without leverage against the efforts of Mikati, Sleiman and Walid Jumblatt to block his appetites when it comes to naming his favorites to public positions. Hezbollah has steered well clear of such disputes, leaving Aoun out on a limb. This was equally true when Charbel Nahhas refused to sign the transportation allowance. Aoun found himself trapped between two unpalatable choices: compromising with Mikati or getting rid of a minister regarded by the Aounist base as a man of integrity and precisely the kind of figure whom the Change and Reform Bloc should be promoting in government. Instead, those rising the highest in the Aounist firmament are individuals close to the general with metastasizing prosperity. You will not persuade Aounists that their movement is as mendacious as any other in Lebanon, as drawn to the corruptions of the system as those whom Michel Aoun denounces daily. But then what has Aoun’s legacy actually been? No politician has had as sizable a share of cabinet posts as the general, with so scant a return on investment. Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, cautioned last week, “We must work hard in order [for the government] to achieve something. Now is not the time for the toppling of governments, nor [is it] the time for political tension in Lebanon.” It didn’t take much perspicacity to grasp that these words were directed principally at the Aounists, who have obstructed the government’s progress and generated political tensions more than any other.
It was difficult not to see irony in Nasrallah’s comment, given that he spent 18 months trying to topple a government between 2006 and 2008, bringing Lebanon to the brink of civil war. But in this case the Hezbollah leader had a point. If the Mikati government fails, the country will enter into a dangerous political void. Everybody will lose. Will Aoun get the message? Alas, he never quite seems to. Maybe the general is right: We should bring up October 13, 1990, in our history texts. What better way to assess Michel Aoun?
*Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Ahmad al-Asir
Hazem al-Amin/March 2, 2012/Now Lebanon
Saida Sheikh Ahmad al-Asir announced that he will be heading with his supporters to Martyrs’ Square next Sunday to express solidarity with the Syrian uprising. This announcement sparks legitimate concerns, since the sectarian undertone of the call for protest is obvious. This is added to sectarian instigation, which is manifested – among others – by the appearance of Salafist-style beards, in addition to the strenuous efforts to mobilize solidarity with the Syrian people by invoking Salafist headlines. The loss then would be felt twice over: Both the Lebanese and Syrian peoples would lose and the Syrian Army’s 4th Division, which is besieging Homs, would win. In Lebanon, Hezbollah will have started to reap the fruits of its efforts to create a Sunni counterpart, albeit with a slight difference, namely that this newborn counterpart does not have any nails. And it is always great to have a foe with no nails at all!
Nevertheless, the Asir phenomenon drives us to wonder about the secret underlying this herald’s fast route to stardom despite the flimsiness of the cause he is heralding, knowing that this fast climb coincides with the attacks against Lebanon’s Sunni community since 2005. Though it does not provide enough justification, the answer is obvious, and lies in the fact that the sectarian confrontation started by Hezbollah on May 7, 2008 when it occupied Beirut will inevitably be more appealing than the Asir phenomenon.
The new element in the Asir phenomenon is that its emergence coincides, this time, with the killing and ill-treatment against the Syrian people in their towns and villages, which defies the wildest of imaginations. Another new element is the Future Movement’s inexplicable failure to understand the feelings underlying the Syrian tragedy and to allow Asir and others to stand under the limelight.
The Syrian indicator is indeed an opportunity to invest in the Sunni community these days. In addition to the absence of the Future Movement, new elements imposed by Arab variables have emerged, as represented by the resounding success of the Muslim Brotherhood and their Salafist and Jihadist fringes. It seems that Lebanon, which had long been an exception with regard to the weakness of the Brotherhood’s presence in it, will not be able to retain this characteristic trait.
There are several indicators that go beyond the Asir phenomenon. For instance, let us keep an eye on the renewed activity of the Jamaa Islamiya within the Future Movement’s circles. This activity takes the shape of rescue operations benefiting Syrian refuges, political gatherings in support of the Syrian uprising and the elaboration of a political document pertaining to these events.
The Future Movement is busy with the issue of billions spent from outside the realms of the budget and is sparking disputes, which are equally unconnected to the streets, with General Michel Aoun, Speaker Nabih Berri and PM Najib Mikati while making statements that exclusively pertain to the Syrian issue. In the meantime, each region in Lebanon will start to produce its own Ahmad Asir. Rumors, whereby Future Movement MP Muin al-Merhebi may resign from the Future Bloc and from parliament, probably bears witness to his feeling that staying close to the feelings of the Sunni public opinion calls nowadays for keeping his distance from the Future Movement.
**This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Friday March 2, 2012

Resisting history
Alex Rowell , March 2, 2012 /Now Lebanon
Those who do not learn from history, it is commonly said, are condemned to repeat it. By this measure, the prospects would seem bleak for Lebanon, where an ever-compounding political entanglement continues to deny schoolchildren so much as the option of learning about anything that has occurred in their country since the first half of the twentieth century.
Last month, Culture Minister Gaby Layoun was widely reproached for remarking that “There is nothing called the ‘Cedar Revolution.’” Now, the latest dispute concerns the decision to dedicate one hour per week to studying what a new draft syllabus calls “Lebanon’s resistance against Israel and its plans.” According to a copy of the document obtained by NOW Lebanon, students would be taught about “the Israeli strategic [ambitions] toward the elimination of the Lebanese stain, the Israeli ambitions in both land and waters [and] the resistance’s importance in terms of defending Lebanon.”
On Tuesday, Kataeb MP Sami Gemayel became the latest politician to reject the new syllabus, calling it “unacceptable.”
Elsewhere, in recent months the proposed syllabus has attracted criticism from almost all corners of the political landscape, from the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party to the Free Patriotic Movement and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.
Opposition to this proposal has taken several forms. First, there are those, such as Gemayel, who decry what they see as a distortion of history in the omission of any reference to resistance against non-Lebanese forces other than Israelis. While declaring that resistance to Israel was “important,” he went on to say, “There are Lebanese who resisted the armed Palestinian presence in the country and the Syrian occupation – why are they left out?”
“Mentioning [only] one resistance,” he added, “disregards the causes of a wide range of Lebanese who took part in their own struggles and shielded Lebanon from potentially dramatic consequences.” Similarly, FPM leader Michael Aoun said Tuesday that, “the current history book that is being assessed by government is not suitable for schools… No one can eliminate a single historical development.” As army commander, General Aoun waged an ill-fated “war of liberation” against the Syrian occupation from 1989 to 1990.
Then there are those who believe the syllabus will overlook the contributions of other resistance movements against Israel. NOW Lebanon spoke to Democratic Left Movement MP Elias Atallah, who co-founded the secular Lebanese National Resistance Front (LNRF) that, he claims, staged its first attack on Israeli forces in Beirut just two days after the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres. “The Islamic resistance was established at a later phase. Seventy percent of Lebanese territory was liberated before Hezbollah existed at all.”
“Ever since its establishment on September 16, 1982, the LNRF was the base of resistance. We had hundreds of martyrs, and a big part of Lebanon was liberated by the LNRF. At the time, the Syrians and their proxies in Lebanon tried to eliminate us by assassinations, similar to those that accompanied the Independence Intifada [of 2005], and now they’re trying to erase us again by fabricating history. It’s true that Hezbollah was part of the resistance, but their role was relatively minor.”
There are also those who argue that the question of resistance cannot be addressed in isolation, and must instead be incorporated into a comprehensive history of the civil war in its entirety. Lebanese University historian Issam Khalife told NOW Lebanon that “There has to be a scientific approach. One cannot look at only one resistance; one has to look at them all in general. Moreover, one has to examine the wider history of the war – the causes, the human cost, the economic cost and the conclusions.”
Finally, there are those who dismiss the entire resistance debate altogether. Lokman Slim, the publisher and activist whose projects include the UMAM Documentation and Research NGO established in part to archive materials from the civil war, told NOW Lebanon the recent controversy was “ridiculous.”
“From whomever it comes, whether it be Hezbollah or the other kid, Sami Gemayel--who wants to revive the memory of the quote-unquote ‘Christian resistance’--or the people in South Lebanon who collaborated with Israel and are now criticizing Gemayel because he disregarded them, or the Communists who will also claim their ten minutes of ‘resistance,’ I think that it’s all just part of our deadlock that proves we are the hostages of an outdated mentality.
They are fighting a micro-domestic civil war, for the simple reason that they cannot fight larger wars or be part of larger issues,” said Slim.
The timing, Slim added, was conspicuous: “Putting forward this history issue [now] is a sign of big cowardice. They are not facing the right issues: first of all what’s happening domestically with the government of Hezbollah, second of all what’s happening in Syria. So they are avoiding all this and focusing on an inoffensive diversion tactic.”
Whatever the case, it looks as though today’s Lebanese schoolchildren are no closer to being taught their modern history than their parents were.
*Luna Safwan and Aline Sara contributed reporting for this article.

Maronite patriarchate’s new website now online
March 03, 2012 01:53 AM The Daily Star
http://www.bkerkenews.org.lb/
BEIRUT: News from the Maronite patriarchate in Bkirki is now online, almost a year after Patriarch Beshara Rai was selected. Rai and church officials announced the new website, http://www.bkerkenews.org.lb/, on Friday, in what the patriarch called a blessed step amid the “destructive” uses of some types of modern technology. Rai said the proper use of media was essential to disseminate both news about Bkirki and Christian beliefs.
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on March 03, 2012, on page 3.
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Mar-03/165381-maronite-patriarchates-new-website-now-online.ashx#ixzz1o18rIdek
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

Question: "Is God / the Bible sexist?"
GotQuestions.org
Answer: Sexism is one gender, usually male, having dominance over the other gender, usually female. The Bible contains many references to women that, to our modern mindset, sound discriminatory towards women. But we have to remember that when the Bible describes an action, it does not necessarily mean that the Bible endorses that action. The Bible describes men treating women as little more than property, but that does not mean God approves of that action. The Bible is far more focused on reforming our souls than our societies. God knows that a changed heart will result in a changed behavior.
During Old Testament times, virtually every culture in the entire world was patriarchal in structure. That status of history is very clear—not only in Scripture but also in the rules that governed most societies. By modern value systems and worldly human viewpoint, that is called “sexist.” God ordained the order in society, not man, and He is the author of the establishment principles of authority. However, like everything else, fallen man has corrupted this order. That has resulted in the inequality of the standing of men and women throughout history. The exclusion and the discrimination that we find in our world is nothing new. It is the result of the fall of man and the introduction of sin. Therefore, we can rightly say that the term and the practice of “sexism” is a result of sin. The progressive revelation of the Bible leads us to the cure for sexism and indeed all the sinful practices of the human race.
To find and maintain a spiritual balance between the God-ordained positions of authority, we must look to Scripture. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, and in it we find principles that tell us the correct line of authority and the cure for sin, the ill of all humanity, and that includes discrimination based upon gender.
The cross of Christ is the great equalizer. John 3:16 says, “Whoever believes,” and that is an all-inclusive statement that leaves no one out on the basis of position in society, mental capacity, or gender. We also find a passage in Galatians that speaks of our equal opportunity for salvation. “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26-28). There is no sexism at the cross.
The Bible is not sexist in its accurate portrayal of the results of sin in both men and women. The Bible records all kinds of sin: slavery and bondage and the failures of its greatest heroes. Yet it also gives us the answer and the cure for those sins against God and His established order—a right relationship with God. The Old Testament was looking forward to the supreme sacrifice, and each time a sacrifice for sin was made, it was teaching the need for reconciliation to God. In the New Testament, the “Lamb that takes away the sin of the world” was born, died, was buried and rose again, and then ascended to His place in heaven, and there He intercedes for us. It is through belief in Him that the cure for sin is found, and that includes the sin of sexism.
The charge of sexism in the Bible is based upon a lack of knowledge of Scripture. When men and women of all ages have taken their God-ordained places and lived according to “thus says the LORD,” then there is a wonderful balance between the genders. That balance is what God began with, and it is what He will end with. There is an inordinate amount of attention paid to the various products of sin and not to the root of it. It is only when there is personal reconciliation with God through the Lord Jesus Christ that we find true equality. “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
It is also very important to understand that the Bible’s ascribing different roles to men and women does not constitute sexism. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God expects men to take the leadership role in the church and the home. Does this make women inferior? Absolutely not. Does this mean women are less intelligent, less capable, or viewed as less in God’s eyes? Absolutely not! What it means is that in our sin-stained world, there has to be structure and authority. God has instituted the roles of authority for our good. Sexism is the abuse of these roles, not the existence of these roles.