LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 10/2012

Bible Quotation for today/
Saint John 17/24-26: "Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. ‘Righteous Father, the world does not know you, but I know you; and these know that you have sent me. I made your name known to them, and I will make it known, so that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.’"

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
The victim’s words/By: Hazem al-Amin/Now Lebanon/November 09/12
America and the Middle East: The next four years/By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat/November 09/12
Living with Obama for another four years/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 09/12
US elections: From Nasser to Al-Assad/By Adel Al-Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat/November 09/12

Obama aims to start nuclear talks with Iran next month
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 8, 2012/After winning a second White House term, US President Barack Obama aims to start direct, fast-track nuclear talks with Tehran as soon as December, even before his January swearing-in, on the assumption that Iran’s window of opportunity is very narrow – just three months, debkafile’s Washington sources disclose. White House go-betweens with the office of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warn that Iran’s campaign for the June 14 presidential election gets going in March. After than, it is estimated in Washington, that Khamenei, whose ill health keeps his working-day short, will be fully absorbed in a struggle to purge Iran’s political hierarchy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his clique.
But Tehran would prefer nuclear diplomacy to be delayed for eight months until after that election. “We waited for the US election campaign to be over, so why shouldn’t the Americans wait for ours?” a senior Iranian official asked rhetorically.
For now, the supreme leader is looking for a suitable candidate for the presidency. This time, the supreme leader is not expected to make the mistake of choosing a charismatic, ambitious and competent figure like Ahmadinejad, but rather one who is satisfied with acting as a representative titular figure and play second fiddle to Khamenei whose bureau will administer the executive branch of government.
The supreme leader is believed in Washington to be weighing another alternative: having parliament abolish the post of president and transferring its powers to the new post of prime minister, who would be chosen from among the 290 Majlis lawmakers.
Speaker Ali Larijani and his brother, head of the judiciary Sadeq Larijani, have in the past year performed the spadework of sidelining Ahmadinejad’s parliamentary faction.
Ali Larijani himself is a front-runner for the job of Revolutionary Iran’s first prime minister.
The view in Washington today is that if nuclear talks do start in December and roll on into March, Khamenei will be compelled to cut the process short to escape potential accusations led by Ahmadinejad that he is handing to America concessions excessive enough to stall Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
The supreme leader can’t afford to have the Iran’s military establishment, the Revolutionary Guards and the street turn against him on this issue.
But in the last few days, Tehran appears to have taken a large step back from direct negotiations with Washington in principle. Just hours after Obama’s election victory was announced on Nov. 7, the official Iranian news agency quoted Sadeq Larijani as condemning US sanctions as “crimes against the Iranian people.” He said relations with America “cannot be possible overnight” and the US president should not expect rapid new negotiations with Tehran. “Americans should not think they can hold our nation to ransom by coming to the negotiating table,” was the Iranian judiciary head’s parting shot for Obama.
The gap between Washington and Tehran is as wide as ever: Obama wants the talks to last no more than three months and end in an agreed settlement of the nuclear dispute, whereas the ayatollah prefers a low-key process to be dragged out past the eight month-month period while also gaining more time for Iran’s nuclear program to race forward.
This tactic would additionally help Tehran erase yet another Israeli red line, the one set by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his UN September speech when he said that the spring or early summer of 2013 would be the critical date for Israel to act.

Iran issues warning after targeting U.S. drone
November 09, 2012/ Daily Star
DUBAI: Iran said it would deal decisively with any foreign encroachment into its airspace, an apparent warning to the United States after one of its surveillance drones was targeted by Iranian warplanes last week. On Thursday U.S. officials said the unarmed Predator drone was in international airspace when Iranian warplanes opened fire on it on Nov. 1. The aircraft was not hit.
The intercept was the first time Tehran had fired at an unmanned U.S. aircraft in their 33 year stand-off. "The defenders of the Islamic Republic will respond decisively to any form of encroachment by air, sea or on the ground," Fars news agency quoted General Massoud Jazayeri, a senior armed forces commander, as saying on Friday. "If any foreign aircraft attempts to enter our airspace our armed forces will deal with them," he said. Jazayeri did not mention the drone incident specifically. According to the Pentagon, two Soviet-designed SU-25 aircraft intercepted the Predator drone over Gulf waters about 16 nautical miles off the Iranian coast. After firing at the drone they followed it for several miles as it moved farther away from Iranian airspace. Washington has issued a formal protest to the Iranian authorities via diplomatic channels. Details of the incident emerged ahead of large-scale air defence drills due to start across several provinces in eastern Iran this week. The "Velayat 4" manoeuvres will be jointly held by the regular armed forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and will involve testing new radar and surveillance equipment, military commanders say.

Israel braces for Obama 'payback' after re-election
November 08, 2012/By Hazel Ward
JERUSALEM: Israel was bracing on Thursday for chillier ties with Washington, with pundits unanimous that a re-elected President Barack Obama will seek payback for Benjamin Netanyahu's supporting Mitt Romney.
"Netanyahu gambled, we will pay," said a headline in top-selling daily Yediot Aharonot, referring to the Israeli prime minister's ill-concealed backing for Obama's Republican challenger in this year's election.
"On the losing side," read another headline in the same paper.
And a cartoon showed Romney picking up a phone and turning to his wife as she dismantles his campaign headquarters, saying: "Poor Bibi, I'm going to give him a call to offer my condolences."
Tensions between the two leaders surfaced during Obama's first term.
Their public meetings were characterised by a clear lack of chemistry, and differences over such key issues as the peace process and how to handle the Iranian nuclear threat sometimes spilled over into high-profile public dispute. "Obama now has four years to settle accounts with Netanyahu, for his open support of Mitt Romney, for degrading him before Congress, for freezing negotiations with the Palestinians, for the settlements and for his attempts to teach him leadership lessons on the Iranian issue," said the left-leaning Haaretz newspaper.
But it was Netanyahu's backing for Romney that appeared to rattle the Obama administration most and was likely to see the president seeking to "settle scores" with the Israeli premier, the Maariv newspaper said. "That score is going to be a personal score over what is perceived by the White House as Netanyahu's gross meddling in the American presidential elections," wrote commentator Eli Bardenstein.
"Netanyahu is worried. Very worried."
The crisis of confidence between the two leaders had created "huge fears in Jerusalem about what lies in store," he wrote.
"If he takes revenge on Bibi or even just conducts himself with chilly cerebral rationalism, we're going to be in a difficult position," an official from Netanyahu's inner circle told Maariv.
While most commentators agreed Obama's response was likely to be "a cold shoulder," a shift in the relationship could spell a headache for Netanyahu, who is in the middle of his own campaign ahead of a January election. The first litmus test for US intentions towards Israel is likely to be played out in the coming weeks, as Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas seeks upgraded membership at the United Nations -- a move Israel and Washington oppose. Last year, a high-profile Palestinian attempt to seek full state membership was thwarted at the Security Council by US threats of a veto. This year, a veto is out of the question as the bid will be put to a vote in the UN General Assembly.
"It is one question whether Obama will invest any of his political capital to stop them. It is another question altogether if Obama decides to let them do it. Imagine how much Netanyahu is going to like that," Bardenstein wrote. "Netanyahu won't be able to avoid making difficult decisions and paying a high political price against the backdrop of American demands. He might find himself put to the test sooner than expected, now that he has learned that Obama, and not Romney, will be seated in the Oval Office." The other key issue of immediate concern for both Obama and Netanyahu is the fresh round of talks between Iran and six world powers that is to take place by the end of the year. "Obama will not forget and will not forgive Netanyahu for his support of Mitt Romney," wrote Haaretz diplomatic correspondent Barak Ravid. "However, one hopes that Netanyahu and Obama manage to put aside the bad blood between them and work together to address these two challenges. Netanyahu must do everything in his power to help Obama help him."

The victim’s words
Hazem al-Amin/Now Lebanon
November 9, 2012
Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh said that he does not rule out the Syrian regime’s involvement in former ISF Information Branch Chief Major General Wissam al-Hassan’s assassination. This, he argued, is “part of the rules of the game.” Franjieh is a Lebanese politician, a member of parliament, the head of a parliamentary bloc and a Christian leader. The man did not allow his relationship with Damascus to hinge on a crime, which – as he himself does not rule out – could have been committed by the Syrian regime. This is a clear and unambiguous call for accepting assassination as a tool in public affairs. An allied regime in a neighboring state assassinates a security official and this still does not call for reviewing the relationship with this regime.
Franjieh is a genius-turned-political-monster. He said what he did on the day he was transmitting his political heritage to his son Tony in a televised process that started with accepting the assassin and calling for burying the victim in silence.
Yet the call for accepting the assassin as such was not limited to the Marada genius, as some called on the Lebanese people in the wake of Hassan’s assassination to come to terms with the fact that the Syrian regime killed Wissam al-Hassan and that they have to derive lessons from it. Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun was no stranger to this logic, as stated explicitly by the members of his bloc. Pro-Hezbollah media outlets said the same thing. Indeed, the Syrian regime was not excluded from the list of suspects in the assassination, but this still did not prompt them to adopt any stance – be it merely on the ethical level – vis-à-vis the presumed assassin.
In political terms, this is tantamount to the “Baathization” of public affairs. Are these same people not calling on the Syrians to accept the 40,000 victims and initiate dialogue with a Syrian regime? Coincidentally, only two calls for dialogue have been issued, the first in Lebanon over Wissam al-Hassan’s dead body and the other one in Syria over those of 40,000 Syrians. Someone is actually calling for accepting the fact that the Syrian regime has killed Wissam al-Hassan and, at the same time, for striking an alliance with it or for not dealing with it as a foe. These people are not only inviting us to some dirty feast: they are also saying that politics is a process of [forcing one’s foes to] yield using weapons and death. They beat us to surrendering and got away with their lives, but they lost something of essential importance in the process, namely the human beings’ instinctive siding with the victim rather than with the assassin.
They are Wissam al-Hassan’s friends, or so they said, and his confidents as they wrote upon his death. Yet even though the Syrian regime is part of his potential assassins, this does not imply that they should side with “their friend.” They walked in his funeral procession with the assassin’s phone number in their pockets. Let us imagine that some of these people figure among our friends. We are close to death and these “friends” of ours will walk behind us in our funerals but they will start enumerating the possibilities linked to our assassination before saying in cold blood: “This is part of the rules of the game.”
To the victim, we say this: Run away from those seeing you off on your funeral, bid them farewell and lament your own fate.
*This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Friday November 9, 2012

Jumblat: Assad's Collapse Doesn't Mean Hizbullah will Hand over Arms
Naharnet/Leader of the National Struggle Front bloc Walid Jumblat said on Friday that the collapse of Syrian President Bashar Assad will not make Hizbullah hand over its weapons as the March 14 alliance believes, assuring that the price will not be less than a new Taef agreement. Jumblat called on all political powers to follow President Michel Suleiman's calls for a defense strategy stressing the necessity to avoid strife, he told As-Safir daily in an interview. The Progressive Socialist Party leader criticized the stances of some political factions and the heated rhetoric adopted by some al-Mustaqbal party officials following the assassination of Internal Security Forces Information Bureau chief Wissam al-Hasan. Hasan was assassinated in a massive bomb in October. His assassination was blamed on Syria and March 14 accused the government of PM Najib Miqati for covering the crime. The alliances called for the resignation of the cabinet and boycotted all parliamentary activities.
A solution for the Lebanese crisis can only come form inside Lebanon, stressed Jumblat, noting that any help from other countries, similar to the Doha agreement in 2008 brokered by Saudi Arabia, is not possible now in light of the current circumstances. Denouncing al-Mustaqbal movement's rejection for dialogue, Jumblat urged political powers to gather for talks to distance Lebanon from conflicts, adding “in order to topple the government and form a new one, parties should agree to unconditional dialogue,” he said. “Parties concerned for Lebanon's stability should back Suleiman's role to preserve civil peace,” he said, stressing the necessity to distance Lebanon from regional conflicts in light of the looming parliamentary elections.On the Syrian revolution, Jumblat has almost lost the enthusiasm and support he had before, according to the daily. He fears for Syria's unity now and its role in the region as a result of massive destruction sweeping its civilization and culture. On calls to postpone the 2013 parliamentary elections, Jumblat said “there is no need to postpone the elections if the situation remained stable,” he said. Joint parliamentary committees have formed an electoral subcommittee to study the disputed issues concerning the electoral draft law despite sharp difference among the political foes over the matter. On the other hand, Jumblat voiced concerns over the economic situation in Lebanon, stressing that the risks are comparable to the risk of civil peace. The time of economic boom has gone and we need a policy of austerity. Lebanon needs to save itself, he concluded. Preventing an economic explosion is the responsibility of all political forces, said Jumblat, but he invited Hizbullah to contribute to saving Lebanon.

Report: President Suleiman Heading Towards Cabinet Reshuffle
Naharnet/The political crisis in the country has reached a deadlock as the political foes remain holding on to their stances amid reports saying that President Michel Suleiman is seeking the consent of the rival parties on a suggestion to reshuffle Prime Minister Najib Miqati's cabinet instead of collapsing it.
Sources close to Hizbullah told al-Liwaa newspaper that Suleiman is suggesting a cabinet reshuffle based on dividing portfolios equally between the March 8 camp, the March 14-led opposition and the centrists. According to the newspaper, al-Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc MP Bahia Hariri, Independent MP Tammam Salam, Former Minister Elias Murr, and Internal Security Forces chief Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi would be handed government portfolios. However, sources ruled out the possibility of reaching consensus over the matter for Hizbullah and Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun would voice their rejection as they are holding on to the current cabinet. The opposition rejects attending the national dialogue before the government resigns and demands the formation of a neutral salvation cabinet as the only way to defuse the tension caused by the assassination of Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau chief Wissam al-Hasan on October 19. Lebanon's political crisis worsened last month after the coalition blamed Miqati's cabinet for Hasan's killing in a car bomb blast in Beirut’s Ashrafiyeh district. However, the March 8 camp rejects the formation of a new cabinet on allegations that there's no alternative. Sources informed al-Joumhouria newspaper that Suleiman will announce the postponement of the all-party talks from Nov. 12 to Nov. 29. The last dialogue session was held on September 20 at the Baabda Palace.

Lebanese political crisis deepens in wake of nation-wide strikes
By Yousef Diab./Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat – The Lebanese government appears trapped between the opposition’s campaign to topple it, against the backdrop of the assassination of Lebanese intelligence chief Wissam Hassan, and the strikes being organized by trade unions and public services for better pay. Teachers and civil servants, responding to a call by the Lebanese Union Coordination Committee [UCC], observed a one-day strike across Lebanon on Thursday in protest at government delays in carrying out a controversial pay scale, practically bringing the country to a stand-still. This completely disrupted Lebanese public services and administrations, whilst schools across the country were closed.
Commenting on the strikes, under fire Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati said “we understand the cry of the UCC and the employees’ demands, but in the end we are responsible for maintaining financial stability and we cannot risk [making] any impromptu or hasty decisions that would hit the economy.”
Speaking on the day of the strikes, the Lebanese Prime Minister vowed not to bow to threats of escalatory measures by teacher unions and public sector employees. He stressed that “the salary scale issue cannot be solved by negativity or escalation, but by a calm debate on the best means to secure the needed revenues [to cover] the pay scale, while maintaining the acquired rights of public sector employees and monetary balance and sparing the productive sectors more burdens.”
He added “we call on everyone to carefully approach this issue and avoid involving it in political polarization because we are all concerned with protecting our country and not exposing monetary stability to any setback, particularly amid the state of [economic] stagnation and slowdown the entire region is witnessing.”
For his part, Lebanese Forces bloc MP Antoine Zahra informed Asharq Al-Awsat that “the opposition’s position regarding the government’s resignation is not linked to it as a government, but rather its failure to do anything to stop the political assassinations.” He added “following the assassination of head of the information branch [of Lebanon’s Internal Security Forces] and the other assassination attempts, we cannot follow the traditional approach regarding a government based on a quota system, because we cannot compromise on national security,”
MP Antoine Zahra revealed that “the only solution that we can think of is the resignation of the current government and carrying out political consultations to study how to return confidence to normal political operation in Lebanon.” He asked “after today, how can we believe this government when it claims it is distancing itself when in reality government parties are embroiled in what is happening in Syria, as well as assassinations in Lebanon?”The Lebanese Forces MP also told Asharq Al-Awsat that “the dangerous thing is that they killed the chief of the security apparatus that is not subordinate to their sovereignty.”
Speaking earlier this week, Lebanese Forces bloc MP Antoine Zahra played down the potential for a political vacuum to emerge in Lebanon if the current government steps down.
He said “in [the Lebanese] constitution, there is nothing called ‘vacuum’ if [attempts] to form [an alternative] government fail, because the [old] cabinet will [become a caretaker government] until a new one is established with a vote of confidence.” He stressed that international warnings regarding an emergence of a political vacuum in Lebanon seek to defend the current government, adding that a new government should be formed “after the required [political] consultations are carried out” in line with the Lebanese constitution.
MP Zahra also downplayed the chances of a new government being formed through national dialogue, asserting “we, [the March 14 forces], will not commit the same mistake and sit down with [the March 8 Forces] before the killings are brought to an end.”

Progress in case of Hasan’s assassination: prosecutor
November 09, 2012 /By Youssef Diab/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: State Prosecutor Hatem Madi said Friday that the investigation into last month’s assassination of one of the country’s top intelligence chiefs has been narrowed down to a range of possibilities. “The margins have been tightened and the possibilities [of who stands behind the assassination] have been narrowed down,” Madi told The Daily Star, referring to the case of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan who was assassinated in Beirut car bombing in October. “Detectives have nearly completed analyzing evidence collected from the blast scene,” he said, adding that the evidence included images from surveillance camera footage. A car bomb exploded in the Beirut district of Ashrafieh on Oct. 19, killing Hasan – who was the head of the Internal Security Forces Information Branch Brig – his driver and a woman. Over 100 people, including children, were also wounded in the blast. Madi said some of the reports of forensic evidence and explosives experts have been submitted to him. “Additional reports are still being reviewed,” he said. However, Madi said he was yet to receive a report from the FBI, who dispatched a technical team to Lebanon to help analyze evidence. “Evidence collected by the FBI team is still under analysis in specialized and highly advanced labs in the United States,” he said.
Madi said that while no arrests have been made, “every new piece of information is as good as a new lead.”

Massive storm headed for Lebanon
November 09, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A sizable thunderstorm is headed for the country which is expected to bring heavy winds and lots of rain until the end of the weekend, weather forecasters say.
The storm is projected to hit the south of the country first, before moving to Beirut Friday morning. Nearly 100 millimeters of rain is forecasted to fall through Sunday afternoon with the heaviest rainfall coming on Friday morning, while strong winds are expected to reach up to 75 kilometers per hour, said Abbas Obeid head of the forecasting team at the Civil Aviation Department of the Rafik Hariri International Airport. “Heavy rain across the country and snow fall at 2,000 meters above sea level will continue until Sunday afternoon and the weather will improve Sunday evening,” he said. Temperatures in Beirut are expected to dip to a low of 17. The storm is normal for this time of year, Obeid said. He said that the airport’s control tower will take the proper decision regarding air traffic Friday. “For now there has been no warning against air traffic.”

Geagea hopes Obama will spread democracy in region
November 09, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea expressed hope Friday that U.S. President Barack Obama’s second term would be more forthcoming than his first one when it comes to achieving democracy in the Middle East. “We, in the light of the wars, crises and hardships the world is witnessing, hope that your new era will reflect positively on the lives of the peoples of the world, especially the peoples of the Middle East who are fighting for freedom and democracy,” Geagea said in a congratulatory cable to Obama.
“Your re-election to the presidency gives us great hope on ending all forms of oppression and injustice,” he added.
“We look forward, as Lebanese, to further [work together] to strengthen the sovereignty and independence of our beloved nation Lebanon.”
Geagea urged Obama to “spread peace and security across the Lebanese territory,” adding that he is confident of the extent of concern the U.S. president has for “helping the people of Lebanon.”

Lebanon's Arabic press digest - Nov. 9, 2012 November 09, 2012/The Daily Star
Lebanon's Arabic press digest.
Following are summaries of some of the main stories in a selection of Lebanese newspapers Friday. The Daily Star cannot vouch for the accuracy of these reports.
An-Nahar
Unions challenge government with escalatory steps
Probe into Hasan’s assassination advances to phase 2
Political consultations in a vicious circle, Mikati's visit to Paris on time
After Aoun, Hezbollah delegation visits Bkirki today
Amid indications that it will be difficult to achieve an imminent breakthrough in the political crisis as genuine and comprehensive efforts stalled, the open-ended confrontation between the government and the Union Coordination Committee took on a new dimension that threatens further repercussions.
Thursday’s strike saw record-high participation in private and public schools as well as public departments, ministries and municipalities as the UCC began preparing for its escalatory steps as early as next week.
Meanwhile, preparations were under way for Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s visit to France from Nov. 19-to Nov. 21.
In the framework of intense political activity Bkirki is witnessing, a Hezbollah delegation is expected to visit Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai Friday to congratulate him on his appointment as cardinal.
Regarding the probe into the Oct. 19 assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, security sources told An-Nahar that investigators finished collecting evidence and images. They said the investigation team has moved to phase 2: examining the evidence.
Al-Mustaqbal
UCC accuses Mikati of breaking promise s... Salameh warns of “major consequences”
Pay raise crisis: escalation all the way to open-ended strike
After Thursday’s successful strike, the Union Coordination Committee is now headed toward escalating the fight against the Hezbollah government all the way to an open-ended strike if procrastination continues in the referral of the pay hike to Parliament for approval.
It is worth noting that Prime Minister Najib Mikati hid behind the slogan of "financial stability" to justify his breaking of his promises.
It was these promises that led Lebanon into a dangerous financial, economic and social crisis.
In any case, there was a near-complete response to Thursday’s strike called by the UCC, which threatened to take escalatory measures “in the face of procrastination and promise-breaking.”
The UCC is mulling steps on whether to observe a two-day strike all the way to an open-ended strike to paralyze the entire public sector as well as schools and vocational institutes.
Al-Joumhouria
Sleiman postpones dialogue till Nov. 29, Mikati to raise four essential issues during Paris talks
In a sign that shows the U.S. administration under the second term of President Barack Obama has put the Iranian issue at the forefront, the Pentagon said that an Iranian jet had fired on a U.S. military drone.
Domestically, the political crisis lingers on as each team holds on to its stances.
Sources told Al-Joumhouria that President Michel Sleiman is expected to postpone till Nov. 29 a National Dialogue session which was scheduled for Nov. 12.
Al-Joumhouria also learned from well-informed sources that Mikati will raise four essential issues during talks with senior French officials in Paris. They include the general political situation and the repercussions of the Syria crisis on Lebanon, the economic and social situation, the status of the French peacekeeping force in south Lebanon, and a plan to arm the Lebanese Army and the programs that were earlier discussed and agreed on between the two armies.
Al-Liwaa
Sleiman favors Cabinet reshuffle ... Aoun won’t even consider discussing the issue
Confrontation “rehearsal” between the government and the public sector: who screams first?
Hezbollah in Bkirki today ... opposition MPs won’t participate in committee meetings
Political speeches in the country have almost come to a halt as politicians keep an eye on developments in Syria while remaining focused on monitoring the confrontation between the government and the UCC following Thursday’s "rehearsal" of the teachers and public employees’ strike.
The Mikati government and the UCC were poised for an “open-ended battle,” according to Hanna Gharib, the head of the Secondary Teachers Association.
Who will be the first to issue a cry against paralysis? The government or the UCC?
On the Baabda Palace front, sources close to Hezbollah spoke of ideas being mulled, including suggestions by President Michel Sleiman of a Cabinet reshuffle and not change.

Jumblatt: Disarming Hezbollah would require new Taif
November 09, 2012/The Daily Star/BEIRUT: Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt said in remarks published Friday that nothing short of a new Taif Accord was needed to resolve the issue of Hezbollah’s arsenal. “I am sure that the Future Movement is pretty aware that when the time comes, the price of disarming Hezbollah will be nothing less than a new Taif Accord,” he told As-Safir newspaper. The Accord, negotiated in Taif, Saudi Arabia, was the agreement that bought an end to Lebanon’s 1975-90 Civil War. Future Movement Ahmad Fatfat swiftly responded Friday, saying Jumblatt’s comments indicate that there is a “political price for Hezbollah’s weapons.”“This does not surprise me as [Hezbollah] is no longer a resistance party but a militia seeking political gains, and this means that Hezbollah is ready to take Lebanon to a long war because the Taif [Accord] only came after the [Lebanon Civil] war," Fatfat told Voice of Lebanon. “The Hezbollah issue is primarily regional and Iranian and the solution would be part of a regional solution,” he said. Jumblatt, who describes himself as a centrist in the Cabinet of Prime Minister Najib Mikati, also urged Lebanese to rally around President Michel Sleiman’s defense strategy, which aims to resolve the thorny issue of Hezbollah’s weapons. The opposition March 14 coalition insists that the resistance group be disarmed while Hezbollah argues it needs its arsenal to defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression. Jumblatt stressed the need for Dialogue so that a deal could be reached “to neutralize Lebanon from all conflicts that surround it.”
In his interview, the PSP leader also touched on the economy and called for urgent austerity measures to deal with the difficult economic situation in the wake of the decline of Gulf tourism to Lebanon.
“We should adopt an immediate austerity policy to rescue Lebanon from what is awaiting it, particularly in light of signs that indicate that the absence of Gulf tourists may be long,” Jumblatt said.
“The dangers facing Lebanon’s economy are just as the dangers facing civil peace,” he warned. Jumblatt said the need for austerity measures also come as Arab and Western countries “were no longer willing to provide financial help to Lebanon similar to Paris 1 and Paris 2,” a reference to the international donors conferences that were held in the French capital to raise funds for Lebanon.
“Which means that Lebanon would be left alone and will have to rescue itself,” Jumblatt said.

Aoun meets Rai, claims two agree on crisis plan
November 09, 2012/The Daily Star
Without revealing any details, Aoun claims he and Rai agreed on how to proceed through the political crisis.
BEIRUT: Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun reassured the Lebanese Thursday that the country’s stability would not be shaken by political tensions linked to last month’s assassination of police intelligence chief Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan.
Speaking to reporters after meeting with Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai in Bkirki, north of Beirut, Aoun said they had agreed on ways to resolve the current political crisis sparked by Hasan’s killing, but he declined to give details. The FPM leader said he visited Rai to congratulate him on his recent appointment by Pope Benedict XVI as a cardinal in the Catholic Church.
“We talked about the common issue, which is the current political crisis in Lebanon. We exchanged views on it and we reached an identical vision on ways of solving it,” Aoun said. “We hope that this identical [views] will apply to other parties in order to reach results.” “We reassure all the Lebanese that stability will not be touched. The intensity of the crisis goes up and down only in speeches. Nothing more than this will happen,” he added. Asked to elaborate on what he and Rai agreed, Aoun said: “We cannot reveal intentions before we talk with the other parties.”In response to a question on whether Rai would invite top Maronite leaders for a meeting in Bkirki to discuss what they had agreed on, Aoun said it was up to the patriarch to take such an initiative.
Asked whether Rai would launch an initiative to resolve the political crisis, Aoun told reporters: “The cardinal will always provide you with necessary information.”
The assassination of Hasan in a car bomb in the Beirut district of Ashrafieh on Oct. 19 has thrown Lebanon into a serious political crisis following the opposition March 14 coalition’s calls for the resignation of the government and the formation of a new Cabinet. The coalition has called on Prime Minister Najib Mikati to step aside.
Asked if he would agree to a Cabinet change if Rai approved it, Aoun said: “You have begun talking about details while we are still in the phase of general talks.”
Meanwhile, Rai also met with Daoud Sayegh, a political adviser to former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who conveyed to him a letter from the leader of the Future Movement on the occasion of the patriarch’s appointment as a cardinal. In his letter, Hariri said the cardinal rank was meant to honor all the Lebanese in view of Bkirki’s role as a moral authority and wished Rai success in serving the Maronite Church and Lebanon.

Living with Obama for another four years?
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
I’m still convinced that President Obama committed several mistakes in our region during his first term. With regards to Iran, Obama ignored the Green Revolution, helped to place Iraq under Iranian influence, and overdid the soft diplomacy with Tehran when it came to the Iranian nuclear file. In the Arab world, Obama has made mistakes in his dealings with the Arab Spring states, particularly when strengthening the influence of political Islam there. Finally, he neglected the Syrian revolution and of course failed to accomplish anything of note with regards to the Palestinian cause.
Now Obama has won a second term, what does this mean, and how should we deal with him? To answer this we must examine several important international stances that came to light immediately after Obama’s victory. Obama winning a second term means that he will be more liberated and powerful; he no longer has to worry about another electoral campaign, making him able to take tougher stances. Thus we must consider the international statements issued immediately after the announcement of Obama’s victory, in order to understand how many are now keen to promote their own interests. The most significant of these statements was issued by the British Prime Minister, who congratulated Obama and said: “Right here in Jordan I am hearing appalling stories about what has happened inside Syria so one of the first things I want to talk to Barack about is how we must do more to try and solve this crisis”. David Cameron’s statement effectively means: We gave you space throughout the electoral campaign and did not complicate matters with regards to sensitive issues, most importantly Syria, and now it’s time for action.
The other important statement was issued by Russia, where the Russian President welcomed Obama’s re-election, expressing his readiness to develop and improve “initiatives in bilateral relations and in Russian-US interaction on the international arena”. Furthermore, the Russian Foreign Minister said that his country is ready to “to go as far as the US administration is willing to go”. If we add to that Turkey’s rapid moves to request “Patriot” missiles from NATO, which suggests we are witnessing the beginnings of buffer zones being imposed in Syria, then we can note from all of the above that the wheel, specifically with regards to Syria, has moved quickly and everyone is now looking out for their own interests. Washington issued implicit messages effectively saying “wait until the elections are over”, and is clear that America’s allies have waited with restraint despite the suffering of the Syrians. Now they are calling on Obama to move quickly.
The question here is: What about our region, specifically Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states? The answer is that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf must pursue rapid diplomatic action. Washington can’t leave our region, specifically the Gulf states, at the mercy of hostile parties, whether they are the followers of political Islam or those claiming to be activists, who are actually advocates of division and destabilization, serving the purposes of Islamic groups and even Iran. This is what was proven in the crisis of the Arab Spring, where the Arab “activists”, as Washington saw them, were nothing but facades for the forces that eventually benefitted. Criticizing Obama will not change anything, and waiting for the unknown will be a disaster, so what we need now is a diplomatic uprising with the best of expertise and a clear vision. This is so that we do not come up against any more surprises from Washington in the future, especially since action is long overdue when it comes to the Iranian nuclear issue.

America and the Middle East: The next four years
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
As expected, President Barack Obama has won a second mandate. What he might do with regard to US policy in the Middle East is anyone’s guess. During the election campaign, Obama tried to remind voters at every opportunity of his main "foreign policy" success: the killing of Osama bin Laden. The truth, however, is that after four years of Obama the US finds itself without a coherent world view let alone a credible foreign policy.
Nowhere is this lacuna more evident than in the Middle East. For almost a century the region has been one of the fault-lines that threaten international stability. With the debris of empires strewn around it, this theatre of big power rivalries has produced many convulsions since World War II. The United States developed an interest there in the 1940s as President Roosevelt began thinking about the post-war international order. Under President Truman, the US asserted its influence by preventing Stalin from annexing parts of Iran to the Soviet Union. The Truman Doctrine morphed into the containment policy designed to rein-in the USSR.
Over the decades, under American leadership, a political architecture was shaped guaranteeing the region’s stability.
The US exercised leadership in the aftermath of the Suez Crisis with the Eisenhower Doctrine as the backbone of American policy throughout the Cold war. Despite military coups, civil wars, reversal of alliances, revolutions, and full-scale wars, it held because everyone knew that its guarantor, the United States, would prevent the crossing of certain red lines. In that context the US intervened, both militarily and politically, to contain and/or end conflicts in Oman, Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait and Iraq not to mention Arab-Israeli wars. With the exception of Jimmy Carter, all US presidents sanctioned the use of force when necessary. However, even Carter did not sanction the retreat that Obama has organized. The Carter Doctrine was a reaffirmation of American determination to defend its interests in the region.
For six decades, under administrations from both parties, American power acted as the pole that kept the tent up. Over the past four years, Obama has pulled that pole away, allowing the tent to sag and, in parts, fold.
American abdication has led to transition from a problematic status quo to an uncertain future. It has created a vacuum that various opportunist powers are trying to fill.
Under Obama, Russia has gained a veto over aspects of American foreign policy, ranging from the building of a missile shield in Central Europe to halting Iran’s nuclear program, to intervention in Syria. After two-decades of virtual absence from the Middle East, Russia is trying to revive the influence that the Soviet Empire once enjoyed.
Moscow’s new activism is partly caused by fears that the American retreat might pave the way for a neo-Islamist domination of the Middle East.
Russia is concerned about the emergence of a “green Islamic belt” containing it to the south while its horizons are also blocked by the European Union to its west and China to its east. A neo-Islamist bloc stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Caspian Basin could send wrong signals to Russia’s restive Muslim regions.
For its part, Turkey’s neo-Ottoman elite, is trying to cast itself as the leader of a new Middle East dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood behind a political facade. Four years ago, Turkey was the region’s only nation that had no problems with its neighbors. Today, this is no longer the case.
Meanwhile, Iran is gripped by unprecedented fear and hubris - fear that it might be the next target for regime change and hubris about exporting its anti-West ideology of hate to the region. With its currency in free fall and its economy heading for the precipice, Iran might not be able to bankroll President al-Assad for long. Syria is beginning to look like an expensive mistress that is getting uglier by the day. That could force the mullahs to seek a game-changer by provoking another proxy war with Israel via the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah.
As in Russia’s case, Iran is both encouraged and frightened by the American retreat. It is encouraged because it sees new opportunities to project power in Afghanistan, the Gulf and Iraq. But it is also frightened because it might end up facing a new bloc of Arab powers determined to push it back into its Shiite box.
Some Machiavellians suggest that the best option is to let the Syrian conflict run on, increasing the cost for a weakened Iran while wrecking Russia’s standing in the Arab world, even if that means tragedy for the Syrians.
Obama's world view was shaped by two factors.
The first was his desire to be the opposite of what he thought George W Bush had been. He saw his predecessor as a "my way or the highway" cowboy who had dictated to others.
In 2009 when Iranians rose against the regime, Obama refused to back them because that would have looked like endorsing Bush's Freedom Agenda.
Hatred for Bush also led Obama into backing the rulers of “Arab Spring” countries until their positions became untenable. Even then, Obama preferred alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood rather than secular groups that Bush had tried to promote, albeit with little success.
Not-being Bush was also the key motive in Obama's decision to downgrade ties with Iraq, thus pushing it towards Iran.
Having established that he was not Bush, Obama still had to show who he was. The answer was the second factor in his policy: an exaggerated belief in the potency of his own political charm.
Obama thought that things would happen simply by wanting them.
He promised to create a Palestinian state in one year and appointed Senator George Mitchell as special emissary. But then he forgot about Mitchell who found out that he had been duped and resigned.
Wishful thinking also shaped Obama's policy, or simulacrum of policy, vis-a-vis Iran. He stretched his "hand of friendship" to Ahmadinejad and was roundly rebuffed. Next, Obama started an epistolary bombardment of the Iranian "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei, again earning only derision.
For all that Obama II might prove to be different. No longer concerned about re-election, he may find time to cast a fresh glance at a region that still contains negative energies capable of affecting international peace and stability.

US elections: From Nasser to Al-Assad
By Adel Al-Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat
In a televised interview on the eve of the 1968 US elections, Egypt’s president Gamal Abdel Nasser courted the US Republican Party, saying that the Egyptians people respected the American people and their model of civilization, but resented the policies of President Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat) who stood beside Israel in the 1967 Six Day War. Documents later uncovered in western archives revealed that the Egyptian president ignored peace talks with President Johnson, which could have led to the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula. Nasser preferred to wait for the results of the US elections, wrongly believing that the forthcoming president would grant him more than Johnson. This resulted in a huge strategic loss for Egypt and a costly war of attrition.
In 1969, when Richard Nixon was elected as the new US president, Nasser addressed a telegram to the president-elect, attempting to woo him. The telegram read “what I recall since meeting you in Cairo in 1963 convinces me that the trust shown in you by the American people will create an important opportunity in terms of the international situation.” It is clear that Nasser, the outspoken nationalist and radical anti-western demagogue, was secretly sparing no effort in entreating the US leadership. However the problem was not the attempt to move closer to America and away from the Soviet Union. Rather, the problem was that he failed to perceive that his domestic and foreign policy was the problem, instead believing that what was happening abroad in the US could change the course of his bad luck. Nasser was wrong, He believed – as some Arab leaders still do – that the problem is not in his own policies, but rather in the policies of the US.
Anybody who reviews the documents that have been released by the US State Department or British National Archives, in terms of ambassador’s correspondence – or even the reports published by Cambridge University last year – will notice that every Arab leader believes he understands American politics. However in reality, they only understand some of its processes, not to mention their own personal relationships with some American politicians. It is clear that there is some delusional or “utopian” thinking on the part of these officials – or their advisers – which ignores the true nature of American domestic politics.
When Americans turned out on Tuesday to cast their ballots, there were some in the Middle East anticipating the results as Nasser’s did. Some argued that if Barack Obama secured a second term it will ensure that he is better able to deal with pressing issues, such as supporting the Syrian rebels against the Bashar al-Assad regime that is committing war crimes against its own people, not to mention taking a firmer line against Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and even restarting the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians. However others believe that a victory for Republican challenger Mitt Romney would be better for the region, or at least America’s regional allies, because Obama lacks a clear and firm strategy for the Middle East. As for Romney, there is a state of division over him, with some saying that he lacks experience, as well fixed views regarding the Middle East like his opponent. Some argue that the fact that Romney is a centrist Republican means the restoration of the Ronald Reagan model, namely support for America’s allies and a focus on the forces that threaten regional security.
In my opinion, it is not good to rely on the US elections in this manner, not because America is not important as a world power, but rather because moderate regional states should be pursuing regional policies to achieve their own interests, rather than waiting for the election results of a foreign country. Let us take, for example, the Syrian issue; countries such as Turkey and some Gulf states took action, to challenge the activities of the Syrian regime against its own people, and there has even been talk about financing military defectors and establishing a transitional government. However since that time we have seen greater reluctance, and the Syrian rebels have not been provided with quality arms, nor have efforts succeeded in uniting the Syrian opposition. Some analysts have blamed all this on the US administration, which is hesitant to provide the Syrian rebels with arms. In addition to this, there are some who have cited the recent US rejection of the Syrian National Council [SNC] as evidence of the lack of seriousness on the part of the Obama administration in toppling Assad. Turkey and the Gulf states’ problem is that they are relying on the US administration, and did not plan in advance for the repercussions of their decisions or provide the necessary means and equipment not just to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad, but to build a state of democratic state in its place. The arrival of Romney or the survival of Obama may not change the reality on the ground one iota.
States often act in their own interests, and Turkey and the Gulf States have to build an international alliance based on the international community’s interests at large in the overthrow a regime that is supporting terrorism and intimidating its own citizens. They, before anyone else, must prepare Syria for the transitional phase. In a 2009 joint meeting between Bashar al-Assad and John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, al-Assad informed his guest that he was looking forward to the election of President Obama. In response, Kerry promised al-Assad that President Obama would work to withdraw US troops from Iraq. In an apparent demonstration of self-importance, which was viewed as weakness on the part of the new US president, al-Assad answered “it is not one of our objectives to humiliate the US.” There can be no doubt that al-Assad today is aware of what Nasser learnt too late, that the solution does not necessarily come from the US elections, but rather by changing the political behavior of the regime itself.

Syrian National Council Meets in Doha to Discuss Opposition Unification, Elect Chief
Naharnet/The Syrian National Council, vying to keep its leading role amid U.S. pressure to unify the opposition, on Friday discussed a proposal to bring together all groups opposed to President Bashar Assad. The SNC meeting in Doha was also to choose a new chief after having elected a 41-member secretariat, a third of which is made up of Islamists, as it faces charges of not being representative enough.
Dissident George Sabra, a Christian, was the latest to join the secretariat after an elected member pulled out. Representatives of various opposition groups met on Thursday in the Qatari capital and were said to be close to reaching an agreement over a united political structure. But SNC representatives at the meeting voiced reservations over the initiative, based on a proposal tabled by prominent dissident Riad Seif with apparent U.S. support. The SNC asked for a delay until late Friday to give its decision, allowing itself time to first elect a president.
The plan put forward at Thursday's meeting, called by host Qatar and the Arab League, appeared to be a modified version of Seif's initiative, proposing an umbrella body of some 60 members, representing the SNC, civilian groups active on the ground, armed groups, Muslim scholars and others. This body would in turn form a transitional government of some 10 members, and a military council.
The SNC, formed six months after the anti-regime uprising began in March 2011, has proposed "holding a national congress of 300 members in liberated territories" in order to add "revolutionary legitimacy" to any executive, according to SNC member Najati Tayara. Such a congress would form a transitional government that would run territories seized by the rebels, channel humanitarian aid and direct military operations, he said. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week called the SNC unrepresentative of opposition forces on the ground and said it "can no longer be viewed as the visible leader of the opposition." The SNC, which fears marginalization in a new structure, in return accused Washington of undermining the revolt and "sowing the seeds of division."
SourceAgence France Presse