LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
September 19 /12

Bible Quotation for today/
Mark 8,34-38.9,1. : "He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.’ And he said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Michel asks for clarification while al-Assad asks for support/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 18/12
Destroying the embassy/By Abdullah Al-Otaibi/Asharq Alawsat/September 18/12
Tehran Adds to the Pressure on Iran's Economy/Patrick Clawson /Washington Institute/September 18/12

Tehran Adds to the Pressure on Iran's Economy
Patrick Clawson /Washington Institute
Iran's economy has taken a turn for the worse, primarily due to poor domestic policies as well as international sanctions. But it would be unduly optimistic to think this will change the regime's nuclear stance.
Three weeks ago, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called for an "economy of resistance," which he described as "using the country's full potential...[to] break the illusions of the arrogant powers" that Tehran will change its policies. Since then, the country's currency has lost 27 percent of its value on the free market. Yet these and other deteriorating economic circumstances are due not just to ongoing international sanctions, but also to the accumulating impact of inappropriate Iranian government policies. And although the situation may eventually spill over into the nuclear impasse, there are no signs of that at present.
THE COLLAPSING RIAL AND STAGFLATION
Until recently, Iran's economy had been doing rather well -- its growth was higher than that of either the United States or the European Union every year since 2008. But that may be changing.
The Iranian rial has been nose-diving since September 2010, when for the first time since the 2002 currency reform, the free market rate fell appreciably below the official rate of about 10,000 rials per dollar (the official rate was periodically adjusted by small amounts). The Central Bank of Iran vainly tried to close the gap, but after the free market rate fell to 11,800 rials per dollar in June 2011, Tehran gave in and devalued the official rate from 10,590 to 11,740. Although that brought a unified rate for five months, the free rate plummeted again in November 2011 to 13,300 rials per dollar. That sparked a two-month free fall, with the rial dropping to 22,100 per dollar in late January 2012.
In response, the government panicked, adopting coercive measures (e.g., closing currency dealers, blocking websites quoting exchange rates), allowing interest rates to rise, feeding large amounts of dollars into the market, and providing dollars at the official rate of 12,260 to import basic goods. The free rate soon recovered to about 19,000, where it stayed until late August. Since then, however, it has headed sharply downward again, reaching 26,000 on September 12. That figure represents 38 percent of what it was worth two years ago, and 73 percent of what it was worth in August.
As the rial has fallen, the cost of imported goods has gone up. The official consumer price index in August was 23.9 percent higher than a year earlier, with the increase being sharpest for foodstuffs (e.g., 74 percent for fresh fruit, 81 percent for vegetables, 74 percent for chicken). As is typical in such situations elsewhere, the popular perception among Iranians is that the inflation rate is even higher than the government figures show. At these rates, Iranians are all the more likely to flee the rial, accelerating the downward spiral. For instance, in the first seven months of 2012, Turkey reported exporting $6.2 billion worth of gold to Iran, up 500 percent over the previous year; this made Iran Turkey's largest export destination.
Tehran's decreasing export earnings have placed additional pressure on the rial. As U.S. Treasury undersecretary David Cohen noted on September 12, "Last year, Iran exported approximately 2.4 million barrels of oil per day...earning it about $100 billion," but since then, its "crude exports have plummeted to approximately one million barrels a day...costing Iran up to $5 billion a month."
The government's response has apparently included administrative measures to cut imports. In early August, Central Bank governor Mahmoud Bahmani warned, "There is no reason to spend our money [on imports] when we are under sanctions. We should remember that we might need to manage our country for a long time with this money." What this means for Iranian importers is illustrated by a quote one gave in mid-July to PBS reporter Kelly Niknejad: "Before the sanctions, it took two days to get an import permit from the Ministry of Commerce or a letter of credit from the Iranian bank that pays the exporter. Now it takes two weeks for the import permit and 15-20 days for the letter. Customs is blocked up too. Last week we had a shipment that was held at Bandar Abbas [Iran's largest port] for two months."
The difficulties in acquiring imported parts and materials are hitting Iranian industry hard. The automobile sector, which employs 150,000 people directly and indirectly, is scrambling to get a hold of parts from key French and Korean suppliers, in the face of financial sanctions imposed by those two governments and the reluctance of Peugeot and Kia to risk angering Washington or losing American customers. Meanwhile, the official unemployment rate is 17 percent overall and 29 percent for youths, with most Iranians believing it is much higher.
DOMESTIC POLICY ERRORS MAGNIFY SANCTIONS
In early September, Central Bank governor Bahmani stated, "Our situation is one of war. We are fighting an economic war with the world." Much as Washington may wish to claim full credit for Iran's economic problems, however, Majlis speaker Ali Larijani may have been closer to the truth when he said in late July, "The country's economic problems are only 20 percent due to sanctions. Unfortunately, the main origin of inflation comes from the maladroit application of the plan to suppress subsidies." Whatever the exact distribution of blame may be, both internal and external factors underlie Iran's current economic quandary.
In December 2011, Tehran raised the country's highly subsidized energy prices to market levels, giving families monthly cash payments to compensate. That move had much to recommend it -- in particular, gasoline consumption dropped, partly due to lower domestic demand but also because of a drop-off in the rampant smuggling of gas to neighboring countries where prices were much higher. Yet the quadrupling of energy prices ran the obvious risk that businesses would simply increase prices to cover the higher costs, setting off high inflation. The announced plan was to direct considerable funds to businesses to help them adjust to the new situation (e.g., by investing in energy-saving technology). Instead, the government used all of the additional revenue from higher-price energy sales to provide checks to households, leaving businesses to struggle. Many turned to bank loans to finance their losses, a route made all the more attractive by interest rates that were well below the inflation rate. Those loans, plus government borrowing to finance the payments to households, expanded the money supply, which only further fed inflation.
Indeed, loose monetary policy has been a major reason for accelerating inflation and the rial's declining value. From March 2007 (in the middle of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s first term) to March 2012, the broad money supply went from 1,383 trillion rials to 3,720 trillion, a 169 percent increase. During the same period, the real gross domestic product increased by 21 percent. When 169 percent more money chases 21 percent more goods, the result is inflation -- indeed, Iran's consumer price index increased 18 percent annually over that period. With prices increasing less than 3 percent annually in the countries with which Iran trades, one would expect the rial to lose value. To keep pace with rising costs, the rial should have fallen from 10,000 per dollar in 2007 to 20,000 in 2012. The actual, far steeper drop to 26,000 is a crude indicator of how much the economy has been affected by concerns about the international situation and flaws in the regime's fiscal policies.
POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE NUCLEAR IMPASSE
At present, it would be optimistic at best to hope that the deteriorating economic circumstances will spur Iran's leaders to shift their nuclear stance. They do not seem to know or care much about the country's economic situation -- their own income has been hurt only a little, if at all, and they appear unconcerned about the prospect of popular unrest given their past success at repressing opposition. For now, they are likely to stay the course on both domestic economic policy and the nuclear issue. If they do so, the economy will deteriorate at an even faster rate, with perceptions of runaway inflation leading Iranians to take more desperate actions to get out of the rial just at the time when low oil exports and tightening financial sanctions reduce Iran's access to foreign exchange.
Unless the regime's policies change, the economic situation could become so bad over the next year or two that Iran's leaders find themselves facing strong business pressure (including from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and popular grumbling to do something dramatic. At that point, all of the policy options available to them will be terrible. Sharply raising interest rates to attract money back into banks (and therefore available for lending to the government) would slow the economy, worsening unemployment and hurting politically well-connected borrowers in particular. Imposing foreign exchange controls and multiple exchange rates would exacerbate already-rampant corruption (the leading popular complaint against the government) and lead to shortages or price increases for the cheap imported goods to which consumers have become accustomed. And slicing government spending in the short term so that more dollars can be directed into the free market would be a tough step to take with a presidential election looming in 2013.
If any of these dire scenarios comes to pass, Tehran may be more open to a nuclear deal that leads to relaxation of sanctions, increased oil sales, and greater public confidence in the country's economic prospects. To date, however, there are no indications that such a shift is in the cards, and it would be an act of faith to base U.S. policy on this prospect.
*Patrick Clawson is director of research at The Washington Institute.

Expert: US rejection of red lines on Iran is disturbing
By YAAKOV LAPPIN 09/18/2012/J.post
"The very public display of the US and Israel undermining each other must cease. The only winner is Iran," senior Israeli arms control expert Landau tells 'Post'; says Obama has set red lines twice in one year. Senior Israeli arms control expert Dr. Emily Landau says she feels deeply uneasy over the unprecedented public dispute raging between Israel and the US over Iran's nuclear program.
"The very public display of the US and Israel undermining each other must cease. The only winner is Iran," she told The Jerusalem Post over the Rosh Hashana vacation.Landau, of Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies, is particularly disturbed by the Obama Administration's refusal to set red lines over Iran's nuclear weapons program development, as well as the justifications coming out of Washington over this refusal.
Responding to comments made by US President Barack Obama and senior administration officials, who said last week that states do no set red lines, and that red lines limit their freedom of action, Landau said, "States do set red lines, and Obama himself has done so twice over the past year."
She added that Washington effectively set red lines in response Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, and, more recently, "to Assad about moving chemical weapons in Syria or to Lebanon."
Red lines are routinely used in international diplomacy as effective ways to leverage pressure and means to deter the other side, she added.
Landau noted that Washington has repeatedly and publicly told Jerusalem it must refrain from attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, but then implicitly mocked Israel for not setting a red line itself on Iran, a position she found "disturbingly cynical."
"Red lines should be understood as a lever of pressure on Iran to get it to (finally) be serious about a negotiation. While the US is a party to the negotiation with Iran, and setting a red line makes sense in this context, Israel most certainly is not, and therefore it would be inappropriate for it to set a red line. The responsibility for stopping Iran is on the shoulders of the P5, not Israel," she said.
Last week, the New York Times cited an Obama Administration official as saying that America's only red line on Iran is nuclear weapons.
But that position "is obviously not taken seriously enough by Iran," Landau argued. With Tehran closely following the public tit-for-tat between Israel and the US, Iranian decision makers have concluded that "the US is projecting a sense that it does not want things to come to military force, and it will be willing to go to great lengths to avoid it."
This is further reinforced by the fact that, on the one hand the US is still publicly supporting diplomacy, but on the other, there is no sign of any negotiations on the horizon.
Back in June, ahead of rounds of talks (that failed) in Istanbul, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said that time was running out, "but time is now looking very elastic," Landau said.
"This is all bad news for a more effective negotiation. And the only thing moving right now is Iran's nuclear activity, as evidenced by the latest IAEA report of August 30," she added.

Iran launches submarine as US navy drills in Gulf
Reuters Published: 09.18.12/Ynetnews
Tehran sends submarine, destroyer into Gulf as US, Britain, France and other states hold naval drills
Iran launched a submarine and a destroyer into the Gulf from Bandar Abbas port on Tuesday at the same time as US and allied navies held exercises in the same waters to practice keeping oil shipping lanes open. Tehran has repeatedly threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a route for oil exports from the Gulf, if Iranian nuclear sites are attacked by Israel, which believes Tehran is trying to develop an atomic bomb.The United States, Britain, France and a number of Middle Eastern states are conducting a naval exercise in the Gulf this week, focusing on how to clear mines that Tehran or guerilla groups might deploy to disrupt tanker traffic.
Iran's refitted Tareq-901 submarine and Sahand destroyer were launched on the direct orders of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the official IRNA news agency reported.
'Army must improve capabilities'
On the other side of the country, Khamenei visited the northern coastal city of Nowshahr on Tuesday to watch naval cadets practice planting mines, freeing hijacked ships, destroying enemy vessels and jumping from helicopters, his official website said."The armed forces must reach capabilities such that no one can attack the strong fence of the country and the dear people of Iran," Khamenei told army commanders, according to the Iranian Students News Agency.
Iran's Tareq-class submarines are diesel-electric boats that were originally built in Russia in the early 1990s, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a non-profit organization which focuses on security affairs. Publicly, Iranian military officials have sounded relaxed about the US naval exercise.
"This exercise is a defensive exercise and we don't perceive any threats from it," Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, told local media.
"We are not conducting exercises in response."

Assad's sister defects, report says
Ynet Published: 09.18.12/Ynetnews
Al-Arabiya reports that Bushra Assad, whose husband Assef Shawqat was killed in July bombing, left Syria for Dubai with her kids . Bushra Assad, Syrian President Bashar Assad's sister, has fled Syria with her children, Al-Arabiya reported Tuesday. Bushra's husband Assef Shawqat, who was the deputy chief of staff of the Syrian Armed Forces, was killed by opposition forces in Damascus on July 18. It should be noted that several weeks ago, Al-Arabiya reported that Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa had defected to Jordan, a report that was later revealed as untrue.
Earlier this week, opposition website www.All4Syria.info reported that Bushra, 51, had left Syria to Dubai, where she enrolled her children at school. The report said that Bushra had previously lived in the UAE during a brief rift with her brother, Bashar.
Pro-Syrian Lebanese Arabic daily Ad-Diyar also reported that Bushara, a trained pharmacist, was planning to travel to Dubai but did not mention whether she intends to make it her new home.
Rising disputes
A Syrian source told Al-Arabiya that Assad's sister had escaped Syria amid reports of “rising disputes” within the Alawite sect, to which the president and the vast majority of his powerful military, intelligence and government figures belong.
Bushra had apparently grown more worried about her and her children's safety after the death of her husband Shawqat, who was also the former head of the Syrian Military Intelligence, the source said, adding that a “Quasi-Coup taking place” within the ranks of the Alawite leaderships has prompted Bushra to flee the country.
On Saturday it was reported that Youssef Assad, a Syrian air force officer and a relative of Assad's had defected and joined the opposition.

Syria: Christian activists deny forming militias to support Assad
Asharq Al-Awsat
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat - There are conflicting reports regarding Christians in Syria forming armed militias to help the Syrian regime suppress the ongoing popular uprising. In recent days, several websites have circulated news reports claiming that "the Syrian Christians have decided to stand by the regime of President Bashar al-Assad". The websites also report that "more than 150 young Christian men were killed in Aleppo during battles between Christians and Free Syrian Army battalions.”
However, Syrian Christian activists opposed to the al-Assad regime have refuted these reports. One such activist, who identified himself to Asharq Al-Awsat as Nadir, said: “The aim of these reports is to distort the Christian stance that supports the popular movement and opposes the criminal regime. Moreover, since the beginning of the revolution, the regime has relied on the theory of ‘protecting minorities’ in order to justify its existence, and has tried to involve the Christians in its dirty battle against the Syrian people, but fortunately this has not worked."
Nadir stressed that “the majority of Christians in Syria believe in a collective national identity and do not follow those creating sedition and promoting civil war."
"The regime has begun to sense that it will collapse soon. Hence it has been prompted to adopt the saying ‘it’s either me or the flood’, and now it is trying to arm the Druze and the Christians in an attempt to drag them into its suicidal battle", Nadir added
Yara Nasir, a Christian activist and member of the Syrian National Council, has cast doubt over the reports of 150 Christian youths dying in battles in Aleppo, telling Asharq Al-Awsat: "The Syrian Christians are participating in the popular revolution against the al-Assad regime and a large number of Christian youths have joined the Free Syrian Army battalions in Homs."
Nasir points out that "A large number of Christian activists are working within the revolution’s cadres and organizations, in all the Syrian cities and villages."
The Christian activist went on to explain that “calls for arming the Christians are issued by the regime in order to sow the seeds sedition, and turn the people of one society against each other. These calls have been rejected by the church institution at the level of the patriarchs and bishops. Moreover, the Christians themselves have refused to be dragged into this."
Nasir categorically believes that "the position of the church is certainly not siding with the regime. If a priest here or a church official there emerges and expresses a stance supporting Bashar al-Assad's regime, this does not mean that the church as an authority for the Christians in Syria is siding with the regime."
A Homs-based Christian priest, who spoke with Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity, revealed that: “We have opened our monasteries and churches to receive the displaced and care for them; therefore, how can we be accused of carrying arms against our brothers in the country." While refusing to take sides in the ongoing conflict, the priest stressed to Asharq Al-Awsat: "The demands of the Christians cannot be separated from the demands of the rest of the sectors of Syrian society. We are part of this society, and ending its injustice also means ending our injustice."
Syrian society is made up of a number of ethnic groups and religions. The Alawites, who currently hold most posts in Syria’s governing institutions, represent only 12 percent of the population, whilst the Sunnis represent 75 percent.
The Christians constitute some 10 percent of the Syrian population, the Kurds 8 percent, and the Druze less than 3 percent. While some people welcome the neutral stance adopted by the Christians, others call on them "to join the Syrian revolution and play a historic role."

Michel asks for clarification while al-Assad asks for support!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
Tehran’s ambassador to Lebanon wanted to rectify the statement made by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp [IRGC] commander regarding the presence of his forces in Lebanon and Syria. But the envoy fell into a trap of his own making and he unintentionally revealed that Iranian forces are truly present in Syria in order to suppress the unarmed Syrians and support al-Assad!
Lebanese President Michel Suleiman asked Iranian ambassador, Ghazanfar Roknabadi, for an official clarification of these statements. Against this backdrop, an official presidential statement was issued from Lebanon saying that the ambassador denied this, clarifying that the IRGC Commander Mohammad Ali Jafari’s answer was in response to the situation in Syria. In other words, the Quds Forces are present in Syria, but not Lebanon. However we must note that IRGC commander’s statement was clear and he acknowledged the presence of the Quds Force – which is affiliated to the IRGC –in both Syria and Lebanon, adding “we just give them our experience, advice and intellectual assistance.”
The paradox in the Iranian envoy’s clarification is that he implicitly acknowledged the presence of the Quds Force in Syria. Another paradox is that what has happened in Syria today on the ground clarifies that the situation has changed and the balance of power is no longer the same; otherwise how can we explain the Lebanese president summoning the Iranian ambassador to his palace and asking for official clarification about these Iranian statements, while al-Assad is asking for support? Indeed the situation has gone beyond asking for support, for it is clear today that Iran is steering the situation in Syria. Therefore the commander of the IRGC issued a statement acknowledging the presence of the Quds Force in Syria without paying heed to any potential consequences, and without thinking how these statements could embarrass al-Assad!
What is clear today, following the statements of the IRGC commander, is that Iran is more embarrassed than al-Assad himself. Ever since Jafari’s statement, Iran has been trying to deal with this crisis that it created itself. In the beginning, the IRGC commander – on camera– said that his country has no intention to intervene in Syria in the event that foreign forces intervene there. This is what prompted Iran to issue a statement saying that the IRGC’s comments were taken out of context. While today, we see the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon also trying to address the IRGC’s commander’s comments regarding the presence of the Quds Force in Lebanon and Syria; however he also fell into a trap of his own making, as he implicitly acknowledged the presence of Iranian forces in Syria!
Of course, all of this is happening at a time when the al-Assad regime’s silence is deafening, as it has failed to issue any denial or clarification or objection to Iranian forces intervening and suppressing the Syrian people at the time of writing. This means one thing, namely that al-Assad is weaker than his allies and supporters believe, particularly as Iran has begun to speak about him in a manner that it does not do so even with Hassam Nasrallah in Lebanon – its pampered son – and its military arm in the region, despite the Iranians trying to portray him – Nasrallah – as part of the Lebanese makeup.

Did Benghazi ruin the Syrian revolution?
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid
Asharq Alawsat
After the attack in Benghazi alarm bells rang out in a number of capitals around the world. Al-Qaeda has emerged in Libya, there are jihadists in Sinai, and armed Salafis in Tunisia. Within the space of one week it seemed as if all the extremists had come out of the bottle and were now intent on destroying the world. One analyst on “Russia Today” commented with a sly smile: “We told them that what was happening in Libya and Syria was nothing but the work of Islamic terrorist groups, not popular revolutions, and that supporting these events would be a disaster for the West and the world as a whole, but they did not listen, and the death of the US Ambassador is merely the fruit of what American policy has planted in Libya”.
This accusation is nothing new, but now it is striking a chord with many after the shock of the events in Benghazi and Tunisia. Because of these concerns, press reports have suggested that US President Barack Obama is currently “contending with several possibilities”, and that the US administration is reconsidering how to deal with the Syrian revolution! These are significant and serious words, if true. Of course, it is difficult to explain in brief the importance of the Syrian people getting the support of major powers for their revolution, or any armed revolution for that matter. Without the support of major countries, Syrian revolutionary organizations may be classified as terrorists, they may be prevented from operating in Turkey or Jordan, and it will be impossible for them to raise funds and arms from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Qatar. Practically speaking, they would end up like the Kurdish armed movements, which have existed for decades but are besieged and without legitimacy.
Here I want to be realistic and admit that in the Syrian revolution there may be greater problems than there were in Libya, and future risks that cannot be ignored when the Bashar al-Assad regime changes. However, the West is making a mistake when looking at the situation from the perspective of its fears of extremist fundamentalism. Syria is not Egypt and al-Assad is not Mubarak. Likewise, were the Syrian revolution to fail, this would be more dangerous than if it were to succeed. Armed extremist groups would spread like mushrooms because they feed on the failure of governments, on chaos and on enlisting the defeated and the demoralized. After a year of armed confrontations the Syrian opposition has severely damaged the regime and its institutions, so in order to re-establish its authority the al-Assad regime will inevitably increase its ferocity against its citizens, against the countries of the region, and against Western interests. Western countries will ultimately be forced to return to Syria to combat this, as they did in Iraq. They broke Saddam Hussein’s regime in the operation to liberate Kuwait in 1991, but left him wounded and were forced to return to finish him off in 2003. As a result, chaos has prevailed in Iraq until now, and the Iraqi regime has been swallowed by Iran.
The second key point is that the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad regime is more necessary for Syria, the region and the international community than the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. The al-Assad regime is the long arm of Tehran in the Arab region, and has directed the majority of terrorist groups over the past forty years against the countries of the region as well as the West. There is a considerable amount of evidence linking al-Qaeda to the Syrian and Iranian regimes, and with regards to most of the terrorist operations carried out in Iraq during the past eight years; the Syrian regime has been a complicit party. We cannot rule out the possibility of it later emerging that the attack carried out on the US consulate in Benghazi, by al-Qaeda or another armed group, was an operation orchestrated by the al-Assad regime or its allies. This is especially given that the attack was designed to coincide with the eleventh anniversary of the September 11th 2001 attacks, with a view to confuse and intimidate the US.
The third aspect is the popularity of the issue in the region. I cannot think of another issue over the past 50 years, aside from the Palestinian Cause, that has dominated the feelings of the Arabs as much as the current Syrian situation. There is a tremendous amount of sympathy for the Syrian people in our region, because of the relentless, heinous crimes committed by the brutal al-Assad regime on a daily basis, and the shocked and angry Arab people watching the news and seeing the images every evening. This has turned the majority of the Arabs against Iran and Russia, and they are also angry at the West for its refusal to get involved.
Returning to the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, which has raised fears in the West, it is true that during the reign of the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi foreign embassies and interests lived under complete security and protection, but do not forget that Gaddafi, like al-Assad, was behind many terrorist crimes around the world. The West must realize that overthrowing these criminal regimes will not happen easily because there will always be reprisals, and groups will always emerge trying to replace them, but in the end the downfall of these regimes remains a positive step for the world.

Destroying the embassy
By Abdullah Al-Otaibi
Asharq awsat
On the anniversary of the September 11th 2001 attacks, and against the backdrop of overwhelming rage at a trivial, defamatory film about the Prophet Mohammed, masses flocked to the US embassy in Cairo, setting fire to the American flag and raising the black banner of al-Qaeda in its place. At the same time, a terrorist group set fire to the American consulate in Benghazi, killing the US Ambassador and some embassy staff.
At one point, the US was heavily involved in Tahrir Square, downtown Cairo, encouraging the angry youths who were calling for the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. Following the success of these protests, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton toured Tahrir Square to celebrate the launch of a new era, as well as the US administration's new approach and policies in the region. This new approach believes that the era of military rule in the Arab republics is over with these regimes no longer serving a useful purpose, and that their overthrow will mark the end of despotism. The Americans now see political Islam as an alternative that deserves to be put to the test, and now is the time to do so. For the US, the rise of Islamic rule could potentially exterminate al-Qaeda as well as all violent Islamic currents in the Islamic world.
This approach seems imperfect and unrealistic from more than one aspect. The US, which today denounces military rule, has been a staunch supporter of Arab military governments ever since the 1950s, when it supported Gamal Abdul Nasser's stance against what was then termed as the Tripartite Aggression. The US established close relations with President Anwar Sadat and later on with President Hosni Mubarak. Now the US administration is repeating the same scenario but this time by inaugurating a new era of political Islam, in the conviction that modern ruling systems will be democratic, adopt peaceful transfers of power, and refrain from autocracy.
Yet the US administration has maintained a stony silence with regards to the Islamists’ extensive attempts to dominate all aspects of the [Arab Spring] states, powers, and active institutions such as the media and traditional religious and judicial establishments, and so on. These practices have even prompted the partners of such political Islam movements, more so than their opponents, to complain and bluntly warn against the dangers of these trends. Yet America’s silence and negligence will lead to a price that must be paid by the current and future US administration.
Despotism has never been restricted to one shape and one guise. Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi often argued that civil despotism would in fact be more merciful than its religious equivalent. The discourse of political Islam may be against autocracy as exhibited by others, yet it legitimizes another form of autocracy that it utilizes as a tool necessary for governance and for deciding how justice should be done. As for the argument that political Islam is yet to be put to the test as a ruling system, this is also untrue, for Islamist movements have come to power in more than one country, as is the case in Sudan and Gaza. Furthermore, the US in the past was initially pleased with the overthrow of the Shah regime in Iran, and with the leader of Shiite political Islam, Ruhollah Khomeini, coming to power in Tehran, but this is a stance that the US has continually paid a price for over the past 30 years.
Although there are obvious differences between these two scenes, the 1979 protests in Iran began with the occupation of the US embassy in Tehran, with its personnel being held hostage for several months, whereas in Cairo, a radical mob attacked the US embassy and even more violent extremists struck the US consulate in Benghazi. Occurrences as such disprove the idea that political Islam coming to power will eliminate religious violence, extremists and terrorists. Yet still Hilary Clinton insists on wondering: "Today, many Americans are asking - indeed, I asked myself - how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate?"
The wrong policies always stem from the wrong ideas, and wrong ideas are built upon misconceptions. Confining the understanding of violent religious groups and the nature of individual terrorists to political and economic circumstances (despite their importance) alone is a misconception. Violent religious groups are an ideological problem first and foremost. Unless we take this fully into consideration, the scene becomes complicated and the very essence is lost, which causes visions to become distorted and decisions to be issued haphazardly.
The US is a great country on most scientific, civil, human and political levels. However, this does not mean that it is immune from mistakes and sins when it comes to its political administration. To this effect, we can compare what is currently happening to what previously happened in Iraq, where the country was handed over to Shiite political Islam currents through “democratic elections”. As a result, the entire country is now in the hands of Iran, and the performance of the new leadership after coming to power demonstrates a new example of autocracy and dictatorship. This is clear in Iraq’s abhorrent sectarian prosecutions, the intimidation of opponents through bombings and assassinations, and finally, the exploitation of the judiciary there. In fact, the death sentence issued against Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi is just one example of this.
There are numerous indicators that what happened yesterday may happen again today and tomorrow even if the countries or circumstances differ. The two cases [of Libya and Iraq] were both under US patronage. In the case of Iraq, the mistakes committed by the former administration began to appear through news leaks, memorandums and political dialogues that exposed much of what was once concealed and deemed a secret. As for the current US administration's mistakes, we must keep a watchful eye and observe, monitor, compare and analyze, and when the truth fully emerges we can describe the scene in a more accurate manner.
Why does the US administration commit mistakes with some of its policies towards the region? It is a big question, but perhaps part of the answer lies in the scientific and academic bias that is spread widely within American universities and some research centers that conduct studies on the region's culture, history and struggles. Mistakes are further compounded by the current emphasis on US domestic policies and America’s continual reluctance to get involved in the situation in Syria. The US, by allowing Russia and China to take international center stage at its expense, is committing a grave mistake.
Warnings have been issued in this regard by several US intellectuals and politicians who have contributed a great service to US interests in the past, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger. Today, these two men have a considerable standing owing to their rich history, whether in political and strategic theorization or in the important state positions they held.
The US perception of new developments in the Middle East is riddled with mistakes. Politicians currently participating in these events will come out at a later stage to reveal such errors and explain these mistakes. However, by that time, the wisdom or opinions offered will be useless.
Finally, if it true that it is a mistake to continue to commit the same mistakes, then it is even worse to commit the same mistake and think that the result will be different.

Iran accuses nuclear watchdog of being infiltrated by “terrorists and saboteurs”
DEBKAfile Special Report September 17, 2012/Emboldened by certainty that the US and Israel had given up on attacking its nuclear program, Iran’s atomic energy chief Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani felt free to heap abuse on the International Atomic Energy Agency. Addressing the IAEA’s annual meeting in Vienna Saturday, Sept. 17, the Iranian official accused the watchdog of a cynical approach and mismanagement, being influenced by “certain states” and infiltration by “terrorists and saboteurs.”
The Iranian official bald-facedly turned charges that Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism world wide against its accusers in the West, bolstered further by the row between the Obama administration and Israel over whether or not to go to war against Iran. Saturday, the Iranian media highlighted the US President Barack Obama’s rebuff of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu over “red lines” for Iran – encouraging news for Iran’s leaders.
He was further encouraged to take liberties by the propitiatory offer by the IAEA director Yukiya Amano to “intensify dialogue” with Iran despite the lack of progress so far in clarifying concerns about its nuclear program. And Catherine Ashton, the European Union foreign policy chief, was more than ready to meet Saeed Jalili, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator in Istanbul, again Tuesday, Sept. 18, for an effort to restart nuclear talks between six world powers and Iran - even though Tehran had systematically blocked progress in the last rounds.
Iran’s leaders must have felt they were completely out of the woods when they heard US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice comment to CNN Sunday night: “They do not have a nuclear weapon. Our shared intelligence assessments are that there is still a considerable time and space before they will have a nuclear weapon should they make the decision to go for that.”
The Israeli prime minister faces a cascade of criticism from the West for warning that time is running out for Israel to disrupt Iran’s nuclear bomb program. He tried a rebuttal by going on US airwaves Sunday to warn that Iran was only six or seven months from having “90 percent" of what it needed to make an atomic bomb. For the first time, he offered his government’s definition of the level of Iranian nuclear development that he would regard as dangerous: one bomb’s worth of enriched uranium, even if it required additional work to actually make a weapon.
He implied that Iran would cross that line soon. “You know, they’re in the last 20 yards, and you can’t let them cross that goal line," Netanyahu said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press."
But his voice fell on deaf ears. Both the president and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have made it clear that America would not bow to any demands for red lines on if and when to attack Iran. Former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk repeated this, although he did step out of the approved Obama script to predict a US-Iranian military confrontation over the nuclear issue in 2013.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel lined up behind Washington: She said a nuclear Iran is a threat not just for Israel but the entire world, but there is still time for diplomacy before a decision to resort to military action becomes necessary.
Tehran has every reason for self-congratulation: The Obama administration is instigating a fresh international effort to inject momentum into nuclear diplomacy with Iran, despite the fiascos of three and-a-half years of fruitless talks and the failure of tough economic sanctions to slow Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon. If anything, Iran was encouraged to step on the pedal. It must be presumed therefore that the fresh diplomatic impetus is not meant to stop Iran but stop Netanyahu going through with any plans for attacking Iran’s nuclear bomb project. It was therefore as clear as day to Iran’s atomic energy chief that the international cards are stacked against Israel – not his own government.

Ex-Lebanon security chief gives testimony in Samaha case
September 18, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A Lebanese military judge heard the testimony of former General Security chief Jamil Sayyed Tuesday as part of the investigation of a former minister charged with plotting terror attacks last month.
Sayyed testified regarding the extent of his knowledge, if any, of the transportation of explosives into Lebanon by former Minister Michel Samaha last month.
Judicial sources said the hearing session, which lasted from 1:20 p.m till 2:35 p.m., took place at Military Investigative Judge Riad Abu Ghayda’s office in Beirut.
"Maj. Gen. Sayyed gave his testimony as a witness in the case," his lawyer Sakhr al-Hashem told reporters outside the Beirut Military Tribunal.
"There is no decision to arrest him." The sources said Sayyed also gave testimony regarding recordings found in Samaha's car in which the former security general is quoted as saying that Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt "should be ... killed."Following the session, Sayyed spoke to reporters.
"On that day, I was in Damascus with former minister Michel Samaha to offer condolences for events that took place there and as a witness on that day, I informed the judiciary of the details," Sayyed said.
"I cannot confirm whether minister Samaha used me as a cover or involved me [in the court proceedings against him] but his personality gives the impression that he is peaceable and would not do such things."Sayyed was summoned as a witness following evidence that he accompanied Samaha when the former two-time Information Minister and ex-MP transported explosives from Syria to Lebanon.
Sayyed has strongly condemned Samaha’s detention and was among the very first officials to arrive at Samaha’s residence in Beirut upon news of his arrest on Aug. 10.
He has since unleashed blistering attacks against Internal Security Forces chief Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi and ISF Information Branch head Brig. Gen. Wissam Hasan.
Rifi and Hasan have been praised for playing a leading role in uncovering the bomb and assassination plot.
A recently retrieved audio device from Samaha’s car recorded Sayyed as saying Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt “should be the first one to be killed.”
Samaha’s questioning was originally scheduled for last week but had been postponed till Tuesday following the emergence of the recordings, which Abu Ghayda needed time to examine.
Samaha, who is close to Syrian President Bashar Assad, was charged in August with plotting to carry out terrorist attacks in Lebanon as well as assassinations of religious and political figures. He was also accused of transporting explosives into the country from Syria. In his confession to the ISF Information Branch shortly after his arrest on Aug. 10, Samaha was recorded as saying Assad wanted bomb attacks in Lebanon.

From: Maurice Vellacott, Canadian MP
September 17, 2012
Dear Friends,
Re: Motion 312
1. I am enclosing a copy of Subsection 223(1), the law which is the sole focus of Motion 312. You will see that Subsection 223(1) is a 400 year old law which decrees the dehumanization and exclusion of an entire class of people we know to be human beings, namely, children before the moment of complete birth. This is a direct assault upon the principle of universal human rights, which insists that every human being has an inherent worth and dignity which the state must recognize rather than merely a value assigned by others based on the utility or inconvenience of that human being.
2. I am also enclosing an extract from the judgment of Supreme Court of Canada Justice Bertha Wilson in her 1988 Morgentaler decision throwing out Canada’s abortion law. Justice Wilson was a woman of impeccable feminist credentials.
You will see from this extract that Justice Wilson left open the question of protecting the rights of children before birth for resolution by Parliament. Subsequent Supreme Court of Canada decisions have also left open this question for Parliament to resolve. Far from "re-opening" this issue, Motion 312 proposes the consensus-building dialogue which is the only path to finally closing it. This is in fact what Justice Wilson suggested.
You will also see that Justice Wilson concluded, like me, that the existing recognition only at complete birth is wrong, suggesting that it ought to be at some point in the second trimester of the child’s development. She did not regard this to be inconsistent with her decision on abortion.
3. Finally, I am enclosing a copy of Motion 312 itself. Please note that Motion 312 proposes no legislation (on abortion or anything else) and insists that the Committee also refrain from doing so. The Committee will merely study the evidence and report all available options.
Please also note that Motion 312 directs the Committee to respect all Supreme Court of Canada decisions. All existing women‟s rights are protected by this provision!
Laws like Subsection 223(1), which decree the dehumanization and exclusion of an entire class of people, deny the principle of universal human rights. That principle, which asserts that every human being possesses equal and inherent worth and dignity is the bedrock upon which all of other our laws rest.
No 400 year old law should be frozen in time, forever immune from democratic review and forever immune from advances in understanding.
Please continue to encourage your MP to support the mere study proposed by Motion 312.
Sincerely,
Maurice Vellacott, MP

Nasrallah delivers warning to U.S. in rally against film
September 18, 2012/By Wassim Mroueh The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah warned the United States Monday against broadcasting the full version of an anti-Islam film, in a rare public speech at a rally attended by tens of thousands in Beirut’s southern suburbs. Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon urged American citizens to stay away from areas where further protests against the film are planned, and the State Department updated its travel warning for the country. “The U.S. should know that broadcasting the full version of the movie will have very, very, very dangerous repercussions worldwide,” a visibly emotional Nasrallah said.
“If 12 minutes of the film can [create such a reaction as this], what would be the result if the full version was out?” the Hezbollah leader asked.
Nasrallah surprised the crowds who had gathered to protest the film with his unexpected public appearance. Surrounded by bodyguards, he made his way to a nearby stage.
“We are here to express our rejection [of the film] and [announce] the beginning of action that should continue to achieve clear goals,” Nasrallah said.
“First, halting the broadcast of the insulting parts on Internet and holding the producers of this film accountable,” said Nasrallah, who was interrupted several times by the enthusiastic crowds who were energized by his appearance. The Hezbollah leader also demanded that U.S. authorities prohibit the broadcasting of the full version of the film and called for completely preventing the possibility of “insulting our Prophet, Quran and sanctities.”
The 12-minute trailer for the “Innocence of Muslims,” a low-budget movie that originated in the U.S., has triggered a series of demonstrations in the region against U.S. and other foreign missions.
The clip, available on YouTube in many countries, depicts the Prophet Mohammad as a pedophile, womanizer and charlatan.
“Let all the world hear this statement: ‘Prophet, I sacrifice for you my blood, parents, children and all my money,” Nasrallah said. Tens of thousands of men, women and children marched in the Beirut southern suburbs, heeding a call by the Hezbollah leader a day earlier to take to streets under the slogan “Loyalty to the Greatest Prophet.”
Men carried their children on their shoulders, with bands wrapped round their foreheads reading: “We obey your commands, Prophet.”
Others carried Hezbollah, Amal and Lebanese flags along with banners attacking the U.S. and condemning insults against the Prophet. A few of the protesters carried Syrian flags and portraits of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Angry demonstrators set Israel’s flag ablaze.
“The Muslim community will not accept being offended,” read one banner.
“Death to America! Death to Israel! Mohammad is my Prophet, Mohammad is my leader,” chanted protesters.
“We came here to raise our voice so that the world will understand that our Prophet cannot be insulted,” said Mohammad Awada, a computer engineer.
“There is a huge campaign to humiliate Muslims and tarnish the image of Islam ... I came here heeding the call of [Hezbollah’s] secretary-general [to demonstrate],” added Awada, marching with his two kids who were carrying Hezbollah flags.
Sitting on a chair in a nearby sidewalk, Sarah said she would sacrifice her blood and children for the Prophet Mohammad.
“I am marching today for the sake of the Prophet; if it wasn’t for the Prophet, there would be no Islam,” said Sarah, who like her three daughters, was wearing a chador and carrying a Hezbollah flag.
“We tell the U.S. that no matter what you do, God willing, Islam will survive and move forward,” she said.
Hezbollah’s security personnel – better known as “indibat” – charged with preserving order during demonstrations, were deployed along the streets, some with sniffer dogs. Members of the party’s Islamic Health Committee were also on hand.
Nasrallah accused the U.S. Sunday of standing behind the video in an effort to sow strife between Christians and Muslims and called for several protests across Lebanon this week.
In light of these calls, the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon Monday urged U.S. nationals residing in the country to stay away from areas witnessing demonstrations.
“U.S. citizens are warned that demonstrations intended to be peaceful can escalate into violent clashes. U.S. citizens are also reminded that demonstrations and riots can occur with little or no warning,” a statement by the Embassy said.
The U.S. also updated its travel warning to Lebanon, urging nationals to avoid all travel to the country.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported that diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon have begun to destroy classified material as a security precaution in light of protests in the country and the region.
A State Department status report obtained by AP said the embassy had “reviewed its emergency procedures and is beginning to destroy classified holdings.”
The U.S. Embassy had yet to confirm or deny the reports as The Daily Star went to press.
Interior Minister Marwan Charbel told a local radio station that the ministry has coordinated with security bodies to protect U.S. institutions in Lebanon. “The Lebanese earns his living from these institutions,” Charbel said. Kataeb (Phalange) Party leader Amin Gemayel criticized Nasrallah’s call for the nationwide rallies, questioning Hezbollah’s ability to guarantee peaceful demonstrations after a protest against the film in the northern city of Tripoli left one dead. For his part, Prime Minister Najib Mikati called for international and Arab action against the film. “We believe that there is a need for swift practical steps and international and Arab action which embodies unanimous rejection of this film and thwarts suspicious plans behind its production and broadcast,” Mikati said during a meeting at the Grand Serail. Separately, sources told The Daily Star that President Michel Sleiman and Mikati admonished Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour during a Cabinet session Monday for not consulting the Cabinet when he urged Arab League Chief Nabil Elarabi the day before to call for an emergency meeting of Arab Foreign Ministers over the film. Lebanon is currently the chair of the Arab League. Addressing ministers at the beginning of the session, Sleiman said that responding to the film could take place through an Arab initiative on the part of the Arab League.
“This initiative is in line with human rights and public freedoms ... that’s why we call on the foreign minister to start preparing to propose it,” Sleiman was quoted as saying. – With additional reporting by Dana Khraiche

Brother of Bakeries Association Released for $400,000 Ransom
Naharnet/18 September 2012/Youssef Beshara, the brother of the head of the Bakeries Association, was released on Tuesday after being kidnapped on Monday. He was released for a ransom of $400,000, which was paid by his wife at Mar Mikhael church in al-Shiyyah, reported Voice of Lebanon radio. She later said that Beshara had returned to his residence in Bsalim to a popular reception. Beshara told VDL: “Three gunmen took me to an area in Beirut's Dahiyeh southern suburb and they treated me well.” He was kidnapped on Monday morning while distributing bread to bakeries. Lebanon has been lately witnessing a spree of abduction of wealthy businessmen. The kidnapers are either setting the men free after the payment of ransom or releasing their captives after the mediation of some officials.

Aoun Slams Criticism against Nasrallah: Claims of Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon are Misleading
Naharnet /18 September 2012/Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun slammed on Tuesday the negative stances against Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah over his call for rallies to protest the anti-Islam film. He said after the Change and Reform bloc's weekly meeting: “It's unacceptable to criticize whoever calls for calm.” “Nasrallah made positive proposals to tackle the situation. Would we remain silent if Christ was insulted?” he asked. Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel had questioned on Monday the timing of Nasrallah's rallies, saying that the Lebanese internal scene can no longer support any more protests. The Hizbullah leader had called for a series of demonstrations throughout the week to protest the film that sparked outrage throughout the Islamic world for its mocking of the Prophet Mohammed. Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea stated on Monday that Nasrallah had exploited the issue for political purposes. Commenting on claims that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are present in Lebanon, Aoun accused the media and opposition of misleading the public. He said: “We will not defend the guards if they were indeed in Lebanon.” “I have no knowledge of the presence of the guards in Lebanon,” he added. The head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Mohammed Ali Jaafari had stated on Sunday that members of its Quds Force were present in Lebanon and Syria to play a “counselor” role. He denied that they are providing military assistance in both countries. On Monday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry denied his remarks, saying they were taken out of context.

French Foreign Minister Fabius Warns of Spread of Syrian Conflict to Lebanon
Naharnet/18 September 2012,
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius cautioned on Tuesday that the Syrian crisis may lead to a regional conflict.He warned that the crisis may also spread to Lebanon. He made his remarks after holding talks in Cairo with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. Fabius urged the need to prevent the spread of the violence to Lebanon, noting that the “Assad gang” is working to that end. He voiced his confidence that the Lebanese people will reject such advances. In addition, the French official noted that the crisis in Syria may have international repercussions. There can be no solution but for Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down, he declared. Furthermore, he said that Morsi's positions on this issue are as adamant as France's.
SourceAgence France PresseNaharnet.