Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September 25/12 
Jordan on the brink: Muslim Brothers mobilize for King Abdullah’s overthrow
Frustration and turmoil as world leaders meet
Bombs explode at security site in Damascus: rebels
Obama warns Iran on nuclear bid, containment 'no option'
In New York, defiant Ahmadinejad says Israel will be 'eliminated'
Obama responds to Romney's tough talk on Mideast
In New York, defiant Ahmadinejad says Israel will be 'eliminated'
Iran test-fires missiles designed to hit warships
Attack by Iran's Ahmadinejad sparks Israel walkout
Iran's president dismisses threats on nuke program
The Tip of the Iceberg of Christian Persecution
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president, Morsi Threatens Coptic Church with "Retaliatory Measures" if Copts Demonstrate
White House defends position on Israel, Iran
Iran: New drone has 2,000 kilometer range
Jews from Arab lands skeptical over refugee status
'Israel will allow Egyptian planes to patrol
Egypt sentences 14 to death over Sinai attacks
Is Lebanon becoming Syria's Western front?
Lebanon's Arabic press digest - Sept. 25, 2012
Geagea: March 14 to form one-sided cabinet in election victory
Lebanese kidnapped in Syria released
Mikati praises Hezbollah's wise actions, says Syria crisis to linger
Despite limitations, Lebanese Army fulfilling duties: Kahwagi
Lebanon’s stability should not be sacrificed to Arab Spring: Sleiman
Berri and Siniora keen on preserving civil peace
Brahimi: Assad clinging to old Syria
March 8 set to impose voting law or delay polls: Makari
Aoun calls on public to await results of probe into alleged assassination bid

Jordan on the brink: Muslim Brothers mobilize for King Abdullah’s overthrow
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report September 25, 2012/Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood has given King Abdullah II notice that he has until October to bow to their demand to transform the Hashemite Kingdom into a constitutional monarchy or face Arab Spring street pressure for his abdication. debkafile’s Middle East sources report that Israeli and Saudi intelligence watchers are becoming increasingly concerned about the approaching climax of the conflict in Amman between Islamists and the throne .
For Israel, an upheaval in Jordan bodes the tightening of the Islamist noose around its borders – Egypt and Libya to the south and Syria to the north, with unpredictable consequences with regard to Jordan’s Palestinian population.
Saudi Arabia, already threatened by Iranian aggression, fears the oil kingdom may be next in line if its northern neighbor is crushed under the marching feet of the “Arab Spring.”
The oil kingdom’s royal rulers are reported to have belatedly woken up to the peril and are in a panic. They realize that their preoccupation with helping Syrian rebels overthrow Bashar Assad misdirected their attention from the enemies lurking at their own door. Thousands of articles in the Arab press in the past year have predicted that after the Muslim Brotherhood seizes power in Damascus, Amman would be next in its sights followed by Riyadh.
The latest DEBKA-Net-Weekly of Sept. 21 analyzed the plight closing in on the Jordanian monarch and outlined three of his options:
1. He could bow to the main Muslim Brotherhood’s demand by submitting to the kingdom’s transition to a constitutional monarchy and the transfer of executive power to an MB-led government by means of the electoral reforms for which the Brothers have been pushing for years. In Jordan as in Egypt, the Brothers hope for a two-third majority in a free election.
2. He could stand up to the Brotherhood’s demands and order his security, intelligence and military forces to crack down on the opposition. This course carries the risk of plunging Jordan into the carnage of civil war among the diverse segments of the population. The biggest dangers come from the Bedouin tribes, whose traditional allegiance to the Hashemite throne has weakened in recent years, and the Palestinians who form 60 percent of the population.
3. He could seek to negotiate a compromise through various brokers. Our sources report that several attempts at mediation have been ventured of late, but got nowhere because the Muslim Brotherhood sent its most radical leaders to the table and they left very little margin for compromise.
According to sources at the royal court, Abdullah will very soon meet with MB leaders for a personal appeal for calm after years of heated debate. Most observers believe that he has left it too late and by now the Muslim Brotherhood has got the bit between its teeth.
Indeed, according to an internal memorandum leaked to the Al-Hayat newspaper, the MB has already set a date for mass demonstrations against the King to start on Oct. 10 and ordered its members to go to work at once to mobilize at least 50,000 demonstrators for daily protests against the king and the royal family until he bows to their will.
The memorandum states: “Every member must be dedicated to communicate with his relatives, close friends, acquaintances, fellow employees and various Islamic groups and patriots…” It calls for the formation of “hotbeds to… focus on the participation of groups affiliated with universities, schools and women’s organizations.” Protesters are also advised on tactics for overcoming a security crackdown.
Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood has therefore moved forward from opposition propaganda, debating and political pressure to activism against the throne.
Both Jordanian camps are anxiously watching to see which way the wind blows in the White House.
President Barack Obama has a balancing act to resolve: On the one hand, the Jordanian king has long been a staunch American ally and friend, its mainstay in many regional crises. On the other, Obama regards the Muslim Brotherhood as the linchpin of his external policy of outreach to the Muslim world.

Iran test-fires missiles designed to hit warships
By NASSER KARIMI | Associated Press
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran has test-fired four missiles designed to hit warships during a drill near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, an Iranian military commander said.
The missiles were fired simultaneously and hit a "big target" the size of a warship, sinking it within 50 seconds, Gen. Ali Fadavi of the powerful Revolutionary Guard was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency. The Fars report late Monday was the first indication of an Iranian military exercise taking place simultaneously and close to U.S.-led joint naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf, including mine-sweeping drills, which got under way last week.
The U.S. Navy claims the maneuvers are not directly aimed at Iran, but the West and its regional allies have made clear they would react against attempts by Tehran to carry out threats to try to close critical Gulf oil shipping lanes in retaliation for tighter sanctions over its disputed nuclear program.
Fadavi did not elaborate on the ongoing Iranian exercise or the type of missiles fired but said the Guard is planning a "massive naval maneuver in the near future" in the strait.
Iran regularly holds maneuvers to upgrade its military readiness as well as test its equipment.
The latest drill comes amid tension over Iran's nuclear program and Israel's suggestion that it might unilaterally strike Iranian nuclear facilities to scuttle what the U.S. and its allies believe are efforts to build an atomic bomb. Tehran denies it is pursuing such weapons and insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
On Sunday, a senior Guard commander warned that Iran would target U.S. bases in the region in the event of war with Israel. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, who heads the Guard's aerospace division, claimed no Israeli attack can happen without the support of its most important ally, the United States, making all U.S. military bases a legitimate target.
Iran has in the past also warned that oil shipments through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the route for a fifth of the world's oil, will be in jeopardy if a war breaks out.
For its part, Israel believes that any attack on Iran would likely unleash retaliation in the form of Iranian missiles as well as rocket attacks by Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas on its northern and southern borders.

Attack by Iran's Ahmadinejad sparks Israel walkout
By EDITH M. LEDERER | Associated Press
Share2Print......UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Iran's president called Israel a nuclear-armed "fake regime" shielded by the United States, prompting Israel's U.N. ambassador to walk out of a high-level U.N. meeting Monday promoting the rule of law.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also accused the U.S. and others of misusing freedom of speech and failing to speak out against the defamation of people's beliefs and "divine prophets," an apparent reference to the recently circulated amateur video made in the U.S. which attacks Islam and denigrates the Prophet Muhammad.
The Iranian leader, who has called for Israel's destruction, used his speech to denounce Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and U.S. vetoes in the U.N. Security Council to back its ally. He urged all nations to "hold occupiers accountable and make efforts to return the occupied territories to their rightful owners."
Ahmadinejad blamed the "discriminatory" veto power of the U.S., China, Russia, Britain and France for the Security Council's failure to ensure peace in the world, and he called for a change in the rules "in favor of nations with due regard to justice."
As Ahmadinejad addressed leaders and ministers from more than 100 countries, Israel's U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor walked out of the General Assembly hall.
"Ahmadinejad showed again that he not only threatens the future of the Jewish people, he seeks to erase our past," Prosor said in a statement.
"Three thousand years of Jewish history illustrate the clear danger of ignoring fanatics like Iran's President, especially as he inches closer to acquiring nuclear weapons," he said. "Those who ignore his hateful words today, will bear responsibility for his deeds tomorrow."
Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, but Iran insists its nuclear program is purely peaceful and aimed solely at producing nuclear energy. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes Tehran is moving closer to producing a nuclear weapon and has been pushing the United States to set "red lines" which, if crossed, might lead to American military action. President Barack Obama has refused to set any "red lines."
The U.S. delegation did not walk out of Monday's meeting, as it has in the past when Iran attacked Israel directly.
Ahmadinejad did not name either Israel or the U.S. in his speech but his targets were clear when he said: "We have witnessed that some members of the Security Council with veto right have chosen silence with regard to the nuclear warheads of a fake regime while at the same time they impede scientific progress of other nations."
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon organized the first-ever high-level U.N. meeting on the rule of law hoping to send a strong signal to people everywhere that world leaders "are serious about establishing well-functioning institutions and delivering justice."
He told delegates he is proud that the United Nations is promoting the rule of law in more than 150 countries.
Ban called on all states to apply the law equally, both nationally and internationally, and not allow political self-interest to undermine justice. He also called on world leaders "to uphold the highest standards of the rule of law in their decision-making at all times."
At the start of the day-long meeting, diplomats from more than 100 countries adopted a declaration reaffirming "that states shall abide by all their obligations under international law." It stresses the importance of the rule of law in preventing and resolving conflicts and building peace in countries emerging from war and urges the U.N. and the international community to support such efforts.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called the meeting "historic" and said the United States will continue "to support U.N.-led efforts to improve access to legal aid, to more effectively combat drug trafficking and organized crime" and to promote the rule of law in conflict and post-conflict situations.
He said the meeting underscored a key conclusion in a recent World Bank report "that in today's world, the greatest threat to development and recovery is a weak rule of law."
Many speakers cited the impact of corruption and stressed that no one can be above the law, from high government officials to ordinary citizens.
"In developing nations, corruption is the mortal enemy of democracy," Mongolia's President Tsakhia Elbegdorj said. "It is like an infectious disease — it must be attacked head on."
He said high-level corruption also hurts development, so the fight for the rule of law "is also a fight for more transparent and successful economic development."...

Iran's president dismisses threats on nuke program
By JOHN DANISZEWSKI | Associated Press
Enlarge Photo.Associated Press/Richard Drew - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gestures as he attends the high level meeting on rule of law in the United Nations General Assembly, at U.N. headquarters Monday, Sept. 24, …more 2012. (AP Photo/Richard Drew) less
NEW YORK (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday dismissed threats of military action against Iran's nuclear program, arguing that his country's project to enrich uranium is only for peaceful purposes and saying that Iran has no worries about a possible Israeli attack.
Ahmadinejad spoke before a group of editors and news executives after his arrival in New York for the annual U.N. General Assembly. He told the group that it was not too late for dialogue with the United States to resolve differences.
But in his remarks, Ahmadinejad sought to delegitimize U.S. ally Israel's historic ties to the Middle East and its political and military power in the region and the world, saying that Israelis "do not even enter the equation for Iran."
"Fundamentally, we do not take seriously threats of the Zionists," said Ahmadinejad. "We believe the Zionists see themselves at a dead end and they want to find an adventure to get out of this dead end. While we are fully ready to defend ourselves, we do not take these threats seriously."
Ahmadinejad declared Israel has no place in the Middle East, saying that Iran has been around for thousands of years while the modern state of Israel has existed only for the last 60 or so years. "They have no roots there in history," he said.
White House press secretary Jay Carney responded to Ahmadinejad's remarks, telling a midday news briefing, "Well, President Ahmadinejad says foolish, offensive and sometimes unintelligible things with great regularity. What he should focus on is the failure of his government of Iran to abide by its international obligations, to abide by United Nations Security Council resolutions."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had met with Ahmadinejad on Sunday and "urged Iran to take the measures necessary to build international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program," U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky said. The U.N. chief also raised the potentially harmful consequences of inflammatory rhetoric "from various countries in the Middle East," Nesirky said.
On other topics in his meeting with editors, Ahmadinejad said that Iran favors a negotiated settlement to the civil war in Syria, and denied that Tehran is providing weapons or training to the government of President Bashar Assad, as Assad's opponents and others have alleged.
"We like and love both sides, and we see both sides as brothers," he said. He referred to the conflict in Syria as "tribal" fighting and said that international "meddling from the outside has made the situation even harder." He refused to say whether Iran would accept a government not led by the Assad regime, which for years has been Iran's closest ally in the Middle East.
Ahmadinejad met journalists in the mid-town hotel where he was saying. It was Ahmadinejad's eighth visit to the U.N. gathering held each September, which he cited as proof that he is open to understanding other countries' views.
In spite of his assertions on the importance of dialogue and respect for others, Ahmadinejad presented a hard line in many areas. He refused to speak of the state of Israel by name and instead referred only to the "Zionists," and when asked about author Salman Rushdie he made no attempt to distance himself from recent renewed threats on the author's life emanating from an Iranian semi-official religious foundation. "If he is in the U.S., you should not broadcast it for his own safety," Ahmadinejad said.
He said this would be his last trip to New York as president of Iran, because his term is ending and he is barred from seeking a third consecutive term. But he did not rule out staying active in Iranian politics and said he might return as part of future Iranian delegations to New York.
Ahmadinejad said the argument over Iran's nuclear program was a political rather than a legal matter and needs to be resolved politically.
"We are not expecting that a 33-year-old problem between America and Iran to be resolved in speedy discussions, but we do believe in dialogue."
Later in the day, Ahmadinejad took aim at both the United States and Israel while addressing a high-level U.N. meeting promoting the rule of law, accusing Washington of shielding what he called a nuclear-armed "fake regime." His remarks prompted a walkout by Israel's U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor.
"Ahmadinejad showed again that he not only threatens the future of the Jewish people, he seeks to erase our past," Prosor said in a statement. "Three thousand years of Jewish history illustrate the clear danger of ignoring fanatics like Iran's president, especially as he inches closer to acquiring nuclear weapons."
Ahmadinejad also alluded to the amateur anti-Islam video made in the U.S. that has caused protests across the Muslim world, accusing the United States and others of misusing freedom of speech and failing to speak out against the defamation of people's beliefs and "divine prophets."
Associated Press writers Matthew Daly in Washington and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.

Hizbullah Threatens to Strike Strategic Israeli Targets in Response to an Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities
By: Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Dr. Shimon Shapira, September 25, 2012/Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
http://jcpa.org/article/hizbullah-threatens-to-strike-strategic-israeli-targetsin-response-to-an-attack-on-irans-nuclear-facilities/
Filed Under: Iran, Israel, Israeli Security, Nuclear Warfare/
Vol. 12, No. 22 25 September 2012
■The intensive public discourse in Israel about an approaching attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has led Iran and Hizbullah to ramp up their threats of harsh retaliation. The military adviser of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, made clear on September 8 that Hizbullah would respond to any Israeli attack on Iran.
■According to the Lebanese newspaper Al Joumhouria, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalali, visited Lebanon in August and gave a green light for the immediate use of Hizbullah’s military force against Israel in response to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
■In September 2012, Revolutionary Guards commander Gen. Mohammad Ali Jaafari admitted at a Tehran press conference that his forces were deployed in Syria and Lebanon. Jaafari’s words appear to have been spoken honestly during an unguarded moment and they reflect the real operational state of affairs.
■On August 17, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared: “The Israeli attack will give Iran an opportunity to destroy Israel as it has already dreamed of doing for thirty-two years,” adding that “our missiles are prepared and aimed…we will not wait for anyone’s approval.”
■The avowal that Nasrallah has received a green light to respond immediately against quality targets in Israel contradicts his previous ambiguous statements that, in the event of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Hizbullah would convene, consider, and decide how to respond. Such statements by the Hizbullah leader in the past had led to erroneous analyses that Hizbullah is a movement that made independent decisions and did not automatically act according to Tehran’s orders.
Iran: Hizbullah Will Respond for Us
The intensive public discourse in Israel about an approaching attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has led Iran and Hizbullah to ramp up their threats of harsh retaliation. Hizbullah is a central component of Iran’s deterrent and offensive strategy toward Israel and is considered Iran’s first line of defense in the spatial dimension of its conflict with Israel. Senior Iranian spokesmen say so publicly, and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah backs them up.
The military adviser of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, made clear on September 8, 2012, that Hizbullah would respond to any Israeli attack on Iran. “If the Zionist regime does anything against us, resistance groups – especially the Lebanese Hizbullah – as our strategic defensive depth, will give response to this regime more easily.”1 In addition, Deputy Commander of the Revolutionary Guard Gen. Hossein Salami declared on September 8 that if Iran is attacked by Israel, “we will take the war to the borders of the enemies.”2
The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalali, came to Lebanon on August 6, where he visited the grave of Hizbullah’s former military commander Imad Mughniyeh3 and met with Nasrallah. According to an August 28 report in the Lebanese newspaper Al Joumhouria, Jalali gave a green light for the immediate use of Hizbullah’s military force against Israel in response to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.4
Hizbullah’s Military Preparations
The meeting was held near the end of a Hizbullah military exercise that was described as the largest in the movement’s history. It lasted three days and over ten thousand fighters took part, including “special forces,” as well as new recruits aged 16-20 who did not take part in the 2006 war with Israel. Defensive deployments were practiced together with an offensive deployment that simulated the conquest of parts of the Upper Galilee. According to Al Joumhouria, which reported in the past on a similar exercise by Hizbullah,5 Nasrallah oversaw part of the drill alongside Iranian officers from the Revolutionary Guard. It also was reported that Hizbullah had begun preparing residents of southern Lebanon for the possibility of war, including the clearing-out of shelters in the villages of Maroun al-Ras and Aita al-Shaab, and the town of Bint Jbeil.6
It was earlier reported that Hizbullah, supervised by Iranian experts, had finished building a new array of tunnels in the area south of the Litani River, based on lessons learned in the Second Lebanon War. The tunnels are equipped with advanced communication networks and include lighting, ventilation, water, kitchens, and bathrooms to enable fighters to spend long periods underground. Similar tunnels were also reported in Wadi al-Shara in the Hermel area, very close to the Syrian border. These tunnels are of strategic importance because of what is hidden in them, almost certainly various types of missiles.7
Revolutionary Guards Commander: Our Forces Are Deployed in Syria and Lebanon
In September 2012, a sharp dispute broke out over the issue of the presence of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon, sparked by statements of the Revolutionary Guards commander, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jaafari, at a Tehran press conference in which he admitted that his forces were deployed in Syria and Lebanon. His words were immediately denied by officials in Iran and by the Iranian ambassador in Beirut, who was called to an urgent meeting with the president of Lebanon to explain Jaafari’s remarks.8
Iran is indeed assisting Hizbullah in various military realms such as training and instruction for the militia forces, and the concealment and operation of Hizbullah’s missile stockpile. Revolutionary Guardsmen are stationed at Hizbullah training bases and are involved in ongoing military activities. Various Iranian agents and emissaries, who not infrequently compete among themselves, are also active in Lebanon. Some are from Iran’s Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance and Ministry of Education, some are there in the framework of economic assistance, and some have been dispatched by the Iranian Intelligence Ministry to gather information and prepare infrastructures for terror in the Middle East, Europe, and South America.
Jaafari’s words appear to have been spoken honestly during an unguarded moment and they reflect the real operational state of affairs. However, they came at an inconvenient time when Iran faces an international campaign accompanied by economic sanctions over its support for Syria; hence his words were immediately denied.
Nasrallah: We Will Not Wait for Anyone’s Approval
On August 17, Iran, Hizbullah, and their supporters all over the world marked Jerusalem Day in identification with the Palestinians, as they do each year. Nasrallah, who gave the main speech in Lebanon, portrayed Iran’s military plans as a response to an Israeli attack and threatened that attacking Iran would cost Israel tens of thousands of dead and not three to five hundred (as Israeli officials estimate):
Iran will respond forcefully and resolutely and the Israeli attack will give Iran an opportunity to destroy Israel as it has already dreamed of doing for thirty-two years. Hizbullah cannot destroy Israel, but it can turn the lives of millions of Israelis into hell. You have a number of targets, not large, that can be hit with a small number of high-precision missiles, and these are missiles that are in our hands, they can turn the lives of hundreds of thousands of Israelis into hell. We are aware of these targets and our missiles are prepared and aimed at these targets in great secrecy; we will not wait for anyone’s approval.
Nasrallah hinted that approval had already been given.9
In an interview to a friendly journalist on September 4, Nasrallah said:
The Israelis are always planning to destroy the missile launchers in the first attack. I advise them not to gamble on the first strike because even if a small number of missiles survive the attack, we will be able to turn the Israelis’ lives into hell. Our targets are not only military; we will react with the same force to any Israeli attack. If Israel talks about destroying Lebanon, I say to them that we will destroy everything in the Zionist entity. Israel suffers from many weak points in its economy, in industry, electricity, and nuclear reactors. If Israel attacks targets in disregard of international limitations, we will not have any limitations in responding. Hizbullah’s missiles can reach any target in Israel. I say to the Israelis that Hizbullah can hit their electricity grids and cause enormous economic damage.
Nasrallah went on to deny that Hizbullah had any need for chemical weapons. He claimed Hizbullah did not possess any and would not use them because it was religiously prohibited.10
In the summer of 2012, in a speech to mark the sixth anniversary of the Second Lebanon War, Nasrallah made a surprising and perplexing operational “revelation.” He said that Israel, in an operation known as Quantitative Weight in the first hour of the war, had not succeeded to destroy Hizbullah’s long-range missiles. Nasrallah claimed Hizbullah’s intelligence had exposed Israel’s intelligence efforts to find the exact location of these missiles, and they had been moved without Israel discovering the new location. Thus, when the Israel Air Force bombed the sites, the missiles were already elsewhere. “So the operation that Israel called Quantitative Weight is one that we call Quantitative Illusion.”
“We know,” said Nasrallah, “that Israel is gathering intelligence on us and preparing to attack us. However, we will surprise you in your first attack. We promise the Israelis a big surprise. I want the people to believe in Hizbullah’s [military] capabilities. We won in 2000 [the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon] and in 2006 [the Second Lebanon War] and we will achieve greater victories in any war with Israel.”11
It appears that the escalation of Iran’s and Hizbullah’s threats to retaliate harshly, while specifying some of the strategic targets in Israel such as nuclear facilities and electric grids, together with “revelations” about Israel’s military weakness in attacking “dummy missiles” at the start of the 2006 war and hints of “surprises” for Israel, largely reflect their growing fears of an imminent Israeli attack.
The more the internal Israeli discourse on the Iranian nuclear issue intensifies, so do Iran’s and Hizbullah’s threats. These two see themselves as joint components in Israel’s war plan, with Israel planning to attack them simultaneously; hence the avowal that Nasrallah has received a green light to respond immediately against quality targets in Israel.
This contradicts his previous ambiguous statements that, in the event of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Hizbullah would convene, consider, and decide how to respond. Such statements by the Hizbullah leader in the past had led to erroneous analyses that Hizbullah is a movement that made independent decisions and did not automatically act according to Tehran’s orders.
* * *
Notes
1. “Hezbollah Will Respond to Any Attack on Iran, Says Army Commander,” NOW Lebanon, September 9, 2012.
2. Ibid.
3. Al Intiqad, August 6, 2012.
4. Al Joumhouria, August 28, 2012.
5. Shimon Shapira, “Hizbullah Discusses Its Operational Plan for War with Israel,” Jerusalem Issue Brief, v. 11, no. 18, November 2, 2011, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
6. Al Joumhouria, August 28, 2012.
7. Al Joumhouria, July 2, 2012.
8. Ana Maria Luca, “The Iranian Consultants,” NOW Lebanon, September 22, 2012.
9. Radio Nor, August 17, 2012.
10. www.english.maqwema.org , September 4, 2012.
11. NOW Lebanon, July 18, 2012.
Publication: Jerusalem Issue Briefs Filed Under: Iran, Israel, Israeli Security, Nuclear WarfareTags: Hassan Nasrallah, hizbullah, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, israel, Israeli attack on Iran
**Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Dr. Shimon Shapira is a senior research associate at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Lebanese kidnapped in Syria released
September 25, 2012/Daily Star
BEIRUT: One of the 10 remaining Lebanese hostages held by Syrian rebels since May was released near the Turkish-Syrian border Tuesday, security sources told The Daily Star.
The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Lebanese authorities were notified of Ibrahim Awad's release earlier in the day. The sources also spoke of the possibility of the release of two other of the hostages. Speaking to LBCI from the Bab al-Salam border crossing, Awad said the remaining nine hostages were in good health and reiterated the captors' demand for an apology from Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah for his supportive stances of President Bashar Assad. Bab al-Salam is one of several border crossings seized by the Free Syrian Army.
Awad added that he would be handed over to Turkish officials at 2 p.m. and head to Beirut afterward. Eleven Lebanese men were kidnapped in the Aleppo district of Azaz on May 22, shortly after crossing into Syria from Turkey. They were on their way back to Lebanon following a pilgrimage to Shiite holy sites in Iran. One of the hostages, Hussein Omar, was released last month by the rebels, who said that their move came in response to a request by the Committee of Muslim Scholars. Earlier Tuesday, Sheikh Salem Rafei, deputy head of the Committee of Muslim Scholars said Awad would be released due to health reasons. Rafei said the work of the committee would continue until all the remaining hostages were set free.
“Our efforts don’t end here, we will keep in contact with the kidnappers and the Turkish state until the rest of the hostages will be released as well, said Rafei, a key negotiator in the case.

Geagea: March 14 to form one-sided cabinet in election victory
September 25, 2012 /Now Lebanon
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea reiterated on Tuesday that if the March 14 coalition wins the upcoming parliamentary elections, it will form a cabinet of March 14 ministers.
“In case March 14 wins the elections, it is supposed to form a one-sided cabinet to lead the country in a [different] situation,” Geagea’s office quoted him as saying during a meeting with LF Physiotherapists.
The LF leader also voiced the importance of the 2013 elections, adding that “Lebanese society has a real power to change the political class.”
However, Geagea voiced sadness that “some people are still attending political festivals of politicians who were behind the country’s problems and will vote for these politicians again.”
Last month, the cabinet approved an electoral law based on proportionality and 13 electoral districts for the 2013 parliamentary elections. It seeks to replace the 1960 electoral law, which was based on simple majority representation.
However, the draft law was rejected by several March 14 parties as well as by the Progressive Socialist Party headed by MP Walid Jumblatt.
-NOW Lebanon

Lebanon’s stability should not be sacrificed to Arab Spring: Sleiman
September 25, 2012 /Daily Star /BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman said Tuesday Lebanon had paid the price of enjoying a democratic system for decades and stressed the need to preserve the country’s stability amid the Arab Spring. “Our country has for more than six decades suffered from the blessings of democracy which made it the subject of envy and exposed it to crises threatening its existence and entity,” Sleiman said. For that reason, he went on to say, “we must not sacrifice our stability for the sake of the Arab Spring.”Sleiman spoke at the groundbreaking ceremony for the construction of the AUB Medical Center's new Academic and Clinical Center. The president applauded the university on its initiative. “We congratulate the university on its new center,” Sleiman said.
“We are proud to see the educated Arab generation graduating from this university,” he said at the ceremony held at AUB’s Issam Fares Hall. The new building – located on Maamari Street facing Saab’s medical library – will include psychiatry, oncology, ophthalmology and pain management centers as well as a number of other new clinics and education spaces.
It is part of the university’s plan to become an even larger medical presence in Lebanon and the Middle East. Currently AUBMC is considered one of the leading hospitals in the region.
“Lebanon was renowned, before the winds of [sectarian] conflict blew, for being the university and the hospital of the Middle East and will remain so, thanks to those who are aware of Lebanon’s role,” Sleiman said.Following his speech, Sleiman and university representatives laid the cornerstone of the new complex that is expected to be completed by 2015.

Mikati praises Hezbollah's wise actions, says Syria crisis to linger
September 25, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Prime Minister Najib Mikati said Hezbollah has been conscientious with regards to a possible conflict between Iran and Israel and ruled out a near end to the crisis in neighboring Syria, according to his press office Tuesday. In response to a question on fears of Israel launching a strike against Iran and the possibility of Hezbollah intervening, Mikati said: “Hezbollah's behavior in the last period has been very wise.”He added that the resistance group agreed on the “Baabda Declaration,” which stipulates that Lebanon remain at a distance from regional and international conflicts as well as the need to spare the country from the negative repercussions of regional tensions and crises. The Baabda Declaration was formulated in June during the first National Dialogue session this year when rival political leaders gathered at the Presidential Palace in Baabda. The March 14 and March 8 groups agreed to distance Lebanon from regional conflicts, particularly events in Syria. “I hope that the conviction among Lebanese not to fight any battle on behalf of others is strong,” Mikati, who is in New York, told reporters. Controversy over Hezbollah's possible role in such a regional matter began after Iran's Maj. Gen. Yahia Safavi said earlier this month that Hezbollah would retaliate against Israel if the Jewish state took any steps against the Islamic Republic. The prime minister is heading Lebanon’s delegation for the 67th General Assembly at the United Nations in New York which is scheduled for later today. Mikati is expected to deliver a speech in which he will likely reiterate Lebanon’s dissociation policy toward developments in Syria and call on the international community to offer aid to tens of thousands of displaced Syrians who were forced to flee unrest in their home country.
During his New York visit, Mikati, who attended a reception hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama Monday, will meet with various officials including U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.
Speaking to reporters, Mikati spoke about Lebanon’s policy of disassociation, saying it was essential given the division in Lebanon over the Syria crisis.
“We seek to distance Lebanon from repercussions from the Syria,” he told reporters.
Mikati also dimmed hopes of a near end to the 18-month-old crisis in Syria, saying that the international community lacks a clear vision for a solution.“I see a difficulty in the meantime for a solution to the crisis in Syria and I fear further bloodshed,” Mikati said. “No official I have met [during the visit] has a clear vision for a solution and its timing.”
Echoing the words of several officials in the country, Mikati said the optimal solution in Syria was via dialogue between the opposition and the government but that there was no agreement to implement such a solution. “This solution was proposed a year-and-half ago without any agreement to implement [it],” he said. "We certainly condemn bloodshed and during my meeting with the U.N. Envoy Lakhdar Ibrahimi I told him that his first mission should be to stop the bloodshed in Syria," he added.

Despite limitations, Lebanese Army fulfilling duties: Kahwagi
September 25, 2012 /The Daily Star /BEIRUT: The head of the Lebanese Army said Tuesday the military would prevent Lebanon returning to being a place for settling scores and commended soldiers on their performance despite limited capabilities. “I pledge to you today that there will be no going back and the army will not allow Lebanon to become once again an arena where others settle their accounts or a headquarters to export or import strife,” Army commander Gen. Jean Kahwagi said during a speech to Lebanese expatriates in the British capital.
He also said that the Army had managed to preserve civil peace to a large extent through measures such as controlling the borders with Syria, containing clashes in the north Lebanon city of Tripoli and cracking down on arms smuggling despite the limited capabilities. “The Army, which succeeded in breaking the arm of terrorism in Nahr al-Bared [refugee camp in Tripoli] and implementing [U.N.] Security Council Resolution 1701 in south Lebanon in collaboration with UNIFIL is working hard with the available and meager means to control the security situation on the border and inside,” Kahwagi said.
The Army commander, who is on an official visit to London in a bid to develop and improve bilateral military cooperation, added that the challenges facing the military were substantial given the presence of Israel on the southern border and the repercussions from the crisis in Syria.

Is Lebanon becoming Syria's Western front?
With Syrian rebels sheltering in Lebanese border towns and Syrian Army troops planting land mines on both sides of the border, Lebanese fears of getting dragged into the conflict are rising.
By Nicholas Blanford | Christian Science Monitor – Sun, Sep 23, 2012..
Anti-Assad politicians in Lebanon are calling for the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers along the country's volatile northern border with Syria to curb Syrian troop incursions and artillery shelling as some locals pack up their bags.
The calls come amid rising concerns that Lebanon's northern border, where support for Syria's rebels runs deep, is being dragged into the worsening conflict next door. But the request for a UN presence is likely to go unheeded, given Lebanese government opposition and international reluctance to risk getting embroiled in the conflict by dispatching foreign troops.
The Lebanese government, the bulk of which is composed of allies of Damascus, says it will take a strong stand against Syrian border violations but rejects the idea of allowing UN peacekeepers into north Lebanon. "When the Syrian shelling of Lebanese areas occurs, we will not disassociate ourselves but will protest," Najib Mikati, the Lebanese prime minister, told reporters earlier this month. "When there are attempts to destabilize Lebanon from Syria, we will not disassociate ourselves, and we will take necessary measures.”
Related – Think you know the Middle East? Take our quiz.
But he ruled out the deployment of the 11,500-strong UN peacekeeping force known as UNIFIL in south Lebanon to the north. "Is it the right time?" he asked rhetorically. "Is UNIFIL ready to deploy along the border?" Last week, the parliamentary coalition requested the deployment of UNIFIL troops along the northern border and the expulsion of the Syrian ambassador to Beirut and lodged a complaint with the Arab League at Syria's repeated border violations.
UNIFIL has been present in south Lebanon since 1978 but was heavily reinforced in the wake of the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon's militant Shiite Hezbollah organization. The UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which defines UNIFIL's post-2006 mission, includes a clause that permits it to help the Lebanese authorities prevent the smuggling of arms into Lebanon. The clause specifically refers to preventing the transfer of weapons from Syrian territory to Hezbollah's arms caches inside Lebanon.
But as far as pro-government Syrians are concerned, the security problem is on the Lebanese side of the border, where members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are hosted by sympathizers who give them a safe haven to regroup, plan operations, treat wounded, smuggle arms into Syria, and mount periodic cross-border attacks against Syrian Army positions.
The scale of FSA activity in north Lebanon is minimal compared to that of Turkey, the main external base of the armed Syrian opposition. But the nightly Syrian artillery bombardments of a string of Sunni-populated border villages in the Akkar Province of north Lebanon, as well as cross-border raids elsewhere along the frontier, are attempts to interdict FSA militants crossing the border and to punish their Lebanese supporters.
In Nourat al-Tahta, a small, hardscrabble village less than a mile from the border, the strain of enduring nightly shelling is beginning to take effect.
"We are very worried that the Syrians will cross the border and invade the village," says Abu Hussein, a farmer who is hosting a number of Syrian refugees and FSA militants in his small house. "Some farmers are selling their livestock and moving out of the village because they are so worried about the Syrian soldiers coming here."
One burly, bearded member of the Tel Kalakh Martyrs’ Brigade, an FSA unit from the eponymous town two miles north of the Lebanese border, says his job is to smuggle weapons into Syria, a task that has grown even more hazardous since Syrian troops began lacing both sides of the border with land mines to catch infiltrators.
It's unclear if the Lebanese authorities are aware of this recent and seemingly localized development of land mines on its territory, but the issue is unlikely to be addressed either way due to the dangers in approaching this section of the border.
He recalls a trip he and eight other men made days earlier, crossing the Kabir river, which marks the border, laden with backpacks filled with rifles and ammunition.
“I and one comrade had crossed the river when we heard an explosion behind us on the Lebanese side. Two of the guys had tripped a landmine and lost a leg each,” he says.
The FSA fighters say that they are seeking ever more sophisticated weapons to confront the Syrian Army, which has the advantage of air power and artillery.
“We are negotiating the purchase of a Strella for $9,000,” says Mohammed Layla, a Tel Kalakh Martyrs’ Brigade unit commander, referring to the SAM-7 anti-aircraft missile available on the Lebanese black market. They are also attempting to purchase a multiple rocket launcher and 16 107mm rockets.
“They are asking $70,000, but we are telling them it’s too much,” Layla says.
The Lebanese Army has reinforced its presence in the northern border area, but there is little more it can do. Returning fire at Syrian Army positions is politically out of the question. But chasing and detaining FSA militants in Lebanon will simply incur further anger from Lebanese Sunnis who support the Syrian opposition and already distrust the Army.
If elements from UNIFIL or fresh UN forces were deployed to the northern border to support the Army, they too would face the same constraints, analysts say. They could also find themselves once more in the jihadist firing line.
The threat posed by Lebanon-based Al-Qaeda-inspired factions toward UNIFIL seems to have dissipated lately. UNIFIL has suffered several bomb attacks since 2006 by suspected jihadist factions, but now the desire to attack UNIFIL appears to have been overshadowed by the call to jihad in Syria, which is drawing Sunni Islamist militants from across the region into an epic struggle against the Alawite-dominated regime in Damascus and its Shiite allies in Iran and Lebanon.
Sheikh Omar Bakri, the Salafist cleric from Tripoli, last week said that an “Islamic Spring” was underway in the region.
“The Sunni giant has awakened and the Caliphate State will soon see the light,” he told Lebanon's Al-Liwa newspaper.

The Tip of the Iceberg of Christian Persecution
by Raymond Ibrahim/Investigative Project on Terrorism
http://www.meforum.org/3343/christian-persecution
Two Christians living in the Islamic world under arrest and awaiting execution—the one charged with apostasy, the other with blasphemy—were just released.
According to a September 8 report on CNN, "A Christian pastor sentenced to death in Iran for apostasy was reunited with his family Saturday after a trial court acquitted him... Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, born to Muslim parents and a convert to Christianity by age 19, was released after being held in prison for almost three years under a death sentence.... Setting aside the death sentence, a trial court convicted Nadarkhani of a lesser charge—evangelizing Muslims—and declared that his prison sentence had already been served... His case drew international attention after his October 2009 arrest, and the 34-year-old pastor refused to recant his Christian beliefs."
In a separate story published the same day, "Pakistani authorities on Saturday released a teenage Christian girl detained over accusations of blasphemy," for allegedly burning pages of a Koran. Up till then, local Muslims were calling for the death of the 14-year-old Christian girl, Rimsha Masih, warning that, if released, they would "take the law into their own hands."
Why were these two Christians released—when both apostasy and blasphemy are great crimes in Islam, punishable by death? Is this a sign that Iran and Pakistan are reforming, becoming more "moderate"? One U.S. paper, for example, optimistically offers the following title, "Rescue of Christian Girl may be Turning Point in Abuse of Blasphemy Law."
Nadarkhani and Masih were certainly not released because their governments are acting according to universal standards of justice or reason. If so, they would not have been arrested in the first place. Nor do these releases suggest that Iran or Pakistan are rethinking their Islamic apostasy and blasphemy laws.
The fact is, there are many more Christians imprisoned in both countries for apostasy and blasphemy. Unlike Nadarkhani and Masih, however, the Western mainstream has never heard of these unfortunate Christians.
And that's the whole difference.
In Iran, where at least as early as 1990 a convert to Christianity, Pastor Hossein Soodmand, was executed by the state, apostates from Islam are under siege. A few examples from the last few months include:
A six-year prison sentence for Pastor Farshid Fathi Malayeri—whose crime was to convert to and preach Christianity[M1] —was upheld last July following an unsuccessful appeal hearing.
Another prominent house church pastor, Benham Irani, remains behind bars even as his family expresses concerns that he may die from continued abuse and beatings, leading to internal bleeding and other ailments. The verdict against him contains text that describes the pastor as an apostate who "can be killed." According to one activist, "His 'crimes' were being a pastor and possessing Christian materials." He is being beat in jail and getting sick, to the point that his hair has "turned fully gray."
A woman, Leila Mohammadi, who had earlier converted to Christianity was arrested when security agents raided her house. Imprisoned for five months in Iran's notorious Evin prison without any word on her fate, she was later sentenced to two years in prison.
A June 17 report [M2] indicated that, five months after five Christian converts were arrested, their condition and fate had remained unknown. They were accused of "attending house church services, promoting Christianity, propagating against the regime and disturbing national security." Being imprisoned for 130 days without word "is an obvious example of physical and mental abuse of the detainees…. one of the prison guards openly told one of these Christian detainees that all these pressures and uncertainties are intended to make them flee the country after they are released."
A young woman, who had recently converted to Christianity and was an outspoken activist against the Islamic regime, was found dead, slumped over her car's steering wheel, with a single gunshot wound to her head.
Then there are Iran's many other faces of Christian persecution, including the shutting down of churches, regular crackdowns on house-church gatherings, detaining and abusing Christians, banning church services in Farsi, and confiscating Bibles and other Christian literature.
As for Pakistan's blasphemy law—which calls for the death penalty—here are a few stories from the last few months:
A Muslim mob doused a man with gasoline and literally burned him alive for "blaspheming" the Koran (graphic picture here).
A 26-year-old Christian woman was arrested after neighbors accused her of "uttering remarks against Muhammad." A few days prior, some of her relatives who converted to Islam had pressured her to do likewise: "She refused, telling them that she was satisfied with Christianity and did not want to convert." She was arrested of blasphemy soon thereafter.
A female Christian teacher was targeted by Muslims due to allegations that she burned a Koran. A mob stormed her school in an attempt to abduct her, but police took her into custody.
A Christian man was arrested and charged with "blasphemy" for rescuing his 8-year-old nephew from a beating at the hands of Muslim boys who sought to force the boy to convert to Islam. Later, "a Muslim mob of about 55 led by the village prayer leader besieged the Christian's house," and insisted that "the blasphemer" be turned over to them.
A banned Islamic group attempted to burn down a Christian village after accusing a 25-year-old mentally retarded Christian man of "blasphemy."
A 20-year-old Christian man was arrested and charged with "blasphemy" after Muslims accused him of burning a Koran soon after a billiard game. The Muslims kept taunting and threatening him, to which the Christian "dared them to do whatever they wanted and walked away." Days later came the accusation and arrest, which caused Muslim riots, creating "panic among Christians" who "left their houses anticipating violence."
In the last two decades, over 50 people have been murdered in Pakistan for blasphemy. Even the recent assassination of the nation's only cabinet-level Christian, Shahbaz Bhatti, was in retaliation for his being an outspoken critic of Pakistan's "blasphemy" laws.
In light of all the above, why were Pastor Nadarkhani and Masih, the Christian girl—whose fates were sealed—released? Because unlike the many nameless and faceless Christians persecuted for blasphemy and apostasy in Pakistan and Iran, not to mention the rest of the Islamic world, the mainstream media actually reported the stories of these two in the West, prompting much public outrage, international condemnations, and the threat of diplomatic actions and/or sanctions.
For example, Canada just cut relations with Iran, citing, among other reasons the fact that Iran is "one of the world's worst violators of human rights." It was the very next day that Pastor Nadarkhani was "coincidentally" released, even as the Iranian regime, playing the victim, accused Canada of being "racist."
These two particular Christians were simply too much of a liability to punish as Sharia law demands—the same Sharia, incidentally, that teaches Muslims to be lax and tolerant when in their interest. While it is good that Western outrage and condemnation was fundamentally responsible for the release of Nadarkhani and Masih, the West must learn that these two Christians merely represent the tip of the iceberg of Christian persecution in Muslim countries.
**Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

The final sell out
Now Lebanon/September 24, 2012
Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun has made some fatuous arguments in his time, but his defense of the Resistance and his denigration of the army he once commanded, and which in October 1990 fought the Syrian army against overwhelming odds virtually to the last man, sets new standards in duplicity.
Aoun, talking to Al-Akhbar daily on Saturday, described the army as nothing more than a paramilitary force only suited to internal security. “It will be incapable of confronting a foreign assault, and this is where the Resistance's role in liberating land comes in,” he said, adding, “The Resistance is a central figure in defending Lebanon.”
How easy it has been for Aoun to abandon the army, the institution that made him. Surely he of all people should be the one to champion the constitutional role of the army. As a matter of principle, Aoun’s line should endorse the army’s ability to defend Lebanon’s borders. The current crop of officers and senior soldiers would no doubt be delighted to learn that they signed up merely to shore up internal security and are “incapable of confronting a foreign assault.” They can iron their uniforms and shine their boots to march on Army Day as the pride of the nation, but when push comes to shove the Resistance says, “Move over, sonny, and leave the real fighting to us.”
That one army may be weaker or stronger than another should not detract from the role of that army within the framework of the state and the fabric of the national consciousness. Neither should it be subordinated just because the odds might be stacked against it. The army represents national dignity – Aoun’s allies in Hezbollah surely know a thing about dignity – and the symbol of nationhood. It was surely this dignity and devotion to the flag that Aoun tapped into nearly 22 years ago when, with the overwhelming superiority and firepower of the Syrian army descending upon the presidential palace in Baabda, his soldiers fought to the bitter end. Surely this is the stuff that builds a national identity; Lebanese men shedding Lebanese blood in the defense of Lebanese soil.
But clearly Aoun is reading from a different script these days, one that seeks to consolidate Hezbollah’s local power base and casts aspersions on those pesky trouble-making Sunnis as part of a regional bid to save the regime in Syria. (It should come as no surprise that the alleged assassination attempt on Saturday night should have happened in Sidon, that hotbed of Sunni extremism.)
It is in his role as Christian stooge that Aoun often strays into the land of fantasy to make a point. “Militias are used in all world countries to assist the army in its duties,” he told al-Akhbar, even likening Hezbollah’s role to that of the Maquis, or French Resistance, in World War II, forgetting that France was occupied by Germany at the time and that the French authorities were by and large collaborating with the Nazis. If that is the best argument he can make to justify Hezbollah’s permanent martial posture, one that by its very presence is an existential threat to Lebanon, then he really is clutching at straws.
Elsewhere his rambling efforts to interpret world affairs are equally bewildering. He uses vague but dramatic phrases such as the “European financial crisis” and, as is typical of many Lebanese leaders when they want to be cryptic, talks of “other major powers…leading the region toward a new world order.” Could he not elaborate upon this startling revelation? Clearly he is a man who chooses to disseminate his words carefully. As for the situation in Syria, Aoun stuns us by revealing that it will be resolved “through political dialogue or the defeat of one of the sides involved.” Not really going out on a limb there, is he? “I believe the opposition will be defeated, not the ruling regime,” he said. Oh well, then. He said it so it must be true.
Bottom line, Aoun is a man who made a name for himself as a soldier and sold himself as a patriot. By insulting the institution that made him, he has squandered what little political equity he had left. What is left is simply hot air.

Hezbollah’s imaginary monsters
Hanin Ghaddar, September 24, 2012
A week ago, the head of Tehran’s Islamic army, Mohammad Ali Jaafari, said that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have been sending military advisers to Lebanon and Syria to assist Hezbollah and Bashar al-Assad’s regime, respectively. The political storm caused by this statement, which also prompted Lebanese President Michel Suleiman to demand clarification from Tehran, subsided after Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, denied it and blamed the media for mistranslating Jaafari’s statement.
I don’t think anyone can deny the involvement of the Revolutionary Guards in the creation and militarization of Hezbollah. In the summer of 1982, almost 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards were dispatched to the Syrian-controlled Beqaa region under the pretext of fighting Israel, though they were secretly forming the Party of God. The Guards were used for recruitment, training and indoctrination.
The question is not whether or not there are Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon; it is what exactly they are doing. What are the dynamics of the relationship between the Party of God and its creator? What is the nature of this partnership, and how deep does it go? Can Hezbollah make an independent decision on whether or not to retaliate if Iran got hit by Israel?
Now that the fear of a strike on Iran is increasing by the day, the main question the Lebanese, including Hezbollah supporters themselves, are asking is whether the party will respond or not.
No one wants a war, and instead of reassuring the Lebanese people, Hezbollah is completely ignoring the issue and focusing its energy on intimidating its local adversaries. The Party of God prefers to keep its supporters in fear of the unknown, hating monsters it has created to keep them worried. Fear will keep them stuck to the party as their only, although increasingly weak, protector.
First the main monster was Israel, then came the Salafists, and now the party’s new campaign is against the Shiites who oppose Hezbollah, its doctrines and its politics. It doesn’t matter what these Shiites did or said. Hezbollah’s media arm takes care of it, and this time it came from the fading Al-Akhbar newspaper and its head, Ibrahim al-Amin, formerly a Communist and now a staunch Hezbollah advocate.
The paper published a series of articles under the spotlight “America’s Shiite Tools in Lebanon,” criticizing Lebanese Shiite figures for meeting with Americans diplomats. Their proof: Wikileaks. Of course the question is why publish this spotlight now, knowing that Wikileaks have been out for more than a year.
But the dangerous part is what Amin wrote afterward. In his piece No place for traitors among us, he threatened a number of Shiite figures. “Do they not believe that their links to the US Embassy and their participation in US schemes targeting the Resistance in Lebanon amount to a clear and blatant form of collaboration with Israel?... Perhaps they should know they are being watched and are under observation because of the offenses they committed without batting an eyelid or feeling a pang of remorse. They ought to know that resistance to them will be stepped up, and become stronger than in the past, and that the enemy’s most violent assault yet on the Resistance in the region will result in their being besieged and silenced. Perhaps those who wish them well owe them a word of advice that the days of all-round forgiving-and-forgetting are over.”
So here’s the new monster for Hezbollah supporters to fear. And why? Just because these figures talked to some American diplomats and did not consider the Americans as enemies. No Shiite is allowed to think differently. Yet Hezbollah and its pundits still criticize sectarian rhetoric in other communities, as they deem the Shiite one rigid, homogenous group.
So back to the question of why now? Because Hezbollah is seriously worried about the drastic decrease of its popularity among the Shiites. It has been losing support since the beginning of the Syrian uprising and also since Hezbollah started showing signs that it cannot properly manage the government it created in 2011. However, the real hit came a few weeks ago when two prominent Shiite clerics in Lebanon, Mohammad Hassan al-Amin and Hani Fahs, issued a joint statement calling on Lebanon’s Shiites to support the popular uprising in Syria.
Hezbollah more than anyone else understands that change comes from within, and the clerics Fahs and Amin enjoy real respect and popularity among the Shiites, even those who support Hezbollah. They were never labeled Western-backed or March 14-backed or even Saudi-backed.
These clerics and some secular Shiite figures and activists are slowly but surely coming together as one entity that is open to differences. And that’s what makes the Party of God afraid.
Fear and hate can sometimes be synonyms, and now Hezbollah has launched a new hate campaign to avoid the important questions people are asking. The Shiite community cares no more for these imaginary monsters. They need to know whether they will have a decent future in their own country or not. The Lebanese, Shiite and not, need to start pressuring Hezbollah to answer the question: What will it do if Iran gets hit? Everything else is a waste of time and energy.
Hanin Ghaddar is the managing editor of NOW Lebanon. She tweets @haningdr

Analysis: Egypt’s request to change the peace treaty
By YAAKOV LAPPIN /09/25/2012 /J.Post
The threat of more border attacks, attempted infiltrations and rockets from Sinai isn’t going to vanish – it may even worsen. Last week’s terror attack on the southern border is a warning of things to come. The vast desert lands of the Sinai Peninsula have become a base for jihadi elements. These include homegrown al-Qaida-inspired Salafi groups, made up of radicalized Beduin, and Palestinian terror operatives of all stripes, who enter Sinai via tunnels from the Gaza Strip along with their rockets and machine guns. The terror groups use Sinai as a springboard for attacks on Israeli targets, because they know that Israel cannot step in ahead of time to preempt the plots, as this would spark a hugely dangerous confrontation with Cairo. The threat of more border attacks, attempted infiltrations and rocket attacks from Sinai isn’t going to vanish – it may even worsen.
Presently, Israel must rely on the Egyptian military to keep the threat at bay. The radical terror groups in Sinai target Egyptian military forces as willingly as they seek to attack the IDF, meaning that Cairo and Jerusalem have a common interest in seeing Egypt reestablish sovereignty over Sinai.
Egypt is now turning to Israel with a request to reassess the 1979 Camp David peace accord, and to alter sections that limit Egyptian military presence in Sinai, to allow more Egyptian forces in. Only through this change, Cairo seems to be arguing, can Egyptian forces really push back the jihadis and reestablish security for both Egypt and Israel.
Unfortunately, things aren’t so simple. The Muslim Brotherhood that has ascended to power has a radical, worrisome ideology, and it is far too soon to know how influential its ideology will be in Egypt’s policies on Israel. Furthermore, the region is going through its most uncertain and chaotic phase in modern history. Is this any time for Israel to take chances and allow an increased Egyptian military presence on its southern border? Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman answered this question with an emphatic “no” this week, urging the Egyptians to use their available forces to get the job done. Certainly, reports that Egyptian security officials have signed “ceasefire” understandings with the Salafi gangs in Sinai are failing to assure Israel that the terrorists are being pursued with full force. And Israel has already approved past Egyptian requests for one-time injections of military forces that violate the treaty, allowing more Egyptian battalions, armored vehicles and helicopters into Sinai. But some former senior defense officials say that isn’t enough. Some, like Shlomo Brom of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, think that Liberman is wrong.
Brom, former director of the Strategic Planning Division in the IDF’s General Staff, said that when the peace treaty was written up in 1979, it did not (and obviously could not) envisage current conditions.
Brom has proposed that in exchange for agreeing to a change in the security clauses, Israel would ask Egypt to sign the whole of the treaty again, ensuring that Cairo reaffirms peace with Israel in view of the whole world. Brom is not alone in thinking that the time has come to look at the treaty again. A former IDF Military Intelligence chief has argued that ”the treaty is not holy” and needs to be modernized because of “changes that were not foreseen in 1980.” In fact, the former senior official said, doing so would be even more in Israel’s interest than Egypt’s.
Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, agrees there is room for negotiation and believes this creates an opportunity for Israel to make its own demand: Dialogue between Jerusalem and Cairo.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president, Morsi Threatens Coptic Church with "Retaliatory Measures" if Copts Demonstrate
by Raymond Ibrahim • Sep 24, 2012
Cross-posted from Jihad Watch
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2012/09/morsi-threatens-coptic-church-with-retaliatory
While Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president allowed Muslims to "demonstrate" by attacking the U.S. embassy in Cairo—all in the name of a YouTube movie—human rights activist Magdi Khalil says he has evidence that President Muhammad Morsi's administration is threatening the Coptic church in Egypt with "retaliatory measures" if Copts outside of Egypt dare demonstrate against him during his upcoming speech in front of the UN General Assembly, scheduled for September 26. Describing such threats as "cheap blackmail" meant to silence Christians from exposing the suffering of their coreligionists in Egypt, Khalil called on Copts and others in America not to succumb to Morsi's demands, but instead to respond to them by appearing and demonstrating in large numbers.