Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September 28/12 
France Vows to Kick out Islamic Troublemakers
Would Israel warn IAEA ahead of strike?
Netanyahu draws Israel’s red line for Iran amid secret discussion with US on a spring attack
Netanyahu says world must draw "red line" for Iran
Iran: 'Terrorist sect' attacked diplomat in New York
Iranian diplomat seeks safety from UN protesters
Barak: Israel can rely only on itself for defense
Iran pushes ahead in building nuclear reactor
Erdogan slams Russia, China, Iran over Syria
Three hundred killed in single day in Syria, group says
Syria army HQ bombed as leaders at UN clamor for peace
Egypt's Mursi assumes major role in Mideast
Sudan, S. Sudan sign deals to restart oil, boost trade
Abductions in Lebanon on rise amid security turf war
Damascus bombings signal civil war in Syria: Jumblatt
Released Lebanese pilgrim says thrilled to be home
Syria expects 'positive' dissociation from Lebanon: Makdissi
Syrian jets bomb area near Lebanon border
Palestinians in Lebanon show support for Abbas
STL president addresses Tripoli Bar Association
Mikati tells Ban he’s trying to insulate Lebanon
Report: Hizbullah Increased Support for Assad, Fighters Buried Discreetly
Suleiman's Visit to Argentina Called off over 1994 Attack in Buenos Aires
Geagea Says Postponement of 2013 Elections Out of Question
Jumblat Rejects Opposition's Small Electoral Districts, Says 'No One Consulted Us'
Report: Syrian Unit Destroys House in al-Qaa

France Vows to Kick out Islamic Troublemakers
Naharnet/27 September 2012,
France's Socialist government vowed Thursday to do more to integrate the country's Muslims but warned that it would not tolerate the country becoming a hotbed of Islamic radicalism. In a speech marking the inauguration of the Strasbourg Grand Mosque, the biggest Islamic place of worship ever built on French soil, Interior Minister Manuel Valls pledged to come down hard on extremists, warning that foreign activists trying to stir up trouble would be immediately deported. But he also held out an olive branch to the country's four million Muslims by promising state help for the construction of more mosques and for the training of Muslim clerics. Valls, whose rhetoric has frequently drawn comparisons with that of rightwing former president Nicolas Sarkozy, praised French Muslims for their measured response to the recent publication of a satirical weekly's publication of cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed. "Islam has its place in France because the Islam of France, it is a part of France," he told representatives of the Catholic, Jewish and Protestant communities attending the official opening the mosque capable of hosting 1,500 people. Relations between the French state and a Muslim community that has its roots in former colonies Algeria and Morocco have been strained in recent years by a string of controversies pitting their faith against France's secular tradition. Legislation introduced under Sarkozy which bans women from wearing full veils in public is widely resented and long-running debates over halal methods of animal slaughter and whether public prayers should be authorized have added to tensions linked to the economic marginalization of many Muslims. Concern over the development of radicalism among some young French Muslims has meanwhile intensified in the aftermath of Islamist gunman Mohamed Merah's killing of seven people in the southern city of Toulouse earlier this year. It is in this context that Valls has adopted much of the rhetoric deployed by Sarkozy during his time in office. He warned Thursday that he would not "hesitate to expel those who claim to follow Islam and represent a serious threat to public order and, as foreigners in our country, do not respect our laws and values." He also made it clear that the Muslim community as a whole had to accept responsibility for tackling extremism, which he linked to a reemergence of anti-Semitism in the country. "France's Muslims can congratulate themselves on the singular model that they are building," Valls said. "Of course it remains fragile, not every problem has been solved or overcome. "If all religions have their share of fundamentalists, it is in Islam that this raises fears. It was on French soil and with a French passport that Mohammed Merah killed in the name of Islam. "Anti-Semitism is a terrible scourge and its resurgence cannot be disguised." Built within two kilometers (just over a mile) from Strasbourg's celebrated cathedral, the new mosque has a capacity of 1,300 square meters (14,000 square feet), making it 1.5 times as big as the previous largest one in France, at Evry in the Paris suburbs. It has a 16-meter copper dome but no minaret and has taken nearly two decades to complete since the project was first launched in 1993. The cost of construction was 10.5 million euros ($13.5 million), with the local region and the governments of Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia all contributing.SourceAgence France Presse.

Netanyahu draws Israel’s red line for Iran amid secret discussion with US on a spring attack
DEBKAfile Special Report September 27, 2012, 9:20 /Addressing the UN General Assembly Thursday, Sept. 27 Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu graphically depicted Israel’s red line for Iran. He held up a simple diagram showing that Iran had covered 70 percent of the distance to a nuclear bomb and must be stopped before it reached the critical stage next spring or early summer.
He stressed that it is getting late, very late to stop a nuclear Iran.
The best way, he said, is to lay down a clear red line on the most vulnerable element of its nuclear program: uranium enrichment. “I believe that if faced with a clear and credible red line, Iran will back down and may even disband its nuclear program,” he said. Red lines prevent wars, don’t start them and in fact deterred Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel and the US are in discussion over this issue, said Netanyahu. “I’m sure we can forge a way forward together.
He went on to accuse Iran of spreading terrorist networks in two dozen countries and turning Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds. Hoping a nuclear-armed Iran will bring stability is like hoping a nuclear al Qaeda will bring peace, the prime minister remarked.
debkafile quotes some Washington sources as disclosing that the White House and Israel emissaries have come to an understanding that Israel will hold back from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites before the US election in November, while a special team led set up by President Barack Obama completes a new paper setting out the end game for Iran.
He put the team to work after concluding that negotiations with Iran had exhausted their usefulness and placed at its head Gary Samore, top presidential adviser on nuclear proliferation.
Netanyahu’s citing of late spring, early summer 2013, as the critical point on Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb appears to confirm that he has agreed to delay military action against Iran in negotiations with the White House. Our sources report that the prime minister was represented in those talks by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and National Security Adviser Yakov Amidror.
According to another view, which is current in Washington’s intelligence community, Israel was finally persuaded by fresh intelligence presented by the Obama administration which showed that Israeli estimates were overly pessimistic in judging the timeline for Iran’s nuclear facilities to be buried in “immunity zones.” That time line extended to spring 2013, leaving Israel five to six months up to April-May for ordering a military operation against those sites.
However, we have learned, Israeli intelligence circles dispute their American colleagues’ estimate as “interesting” but inaccurate. Netanyahu in his speech confirmed that Washington and Jerusalem were constantly exchanging views and evaluations on the state of Iran’s nuclear program.
He also made the point that while intelligence services, American and Israeli alike, had remarkable aptitudes, their estimates on Iran were not foolproof.

Netanyahu says world must draw "red line" for Iran
By ARON HELLER | Associated Press/
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Thursday that Iran will have enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb by next summer and urged the world to draw a clear "red line" to stop it in its tracks.
Saying it was getting "late, very late" to stop Iran, Netanyahu flashed a diagram showing the progress Iran has made toward creating a bomb. He said Iran had already completed the first stage of uranium enrichment, and then he drew his own red line on the diagram to highlight the point of no return — the completion of the second stage and 90 percent enrichment.
"Iran is 70 percent of the way there and ... well into the second stage. By next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage," Netanyahu said. "From there it is only a few more weeks before they have enriched enough for a bomb."
Netanyahu has repeatedly argued that time is running out to stop the Islamic Republic from becoming a nuclear power and the threat of force must be seriously considered.
"I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down — and it will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy," the Israeli prime minister said. "Red lines don't lead to war, red lines prevent war ... nothing could imperil the world more than a nuclear-armed Iran."
Netanyahu's speech marks perhaps his final plea before Israel takes matters into its own hands. Israeli leaders have issued a series of warnings in recent weeks suggesting that if Iran's uranium enrichment program continues it may soon stage a unilateral military strike, flouting even American wishes.
The Obama administration has urgently sought to hold off Israeli military action, which would likely result in the U.S. being pulled into a conflict and cause region-wide mayhem on the eve of American elections. Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be an existential threat, citing Iranian denials of the Holocaust, its calls for Israel's destruction, its development of missiles capable of striking the Jewish state and its support for hostile Arab militant groups.
"Given this record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons, just imagine Iranian aggression with nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said.
Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes but Israel, the U.S. and other Western allies reject the claim. Four rounds of U.N. sanctions have already been placed on Iran.
A U.N. report last month only reinforced Israeli fears, finding that Iran has moved more of its uranium enrichment activities into fortified bunkers deep underground where there are impervious to air attack. Enrichment is a key activity in building a bomb, though it has other uses as well, such as producing medical isotopes.
While Israel is convinced that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, American officials believe Iran has not yet made a final decision to take the plunge, even as it develops much of the infrastructure needed to do so. Obama has repeatedly said he will not allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons and has said the U.S. would be prepared to use force as a last resort.Israel's timeline for military action is shorter than that of the United States, which has far more powerful bunker-busting bombs at its disposal, and there is great suspicion in Israel over whether in the moment of truth Obama will follow through on his pledge.
Speaking shortly before Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of ethnic cleansing for building settlements in east Jerusalem.
"It is a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people via the demolition of their homes," Abbas said in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly.
Netanyahu rebuked Abbas in his own address, saying: "We won't solve our conflict with libelous speeches at the U.N."
Israel conquered the eastern part of Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Mideast War. It later annexed it but the move has not been internationally recognized. The Palestinians want east Jerusalem to the capital of their future state in the West Bank.
Abbas also said he has opened talks on a new bid for international recognition at the U.N., but didn't specify exactly when he will ask the General Assembly to vote.
"Intensive consultations with the various regional organizations and the state members" were underway, he said.
The Palestinians will apply to the General Assembly for nonmember state status.
That stands in sharp contrast to last year, when they asked the Security Council to admit them as a full member state, but the bid failed.
Abbas insisted that the new quest for recognition was "not seeking to delegitimize Israel, but rather establish a state that should be established: Palestine."
Palestinian officials said their bid is likely to be submitted on Nov. 29.

Would Israel warn IAEA ahead of strike?
Reuters Published: 09.27.12/Ynetnews
With threat of Israeli strike looming, IAEA faces dilemma: Withdraw staff, or carry on with inspections?
Would Israel discreetly warn UN nuclear chief Yukiya Amano so that he could withdraw his inspectors before any air raid on Iran, as the United States did in a dramatic night-time phone call to his predecessor just before the 2003 war in Iraq? With persistent speculation that Israel might soon attack Iran's nuclear sites and his own increasingly tense relations with Tehran, the potential dangers facing Amano's staff on the ground are likely a big worry for the veteran Japanese diplomat.
If unlucky, they run the risk of being at a site targeted by Israeli missiles and may also face Iranian anger and likely expulsion afterwards. Their departure would greatly diminish the world's knowledge about the Islamic state's nuclear program. The UN atomic agency could face an "acute dilemma" as it is obliged to continue to carry out its inspection mandate in Iran while also protecting its personnel from harm, disarmament and non-proliferation expert Trevor Findlay said."It also must be careful not to be seen to be facilitating an Israeli attack by withdrawing its staff in anticipation, either after an Israeli warning or simply by guessing when Israel might attack," said Findlay, of Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Iranian officials have stepped up their criticism of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), saying it might have been infiltrated by "terrorists" and accusing it of passing nuclear secrets to Israel.
Though dismissed by Western diplomats as a way to distract attention from mounting suspicions about Iran's nuclear aims, such allegations are likely to increase concern at the IAEA's Vienna headquarters about the inspectors' safety. The IAEA is believed to have experts constantly deployed in Iran, providing a unique insight into its nuclear advances.
While there may only be a few of them at any given time, they are tasked with inspecting uranium enrichment sites that would be prime targets in any military onslaught. Their exact numbers, schedule and whereabouts are kept secret.
No surprise?
"The risk to IAEA inspectors if they are present on a nuclear site when it is undergoing an air strike is obvious," Pierre Goldschmidt, a former chief UN. nuclear inspector, said.
"I can only speculate that Israel would indeed warn the IAEA beforehand as the Americans did before the Iraq war in March 2003," he said, referring to a US envoy's call to Mohamed ElBaradei, who headed the IAEA at the time.
But this could also alert Iran, and Israel would likely want to keep its operation secret as long as possible, in contrast to a well-publicized US military buildup in the Gulf in preparation for the invasion of Iraq.
Israel, believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, sees a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence and, frustrated by the failure of diplomacy and sanctions to rein in Tehran's nuclear activity, has ramped up threats to attack its arch-enemy. Iran says it is enriching uranium only for peaceful energy purposes, not for nuclear bombs.
"Logic dictates that when you launch a military action, you don't announce it in advance, because then you lose any element of surprise," Uzi Eilam, a retired Israeli brigadier-general and a former director of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, said.
Israel would have to consider that if "they informed the IAEA of their plans, a subsequent exodus of IAEA personnel from Iran might signal to Iran that an attack was imminent," nuclear proliferation expert Mark Hibbs said. Eilam suggested, however, that Israel might time any strike with the safety of inspectors in mind. He said Israel chose a Sunday to bomb an Iraqi reactor in 1981 to make it less likely that French engineers still working there would be hit. The IAEA carries out regular inspections of 16 declared nuclear facilities in Iran, including likely Israeli targets such as the underground Natanz and Fordow enrichment plants. Scheduled visits take place in daytime during regular work hours, former IAEA Deputy Director General Olli Heinonen said. But there are also "unannounced inspections" at Natanz and Fordow of about 1-2 days per month, he said. Refined uranium can be used to fuel power plants but also provide the explosive core of a bomb if processed further.
Discreet warning?
The IAEA would do everything possible to get its personnel out of Iran prior to any Israeli attack but it must be careful in how it does it, Hibbs, of Carnegie Endowment, said.
If it later emerged that Amano had been warned but chose not to pass that on to Iran, Tehran might conclude that "the IAEA was party to an invasion," he added. Any IAEA staff then still in the country "would be at severe risk".
But Israel also faces a dilemma as it would want to avoid the "international opprobrium" that would come from killing IAEA inspectors, Findlay said.
"A discreet word to the IAEA Director-General hours prior to an attack would ensure that inspectors at Iranian facilities could remove themselves to Tehran or elsewhere quickly."
Goldschmidt said he did not believe the IAEA – whose main brief is to ensure that nuclear material around the world is not diverted for military purposes – would remove inspectors from Iran unless there was a "clear signal" that it should.
But if tension escalated, the IAEA might ask its inspectors whether they were volunteers to be in Iran, as was done when they were sent to inspect the research reactor in Vinca during NATO's 1999 bombing campaign against Serbia. In the case of Iraq almost a decade ago, IAEA inspectors were withdrawn immediately after the US warning without coming to any harm, "notwithstanding the tense relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and the inspectors", Findlay said. Heinonen said Iran was responsible for the inspectors' safety under its nuclear safeguards agreement with the IAEA, but "one cannot exclude the possibility that some individuals may express their anger and frustrations on the inspectors".

Rafsanjani, Saudi Arabia and the security of the Gulf!
By Adel Al Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat
During the last month Sheikh Hashemi Rafsanjani issued the seventh part of his memoirs entitled “The Hand of Fate”. The latest volume – just like all other parts of his autobiography that he began releasing several years ago – carries special significance because it addresses a sensitive era (1988-1989). During this time, the Iran-Iraq war came to an end, Ayatollah Khomeini died, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was inaugurated, Saudi-Iranian ties were cut after the famous Hajj incident, and a fatwa was issued to kill Salman Rushdie. Rafsanjani’s memoirs continue to stir up controversy among current and former symbols of the regime. Some have accused the “Sheikh President” of distorting the facts, whilst others consider his memoirs to be an attempt to exonerate himself from some of the “shameful” acts committed by the regime against internal and external opponents, especially the isolation of Ayatollah Montazeri and the death sentence passed against his son in law, in addition to a series of assassinations against intellectuals and journalists that rocked Iran during the late 1990s. There is no doubt that through the publication of these memoirs, Rafsanjani wants to shed light on his role in the Iranian revolution, prove that he was close to Ruhollah Khomeini, and highlight the vital part he played in Ali Khameini’s successful confrontation with the Montazeri movement.
Such a testament is particularly necessary at a time when Rafsanjani’s daughter Faiza and son Mehdi have been arrested – returning from London after an absence of three years – and placed in the notorious Evin Prison. Rafsanjani has been subjected to marginalization and attacks from President Ahmadinejad’s government, along with a number of mullahs loyal to the Supreme Leader, due to his sympathetic stance with the demonstrations in 2009. For that he was forced to retire from his position in the Assembly of Experts, and his position in the Iranian Expediency Discernment Council remains in the hands of the Supreme Leader, who could dismiss him at any time.
It is true that Rafsanjani has tried to distance himself from the Green Movement over the past two years, has reduced the severity of his criticisms of President Ahmadinejad, and has regained, in a somewhat crude manner, an enthusiasm for the usual Iranian rhetoric against the United States and the West. This is despite the fact that he has been one of the most prominent advocates of reconciliation with America since 1998. Furthermore, Rafsanjani’s silence over the arrests of [Iranian opposition leaders] Mehdi Karroubi and Hossein Mousavi lost him a lot of popularity, and this stance was not even appreciated among the conservative trend that now considers him to be a burdensome remnant, and has begun to target his children judicially.
Some believe that Rafsanjani’s survival is only due to the Supreme Leader being unwilling to appease the conservatives and eliminate him, in order to preserve the current balance. They argue that the Supreme Leader prefers to have Rafsanjani – to whom Khameini is his only hope – at his disposal rather than the latter resorting to revealing the common history between them.
Perhaps what distinguishes the latest volume of his memoirs is that Rafsanjani deliberately talks about Khamenei in a courteous manner, in the way that an eager subordinate would talk about his boss. Despite the criticisms that I already referred to, these memoirs are an important insight into understanding Iranian politics, and the decision making mechanism in the Islamic Republic. Not only that, but they reveal a permanent conflict between the institutions of the state and the (unofficial) networks of the revolutionary bodies.
If we think along the lines of the division described by prominent Iranian writer Amir Taheri, between “Iran the state” and “revolutionary Iran”, we can note that Iran's foreign policy is infected by “schizophrenia”, if I may call it that. Iran the state, with its historical institutions, wants to reconcile with the outside world, whilst revolutionary Iran wants the country to live in a state of “phobia” and suspicion towards everything beyond its borders, so the activities and exorbitant budgets of the Revolutionary Guards can be justified on the grounds of protecting the state from external aggression.
On the subject of Saudi-Iranian relations, we can note that there are two trends within the official establishment, one of which actually advocates good relations with Saudi Arabia on the grounds that hostility only exposes Iran to regional isolation and prompts the (Sunni) Islamic countries to line up against Iran for sectarian reasons. Most importantly, quarrelling with Saudi Arabia makes cooperation in determining oil prices through OPEC impossible, and likewise the threats towards Saudi Arabia issued by some hardliners in Iran only prompt the former to increase its armament and help other countries – such as Iraq in the 1980s – to contain Iranian expansion.
Furthermore, Rafsanjani’s memoirs reveal that the official government often does not know what is going on with the Revolutionary Guards, which receives its orders directly from the Supreme Leader. With regards to the bulk of operations carried out by the Guards internally or abroad, sometimes the President is only informed after they occur, which puts the government in an embarrassing situation as it is forced to confront diplomatic crises without being fully briefed. We see this with incidents ranging from the strike against a Kuwaiti oil tanker, explosives being sent to Saudi Arabia in bags, or the implementation of a covert operation in Germany.
Here, for the readers’ benefit, I have picked out some of the most important excerpts from Rafsanjani’s most recent memoirs:
18th October 1987: Khameini tells Rafsanjani that one of Gaddafi’s envoys came to visit him in Tehran, proposing that Iran stop its conflict with Iraq and attack Saudi Arabia instead. Rafsanjani reveals that Iran rejected this request.
16th September 1987: Rafsanjani details the time that MP Hosseini Shahroudi came to visit him telling him that he believed Iran was to blame for the 1987 Hajj incident.
27th April 1988: Rafsanjani reveals that Dr. [Ali Akbar] Velayati informed him that Saudi Arabia planned to cut ties with Iran, which would expose the Iranians to great pressure.
2nd October 1987: Dr. Velayati contacts Rafsanjani at night, informing him that he had met Abdel Halim Khaddam in Syria, and that the latter had told him that Saudi Arabia believed Iran was preparing to attack it. Velayati promised his Syrian counterpart a formal response to allay any fears, but Khaddam added that he did not believe this would be a good thing before the upcoming Arab leaders meeting. Rafsanjani asks Velayati to refrain for several days before responding to the Syrians on the matter.
22nd October 1988: Rafsanjani reveals that Ahmad Khomeini had sent a message ordering the Iranian press to stop criticizing Saudi Arabia, after King Fahd had committed to a similar pledge to stop his country’s media criticism of Iran.
4th October 1988: Rafsanjani writes that Seyyed Mostafa Tajzadeh, Deputy Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, has warned of propaganda against Saudi Arabia, believing that such propaganda will only ignite sectarian strife. Tajzadeh argues that this would not be in anyone’s interests, even though Saudi Arabia excels in disseminating anti-Iranian propaganda throughout the Muslim world.
So, it is clear that Rafsanjani has many secrets in his locker that are yet to be disclosed. Perhaps if he does so then this will impact severely upon the Supreme Leader, by virtue of their shared history.

The Day After: Responding to an Israeli Strike on Iran
Michael Eisenstadt /Washington Institute
September 27, 2012
To mitigate adverse consequences, Washington would need to take a number of steps before and after an Israeli strike, some of which might run counter to its instincts and preferences.
Although an Israeli military strike again Iran's nuclear program is far from certain, the potential consequences for the United States are clear. Such a development would present major crisis-management challenges -- and, perhaps, opportunities to advance U.S. interests.
The immediate challenge would be to limit escalation by constraining Tehran's freedom to act, minimizing the damage caused by its retaliation, and keeping Hizballah and other Iranian proxies out of the fray. Moreover, by curbing Iran's escalatory options in the Persian Gulf, Washington might prevent a prolonged spike in oil prices. This could in turn help preserve international support for efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
To accomplish these objectives, Washington would need to take a number of steps both prior to and immediately after a strike. It must also be prepared to respond quickly to miscalculations -- whether its own or those of friends and adversaries -- as well as other unintended consequences that could complicate poststrike diplomacy.
For the Obama administration, there is the additional challenge of preparing for an event that it is clearly trying to avoid without appearing either "complicit" in Israeli actions (in the words of Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey) or unwilling to support a close ally in its hour of need. And in the aftermath of a strike, Washington would need to subordinate its pique at the Israeli government to the task of managing the crisis in a way that furthers U.S. interests and enhances America's standing in the eyes of its regional partners.
WORKING WITH ISRAEL TO PREVENT ESCALATION
Minimizing Israeli casualties as a result of Iranian retaliation would be a key element of any effort to limit poststrike escalation. During some past conflicts (e.g., the 1991 Gulf War), Israel has absorbed rocket and missile barrages and terrorist attacks without retaliating, at least when the resulting casualties were limited. Accordingly, the United States should be prepared to rapidly augment Israel's missile defenses with SM-3s, Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense systems (THAADS), and Patriot PAC-2s, with the aim of limiting casualties caused by Iranian missiles and, perhaps, Hizballah's long-range rockets.
Some administration officials may wish to maintain a studied distance from Israel poststrike in order to demonstrate their disapproval, but the imperative to prevent further escalation by rapidly dispatching missile defenses should trump all other considerations (except for the need to deploy such systems to defend U.S. facilities in the Gulf). Washington would also need to work with Israeli and other intelligence services around the world on thwarting retaliatory terrorist attacks against American interests (to limit potential U.S. involvement in the fray) as well as Israeli and Jewish targets (to limit further Israeli military action).
Although the main actions associated with an Israeli strike are unlikely to last much more than a day or two, the Israeli military might decide to conduct a follow-up strike several days later against targets inadequately damaged during the initial attack. This could pose further challenges to U.S.-Israeli relations, especially if Washington believed that it had averted major escalation after the first strike. Such scenarios underscore the need for close bilateral consultation throughout the crisis, with U.S. and Israeli decisionmakers comparing the benefits that a follow-on strike might confer versus its escalatory potential given the situation on the ground.
SIGNALING IRAN
Washington's ability to influence Tehran's calculus is limited, but it can do a number of things well before any strike to constrain the regime's freedom of military action and capacity to respond. These include:
Quietly informing Tehran that in the wake of recent provocations -- namely, plots to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington last year and U.S. embassy personnel in Azerbaijan earlier this year, both linked to Tehran -- the United States will respond to future Iranian or proxy attacks on its interests in a forceful manner. This message should be reiterated now even if it has been delivered in the past.
Intensifying surveillance of suspected and confirmed Iranian intelligence agents serving overseas, and making this enhanced scrutiny visible to Tehran. If the regime knows that its agents are being watched, it may be less willing to use them to conduct retaliatory actions. And in the immediate aftermath of an Israeli strike, Washington should take this approach a step further, pressing allied governments to declare Iranian agents personae non grata.
Maintaining a strengthened air and naval presence in the Gulf to limit Iran's poststrike military options. In addition, the United States should relocate the two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, where they will be less vulnerable to an Iranian surprise attack and better positioned to wage an "outside-in" campaign to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. It should still maintain a naval presence in the Persian Gulf, however, both to reassure its allies and deny Tehran the ability to claim that it expelled U.S. forces.
Persuading allies and partners -- especially those dependent on Gulf oil -- to warn Tehran against disrupting oil shipments. In doing so, they should remind Tehran that it lost the Iran-Iraq War in large part because it took a variety of actions (including the "tanker war") that alienated the international community. They should also be prepared to release large quantities of oil from their strategic reserves to dampen a possible oil price spike.
After a strike, Washington should emphasize that the proximate cause of the crisis was Tehran's refusal to dispel persistent doubts about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. The United States and its partners should then reiterate their willingness to help Iran enjoy the benefits of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, provided that Tehran clarify outstanding issues about its program and agree to adequate safeguards. In addition, Washington should work to deter Tehran from breaking out or withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), reminding the regime that the international community has detected its previous efforts to build clandestine enrichment facilities, that it would face even stiffer sanctions were it to do so again, and that withdrawal from the NPT is not a legal option given its likely violation of its treaty obligations.
SIDELINING HIZBALLAH
Iran has the ability to do a fair amount of harm on its own in response to a strike. First, some Iranian missiles would likely penetrate Israeli missile defenses (though it should be recalled that the forty-one Iraqi missiles that hit Israel in 1991 led to the death of only one citizen). Second, some Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks are likely to succeed, though the regime has recently shown a degree of incompetence in this area. Third, Tehran could roil world oil markets by threatening Gulf oil shipments, assuming it were willing to brook international censure for doing so.
Yet Iran's potential for harm would be greatly magnified if it convinced Hizballah to join the fight. For example, the organization could use its inventory of more than 50,000 rockets to bombard Israel from Lebanon, perhaps sparking a war in the Levant. It could also undertake terrorist attacks against U.S., Israeli, or Jewish targets overseas. Hizballah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah recently stated that the group's response to an Israeli strike would depend on the circumstances. Although he subsequently stated (probably in response to Iranian prodding) that Hizballah would retaliate in some way, the group is still smarting from its 2006 war with Israel and is facing domestic pressure due to the travails of its cosponsor, the Assad regime in Syria. Therefore, it will probably try to avoid another war.
Washington should help Hizballah stay on the sidelines of a potential conflict by quietly indicating that any retaliation on Iran's behalf would likely increase regional and international support for strong countermeasures. These include robust Israeli military action aimed at causing long-term damage to the group, sanctions that greatly constrain its fundraising and organizational activities in Europe and elsewhere, U.S. efforts to hinder resupply from Iran (though Hizballah already has enough rockets for several major conflicts), and more robust support for opposition forces in Syria.
MAINTAINING INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT
One of the greatest sources of anxiety concerning an Israeli strike is that it could undermine international support for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. Under such conditions, Tehran could rebuild its destroyed nuclear infrastructure with few if any constraints, including the export controls that have slowed its centrifuge and missile programs.
In this respect, an Israeli strike would be less disruptive than an American strike. Washington has made a very public effort to warn Israel against such a course, so a U.S. strike might alienate those countries that have cooperated with U.S. sanctions in the belief that they were aimed at averting military action. Moreover, a successful Israeli strike that sets Iran's nuclear program back by several years might increase the international community's motivation to prevent a vengeful Tehran from acquiring the bomb, since that development could precipitate an even more dangerous crisis later. Paradoxically, then, an Israeli attack might increase both Tehran's desire to obtain nuclear arms and the international community's resolve to prevent it from doing so. This resolve could take the form of more stringent application of existing export controls on sensitive materials and dual-use items critical to the nuclear program.
Finally, any Iranian threats or attempts to disrupt the global economy after a strike would be fraught with risk for the Islamic Republic. On one hand, if Washington succeeded in deterring Iranian retaliation in the Gulf or mitigating its consequences, then international support for export controls and sanctions designed to prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb might well continue unaffected. Conversely, should Tehran manage to destabilize the Gulf, it could alienate its supporters, strengthen the determination of those countries working to prevent it from getting the bomb (including Russia and China), and ensure that an Israeli strike has a greater impact on the regime's ability to rebuild than would have otherwise been the case.
CONCLUSION
Because an Israeli military strike on Iran would be a high-risk move with significant potential for escalation, resolving the nuclear impasse diplomatically is greatly preferred. Yet even as Washington continues to warn Israel against such a move, it would be well advised to prepare measures aimed at mitigating the adverse consequences of a strike, averting further escalation, and impeding Iran's efforts to rebuild its nuclear program.
**Michael Eisenstadt is director of the Military and Security Studies Program at The Washington Institute.

Ahmadinejad and Morsi Lay Out the Islamic Agenda
By: Robert Spencer on Sep 27th, 2012
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mohammed Morsi, arguably the foremost exponents today of Sharia rule, both spoke at the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday, and their speeches together amounted to an Islamic supremacist wish list for the world.
The foremost item on their list, not surprisingly, was the destruction of Israel, although both knew better in the glare of international media than to state their aspirations quite so baldly.
Ahmadinejad drenched his address in Islamic piety, beginning with a traditional Islamic invocation: “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. All Praise Belongs to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and May Peace and Blessings be upon the Greatest and Trustworthy Prophet and His Pure Progeny, His Chosen Companions, and upon all Divine Messengers. Oh, God, Hasten the Emergence of Your Chosen Beloved, Grant Him Good Health and Victory, Make us His Best Companions, and all those who attest to His Rightfulness.” And then: “I thank the Almighty God for having once more the chance to participate in this meeting. We have gathered here to ponder and work together for building a better life for the entire human community and for our nations.”
And how can we work together for building a better life? Ahmadinejad ticked off a list of things that he posited had interfered with international brotherhood and harmony, including “egoism, distrust, malicious behaviors, and dictatorships,” as well as the Dark Ages and the Crusades (although he didn’t mention the centuries of murderous jihad warfare all over the globe).
His list culminated with his principal bogeys, the chief things he believed interfered with global peace: “the occupation of Palestine and imposition of a fake government”; Saddam Hussein’s “invasion” of Iran; 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan; and a host of others. Among them, he complained about the supposed denial of “the right to criticize the hegemonic policies and actions of the world Zionism.” It was hard not to wonder at such moments in his speech what planet he was on, since the Palestinian jihadist propaganda machine has had such success in demonizing Israel in the world media; but of course a linchpin of that success has been to complain that the situation is exactly the opposite, and so that is what Ahmadinejad did in New York Wednesday.
In a speech that was heavy on Islamic proselytizing, after his survey of the world’s ills Ahmadinejad asked: “Does anybody believe that continuation of the current order is capable of bringing happiness for human society?” And further: “Who is responsible for all these sufferings and failures?” He left that question unanswered at that point, although at another point he railed against the “uncivilized Zionists,” and he went on to delineate his prescription: “There is no doubt that the world is in need of a new order and a fresh way of thinking.” Foremost this would be “an order in which man is recognized as God’s Supreme Creature, enjoying material and spiritual qualities and possessing a pure and divine nature filled with a desire to seek justice and truth.” Consequently he called upon the nations to “place our trust in God Almighty and stand against the acquisitive minority” – in other words, to adopt Sharia and stand against Israel.
Morsi, for his part, was less subtle. “The first issue which the world must exert all its efforts in resolving,” he declared, “on the basis of justice and dignity, is the Palestinian cause.” He labeled it “shameful that the free world accepts, regardless of the justifications provided, that a member of the international community continues to deny the rights of a nation that has been longing for decades for independence.” About the many Israel peace offers and chances to establish a state that the Palestinian jihadists contemptuously cast aside he was, of course, silent, retailing Palestinian propaganda talking points as he called for “immediate and significant measures to put an end to colonization, settlement activities, and the alteration in the identity of Occupied Jerusalem.”
Morsi also added an additional item to Ahmadinejad’s laundry list for global harmony: the eradication of “Islamophobia.” “We must join hands,” he said ringingly, “in confronting these regressive ideas that hinder cooperation among us. We must act together in the face of extremism, discrimination, and incitement to hatred on the basis of religion or race….We have a responsibility in this international gathering to study how we can protect the world from instability and hatred.” How could this be done? Egypt, he said, “respects freedom of expression,” but only such expression that is “not used to incite hatred against anyone” and that is “not directed towards one specific religion or culture” – a freedom of expression that “tackles extremism and violence,” not the kind that “deepens ignorance and disregards others.” In other words, he was calling for international restrictions on speech that Muslims find objectionable.
Destruction of Israel and of the freedom of speech, both couched in high-flown terms that eluded most of the hearers and much of the international media. But the intentions of both of these Islamic supremacist presidents was clear. More’s the pity that there was no voice of freedom to stand up and defend free states, free speech and free people in terms just as clear. And because of that lack, Ahmadinejad and Morsi may well get what is on their wish list.

Syrian jets bomb area near Lebanon border
September 27, 2012/The Daily Star
BAALBEK, Lebanon: Syrian warplanes struck targets in Syrian territory near the border with Lebanon Thursday, a Lebanese military official said, denying earlier reports that the jets bombed the outskirts of the northeastern town of Arsal.
“The Syrian shelling occurred inside Syrian territory opposite the outskirts of the town of Arsal,” the official told The Daily Star. He spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.
Earlier, a security source said that the Syrian jets bombed the outskirts of Arsal.
The spoke, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said six missiles hit several targets in the area of Khirbet Dawoud, 10 kilometers inside Lebanese territory.
The raid came after U.N. Special Coordinator to Lebanon Derek Plumbly toured the country's borders with Syria in the Bekaa region, to check on the conditions of displaced Syrians in the area.The source said Syrian reconnaissance jets flew over the area while the U.N. diplomat was visiting the Bekaa.
On Sept. 17, two Syrian warplanes bombed farm fields in Arsal, particularly in the farm fields of Khirbet Dawoud that shares 50 kilometers of border with Syria, causing no casualties but material damage to farm houses. That was the first air strike targeting Lebanese territory since the uprising in Syria began 18 months ago.
Earlier Thursday, a Syrian Army unit blew up a vacated house on the border with Lebanon near the eastern area of Masharih al-Qaa, a Lebanese security source told The Daily Star. The house belonged to Mohammad Aqeel al-Radi.
The state-run National News Agency said that the incident was followed by heavy gunfire from the Syrian side of the border.
It was difficult to tell whether the Syrian Army entered Lebanese territory given the lack of a defined border in that region, the source said.
The area where the incident took place has been deserted for a while following heavy clashes between Syrian government forces and rebel groups.Residents in the area are known to support the uprising against President Bashar Assad in the neighboring country. Many wounded Syrians were transferred to Lebanese hospitals via Masharih al-Qaa.
Syrian shells have hit Lebanese territory in the past but the air raid this month was the most serious violation. Several Lebanese, including a TV cameraman, have been killed and dozens wounded by fire coming from the Syrian side.
Following last month's attacks on border villages that wounded a Lebanese soldier, Prime Minister Najib Mikati instructed Lebanon’s Ambassador to Syria Michel Khoury to send a letter of complaint to Syria’s Foreign Ministry about “the continuous shelling of Lebanese border towns from nearby Syrian military bases.”The opposition March 14 coalition has called for the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers along the border with Syria in an attempt to put an end to repeated Syrian violations of Lebanese territory.

Was Michel Aoun assassinated after all?
September 27, 2012 /By Michael Young /The Daily Star
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2012/Sep-27/189337-was-michel-aoun-assassinated-after-all.ashx#axzz27iDlzfCy
Michel Aoun is getting a taste of his own medicine. When Samir Geagea declared earlier this year that he had been the target of an assassination attempt, the general expressed dubiousness. Now March 14 is doing the same about a alleged attack against Aoun in Sidon, in which one of his vehicles was hit by a bullet.
Would Aoun invent such an incident to bolster his electoral chances? The general would do, and has done, far worse. For the commander who abandoned his soldiers and family on Oct. 13, 1990, when Syrian soldiers overran the areas under his control, to the man who now defends the unbounded barbarity of President Bashar Assad’s repression, to lie for electoral gain qualifies as an improvement.
But Aoun is right in one regard. Let’s wait for a thorough investigation to determine what happened in Sidon. If someone did shoot at him, then it’s a serious matter. However, perhaps it’s another question that we should ask of Aoun. Did Pope Benedict XVI, during his recent trip to Lebanon, assist in the general’s political assassination?
The pontiff came to Beirut with two principal messages to Christians: Remain in your country so that demographically the Christians of the Middle East will not disappear; and embrace the Lebanese model of coexistence, because only that, in the end, can truly preserve the Christian presence in Lebanon. Underlying his visit was advocacy of self-confidence, the notion that Christians must believe in themselves and not succumb to a debilitating sense of irreversible decline.
Aoun is an acutely paradoxical practitioner of that epistle. He has always presented himself as the embodiment of Christian, particularly Maronite, strength and vigor. And yet his practice is to play on Christian fears, above all a fear of Sunni domination. In his alliance with Hezbollah and Syria, Aoun has also drifted close to a strategy of dhimmitude, a belief that it’s best for vulnerable Christians to seek protection from the stronger Muslim party (and for much of the period after 2005, the Shiite community and Syria were that party).
In many respects Aoun has destroyed Christian morale, even as he has purported to reinforce the community’s presence. Aoun’s Christians, and not only them, are profoundly, and understandably, anxious about their destiny in Lebanon. Demographically, Christians are believed to make up no more than a third of the population. Their youths (like those from all communities) are emigrating, with very limited opportunities that would encourage them to remain.
The problem is that Aoun is constitutionally incapable of addressing this crisis through the prism that Pope Benedict favors, namely to anchor the Christian presence in a context of religious toleration and harmony. Largely, that’s because the general has adopted the ways of a populist and benefits from sectarian divisiveness. His hostility to the Sunnis has brought him dividends, but hardly the most advantageous ones in that conditions in the region, and in Syria especially, point to a future in which Sunnis will be more dynamic and influential.
What happens to Aoun is less important than what happens to those Christians who are loyal to the general. There can be only terrible consequences from a situation where the Christians play sides in the Sunni-Shiite rivalry, and gamble on one side or the other. Christians hold a great advantage in being able to have close relations with all Muslim communities, which creates openings for them to advance their values and agendas in Lebanon’s national conversation.
Aounists will complain that they are no worse than Samir Geagea and the Lebanese Forces, who have allied themselves with the Sunnis against the Shiites. True, but Geagea has not done so primarily on the basis of sectarian rancor because he and his supporters have an aversion to Shiites; he has done so because, as he sees it, Hezbollah threatens the foundations of the sovereign Lebanese state. Once the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons is resolved, it’s likely that the Lebanese Forces will see benefits in rebalancing their relationships with the political representatives of the Muslim communities.
Aoun has been equally ambiguous when it comes to the role of the president. The general has insisted time and again that the Taif Accord, at least that aspect of it dealing with the prerogatives of the presidency, must be revised. The implication is that the president has lost valuable power – another Aounist lament about Christian regression.
The presidency surely has lost power, but no parliament will ever reverse this. And the surprising effectiveness of President Michel Sleiman in recent weeks in managing blowback from the conflict in Syria shows that a president can be highly effective if he functions imaginatively within the confines of a national consensus.
Sleiman’s newfound credibility coupled with Pope Benedict’s words of encouragement have destabilized Aoun, at the very moment when the general and his followers are worried about how they might fare in parliamentary elections next year. Even in the Maronite bastion of Kesrouan, Aounists will admit that they are losing ground. We will have to wait and see, but it does make you wonder: Michel Aoun may have escaped elimination in Sidon, but elsewhere the story may be rather different. Many Christians seem tired of his perpetual spite.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Lebanese Reformer, Moustafa Geha Seeks Safe Haven
Arnold Ahlert/Frontpage/on Sep 27th, 2012
The outspoken and courageous son of an equally outspoken and courageous father is making waves of his own. Moustafa Geha is a Lebanese political activist and journalist who has openly opposed the meddling of Syria, Iran and Hezbollah in his country’s affairs. As a result, an attempt was made to assassinate him on April 14th. Luckily, he survived. His father wasn’t as lucky. The elder Geha’s outspoken opposition to Syrian and Iranian intervention in Lebanon, as well his criticism of violent Islamists during the 1970s and 1980s, precipitated his assassination by pro-Syrian terrorists in 1992.
“I cannot forget my father’s pictures when he was assassinated by Hezbollah in 1992 and I cannot forget the sound of shooting at me in April,” Geha told FrontPage. “I want to have peace [for me] and my family too, because we have a long, bad history with killing and oppression. I want to have the right to write and publish my ideas and to be safe at the same time. For this I left Lebanon and I don’t want to come back, because I know they will kill me,” he added. Geha currently seeking political asylum in Sweden. “It’s a good country for human rights,” he notes.
The same can hardly be said for Lebanon, where the murderous machinations of Hezbollah–backed by Syria and Iran–continue to be perpetrated with impunity. In an article for Arutz Sheva’s op-ed page, Geha illuminates that history, even as he remains rightly incredulous that the European Union refuses to categorize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Hezbollah “is now running world public opinion,” he writes.
Geha is on the mark. As recently as July, Cypriot Foreign Minister Gujarat Cossack-Marcolis, who presently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, contended that “there is no consensus on the [terror] issue,” because Hezbollah “also has an active political arm.” She added that the matter might be reconsidered if ”tangible evidence” reveals otherwise.
Geha offers this clueless EU bureaucrat and other like-minded Europeans a brief history of such “tangible evidence,” beginning in 1983, when Hezbollah carried out three operations. They bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, killing 63 Americans, and a camp of French soldiers in the Bekaa Valley, killing 58 Frenchmen. Furthermore, they were responsible for the now infamous bombing of the U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut, where 241 American soldiers lost their lives. Geha’s historically inspired indictment continues, as he lists several assassinations carried out by Hezbollah over the course of decades, including the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, as well as their attack against Israel in 2006 that precipitated an all-out war. Even now, Hezbollah remains “a huge threat to Lebanese society through the group’s control of the security network, where false accusations and charges can be levied against those who oppose the fabrication of files putting them in prisons or worse,” writes Geha.
Geha went into the issue even deeper for FrontPage. After noting that neither he nor his father were followers of Islam, he explains why. “I do not believe Islam can be characterized as a religion,” he contends. “Islam is concerned only about spreading Islam. It is not concerned about the welfare of the Muslim. In the Hadith, unbelievers have three choices: accept Islam, [go to] war with Muslims, or pay a tax and live a humiliating inferior status. Living as equals in peaceful coexistence is not a choice!” He further notes the long line of civilizations destroyed by Islam on the Arabian Peninsula, and in Africa and Asia. “How many Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Bahaists and others were killed by Muslims only because they are not Muslims?” he asks. “And don’t believe those who say Islam is religion of peace,” he adds.Harsh? “I have received a death threat and harassment by SSNP (Syrian Social Nationalist Party) members,” Geha tells FrontPage, adding that “Palestinians and Hezbollah members were running a terrorist campaign against me by distributing provocative news that calls for following and assassinating me…They killed my father and they tried to kill me.”
Geha has little use for characterizing political upheaval in the Middle East as the “Arab Spring,” “because I am against Pan-Arabism and I believe that we must call the groups in Middle East by their real names, like Syrians, Kurds, Assyrians, Circassians and others.” Regarding outside intervention in the region, Geha contends that it is “good to destroy dictatorships, but we must be very careful, because we don’t want to change these dictatorships into Islamic regimes and Islamic dictatorships.” He also believes all-out war is coming between Sunni and Shia Muslims, pitting the Sunni forces of al-Qaeda and certain Gulf regimes against the Shi’ite forces Iran, with its “Mahdi army” and Hezbollah. “To have a real Spring in the Middle East we must support all groups [and] their rights,” he states.
Thus, he is supportive of Israel. “The Jewish people have the right to have a good life without terror and wars, and I believe that if we make good peaceful relations between Israel and Lebanon we can have an amazing region,” he contends. “I have nice Israeli and Jewish friends and I am proud of them.” He is skeptical of the Obama administration’s approach to the region, “especially with the terrorist regime in Iran and now in Syria. And I don’t support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq because it opened the door to the Iranian regime to put their fingers in Iraq,” he adds.
At one point, Geha tried to have the investigation into his father’s death re-opened. “I have the names of the people who issued the fatwas against my father and I had the idea that maybe we can make a change in Lebanon after all these dark years,” he reveals. “But now I can say that I was wrong: the government in Lebanon it’s totally controlled by Hezbollah, the security forces and the army too.”
Regarding his own future, Geha remains optimistic. “I will continue my work..I have a dream that I want to translate my father’s book and publish it. At the same time I am preparing my first book for publishing,” he says. As for the bigger picture, “I hope and believe that those intellectuals who can be truthful with themselves and with the facts can begin to turn the tide, and cause the people to no longer see Israel as a monster,” he reveals. “I want to see our children playing and studying together in friendship.”
Though he will hopefully gain permanent residence in Sweden, it is clear that it is reformers like Moustafa Geha and his family who are the real agents for genuine change in the region. Sadly, their Islamist and anti-Western counterparts are often given more credence by world powers, including the Obama administration. It does not bode well for the future.

When Mubarak yelled at Obama!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
Yesterday our newspaper published an amazing story, quoting the New York Times, demonstrating how the US President has dealt with the Arab Spring in a simplistic and frivolous manner, and how the US administration has acted with emotion rather than political nous. What is most amazing about the story is the conversation that took place between Barack Obama and Hosni Mubarak.
During a telephone call, Mubarak said to Obama: “You don’t understand this part of the world,” after Obama had asked him to step down from power! The story goes on to show how Obama acted emotionally rather than politically, and of course the days and events over the past four years show that Obama does not really understand this part of the world; that he is an intellectual President rather than a politician, and this is a real danger. Obama came to power with the desire to be the antithesis of his predecessor, George W. Bush. He wanted to promote respect rather than impose the agenda of democracy. Yet Obama stood silent with regards to the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009, but then regretted his “muted stance” according to the New York Times story. When the Arab Spring broke out, Obama made another wrong decision. He considered everything that was happening everywhere in the Arab to be some form of revolution, without distinguishing between the facts and without basing his judgment on history or geography. He equated Egypt with Bahrain with Tunisia with Yemen, and this was the kind of error we have seen committed by some ignorant Arab Twitter or Facebook users. Meanwhile, Obama has hesitated in front of the mother of all Arab revolutions, the Syrian revolution, the success of which would not only change Syria but the region as a whole, and would put an end to Iranian expansion and to the most deplorable, criminal Arab regime. Nevertheless, President Obama continues to make one mistake after another.
Obama considered the events in Bahrain to be a revolution and overlooked the sectarian divide and Iranian ambitions there. The irony is that the public movement in Bahrain was supported by Iran, whereas the revolution in Syria is an uprising against a regime that has handed the country as a whole over to Iran, allowing it to deploy groups seeking to destroy the concept of the state, and allowing Tehran to use Syrian territory to promote its influence throughout the region.
Obama’s errors, or let’s say the errors of the US administration, are no less serious than the errors of the Bush administration, which handed Iraq over to Iran. All these American mistakes, whether in Iraq or the countries of the Arab Spring, show that the US policy towards the region has fallen victim to a poisonous campaign implemented by some Arab groups, whether [Sunni] Islamists - especially the Muslim Brotherhood, Christians or Shiites. If this indicates anything it shows the weakness of Arab diplomacy, specifically in the Gulf, when it comes to communicating with the US administration and institutions there as a whole, in addition to the errors committed by the Arab regimes in understanding the variables around them.
If the New York Times story serves to highlight a flaw in President Obama, it is his lack of personal relationships with world leaders. Yet we have to admit that one of the main flaws in our rational Arab regimes is the absence of active diplomacy. The evidence of this is what is happening in Syria, and Obama alone cannot be blamed for the lack of action there. The blame also lies with us for not being able to explain “this part of the world” to him, as Mubarak said. Yet for his part, Mubarak seemed to have forgotten that “this part of the world” cannot accept a president staying in power for thirty years and then intending to bequeath his position to his son!

For Immediate Release: September 27, 2012
MP Mark Warawa Introduces Motion to Condemn
Discrimination Against Females Via Sex-Selective Pregnancy Termination
This week Langley MP Mark Warawa introduced the following motion in the House of Commons: M-408 "That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination."“Recent studies have shown that the practice of aborting females in favour of males is happening in Canada,” says Warawa. “92% of Canadians believe sex-selective pregnancy termination should be illegal.” “Gender selection has been strongly condemned by all national political parties,” added Warawa. “As well, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada have vehemently opposed sex-selection pregnancy termination.” This motion is in response to numerous inquiries and concerns his office received after the CBC presented an investigation on gender selection last June. Warawa said, “I would like to thank the CBC for bringing this matter to the attention of Canadians.” With hidden cameras, the CBC visited 22 private ultrasound clinics in Canada. They found that most of these clinics allowed ultrasounds to tell the sex of the baby so that the parents could choose to terminate the pregnancy if the unborn child was a female. Unequivocal condemnation from Parliament will send a strong message that will help to bring an end to this form of gender discrimination in Canada.
For more information, please contact:
Mark Warawa, MP 613-992-1157
Tanya Charles-Tait, Communications Press Secretary 604-534-5955