LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
July 01/12

Bible Quotation for today/‘The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few;
Matthew 9,36-38: "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest.’

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
What to expect from Egypt's Morsi/By: Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi/Ha'aretz/June 30/12
Muslim Persecution of Christians: May, 2012/By Raymond Ibrahim/Gatestone Institute/June 30/12
Robert Fisk Demonizes Mideast's Persecuted Christians/By Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media/June 30/12
President Mursi: Points of weakness and strength/By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat/June 30/12
Not by Sanctions Alone: Using Intelligence and Military Means to Bolster Diplomacy with Iran/By:Michael Eisenstadt /Washington Institute/June 30/12

Aviation Week: Obama may use Assad’s fall to disguise Iran strike
DEBKAfile Special Report June 30, 2012/The new Aviation Week reports: “Evidence is mounting that the US defense community and the Obama administration view 2013 as the likely window for a bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear and missile facilities. It could be earlier, timed to use the chaos of the Syrian government’s fall to disguise such an attack…”
According to the journal, “Iran’s intransigence over shutting down its uranium-enrichment program will not buy it much more time… The tools for such an attack are all operational” and the US is coming around to suspect that Iran has already conducted its first nuclear test in North Korea.
Aviation Week’s report appeared after a failed attempt Friday, June 29, to bridge US-Russian differences on Syria was made by US Secretary of State and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in St. Petersburg. Moscow refuses to accept any solution that would entail Bashar Assad’s removal or foreign intervention in Damascus.
UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan is to present a proposal for a transitional unity government to the new Action Group on Syria meeting in Geneva Saturday. According to his plan, the government would include opposition representation but (without mentioning Assad) exclude figures complicit in the 15-month bloody suppression of dissent.
He had hoped that the presence at the meeting of all five UN Security Council veto-wielders, Arab League members and Turkey would make it possible to gain international endorsement of an agreed road map for the transition of power in Damascus without resorting to the Security Council again. However, after the failed St. Petersburg encounter, its chances of taking off are slim. Asked about this, a senior US official commented: “We may get there, we may not.”
In the Middle East, the military alert declared by Saudi King Abdullah Thursday was still in effect Saturday. Saudi forces continue to stream to the Jordanian and Iraqi borders and Jordanian, Turkish and Syrian army units are on the move, as debkafile reported Friday:
The Syrian crisis was Friday, June 29, on a knife edge between a Western-Arab-Turkish military offensive in the next 48 hours and a big power accord to ward it off. debkafile’s military sources report heavy Saudi troop movements toward the Jordanian and Iraqi borders Thursday overnight and up until Friday morning, June 29, after King Abdullah put the Saudi military on high alert for joining an anti-Assad offensive in Syria. The Saudi units are poised with tanks, missiles, special forces and anti-air batteries to enter Jordan in two heads:
One will safeguard Jordan's King Abdullah against potential Syrian or Iranian reprisals from Syria or Iraq.
The second will cut north through Jordan to enter southeastern Syriam, where a security zone will be established around the towns of Deraa, Deir al-Zour and Abu Kemal – all centers of the anti-Assad rebellion. The region is also the home terrain of the Shammar tribe, brethren of the Shammars of the Saudi Nejd province.
The Saudi units deployed on the Iraqi border are there to defend the kingdom against potential incursions by Iraqi Shiite militias crossing into the kingdom for reprisals. The Iraqi militias are well trained and armed and serve under officers of the Iranian Al-Qods Brigades, the Revolutionary Guards’ external arm.
Western Gulf sources report that Jordan too is on war alert.
Following the downing of a Turkish plane by Syria a week ago, Turkey continues to build up its Syrian border units with anti-aircraft guns, tanks and missiles towed by long convoys of trucks.
A Free Syria Army officer, Gen. Mustafa al-Sheikh, reported Friday that 170 Syrian army tanks of the 17th Mechanized Division were massed near the village of Musalmieh northeast of Aleppo, 30 km from the Turkish border. He said they stood ready to attack any Turkish forces crossing into Syria.
As these war preparations advanced, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in St. Petersburg Friday for crucial talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. They meet the day before the new UN-sponsored Action Group convenes in Geneva to discuss UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan’s latest transition proposal for Syria. He hopes for a political settlement that will ward off military intervention.
Invited to the meeting are the five veto-wielding UN Security Council members plus Turkey and Arab League envoys from Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq.
Annan proposes forming a transitional national unity government in Damascus that includes the opposition and excludes unacceptable regime members.
It was widely reported Thursday that Russia had agreed to this formula, even though it entailed evicting Bashar Assad from power. However, Lavrov stepped in to correct the record, stressing in reference to the Annan proposal that Moscow would not lend its support to “any outside interference or imposition of recipes in Syria.”
This position is doubly aimed at the intensive military movements afoot around Syria.
Clinton and Lavrov are therefore expected to go at the Syrian issue hammer and tongs. The outcome of their meeting will not only determine the course of the Action Group’s discussions but, more importantly, whether the Western-Arab-Turkish alliance goes forward with its military operation against Syria.
US-Russian concurrence on a plan for Assad’s removal could avert the operation. The failure of their talks would spell a worsening of the Syrian crisis and precipitate Western-Arab military intervention, which according to military sources in the Gulf is scheduled for launch Saturday, June 30.

Saudis forces mass on Jordanian, Iraqi borders. Turkey, Syria reinforce strength
DEBKAfile Special Report June 29, 2012/The Syrian crisis was Friday, June 29, on a knife edge between a Western-Arab-Turkish military offensive in the next 48 hours and a big power accord to ward it off. debkafile’s military sources report heavy Saudi troop movements toward the Jordanian and Iraqi borders Thursday overnight and up until Friday morning, June 29, after King Abdullah put the Saudi military on high alert for joining an anti-Assad offensive in Syria. The Saudi units are poised with tanks, missiles, special forces and anti-air batteries to enter Jordan in two heads:
One will safeguard Jordan's King Abdullah against potential Syrian or Iranian reprisals from Syria or Iraq.
The second will cut north through Jordan to enter southeastern Syriam, where a security zone will be established around the towns of Deraa, Deir al-Zour and Abu Kemal – all centers of the anti-Assad rebellion. The region is also the home terrain of the Shammar tribe, brethren of the Shammars of the Saudi Nejd province.
The Saudi units deployed on the Iraqi border are there to defend the kingdom against potential incursions by Iraqi Shiite militias crossing into the kingdom for reprisals. The Iraqi militias are well trained and armed and serve under officers of the Iranian Al-Qods Brigades, the Revolutionary Guards’ external arm.
Western Gulf sources report that Jordan too is on war alert.
Following the downing of a Turkish plane by Syria a week ago, Turkey continues to build up its Syrian border units with anti-aircraft guns, tanks and missiles towed by long convoys of trucks.
A Free Syria Army officer, Gen. Mustafa al-Sheikh, reported Friday that 170 Syrian army tanks of the 17th Mechanized Division were massed near the village of Musalmieh northeast of Aleppo, 30 km from the Turkish border. He said they stood ready to attack any Turkish forces crossing into Syria.
As these war preparations advanced, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in St. Petersburg Friday for crucial talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. They meet the day before the new UN-sponsored Action Group convenes in Geneva to discuss UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan’s latest transition proposal for Syria. He hopes for a political settlement that will ward off military intervention. Invited to the meeting are the five veto-wielding UN Security Council members plus Turkey and Arab League envoys from Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq.
Annan proposes forming a transitional national unity government in Damascus that includes the opposition and excludes unacceptable regime members.
It was widely reported Thursday that Russia had agreed to this formula, even though it entailed evicting Bashar Assad from power. However, Lavrov stepped in to correct the record, stressing in reference to the Annan proposal that Moscow would not lend its support to “any outside interference or imposition of recipes in Syria.”
This position is doubly aimed at the intensive military movements afoot around Syria.
Clinton and Lavrov are therefore expected to go at the Syrian issue hammer and tongs. The outcome of their meeting will not only determine the course of the Action Group’s discussions but, more importantly, whether the Western-Arab-Turkish alliance goes forward with its military operation against Syria.
US-Russian concurrence on a plan for Assad’s removal could avert the operation. The failure of their talks would spell a worsening of the Syrian crisis and precipitate Western-Arab military intervention, which according to military sources in the Gulf is scheduled for launch Saturday, June 30.

Judge freezes work on controversial construction site as debate rages
June 30, 2012 By Van Meguerditchian The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The judiciary stepped in Friday to resolve the controversial case of the destruction of an ancient Phoenician port at a construction site in Beirut as former Culture Minister Salim Wardy blamed the current minister for secretly seeking the destruction of the ruins. After ordering a 24-hour halt Thursday on all construction work at Plot 1398, owned by Venus construction firm, Judge Nadim Zouein extended the freeze until next Tuesday and asked the Culture Ministry and the Directorate General of Antiquities to state what kind of ruins were present at the site earlier this week.
In a news conference Friday, former culture ministers Wardy, Tammam Salam and Tarek Mitri criticized incumbent Culture Minister Gaby Layyoun’s decree 70 to revoke a former ministerial decision that designated some 1,200 square meters of the plot as a national archaeological site.
For his part, Layyoun said he would respond to the accusations in a separate news conference Saturday. Wardy questioned the credibility of the archaeological report upon which the ministry based its decision. A report prepared by Dr. Ralph Pederson, at the request of Venus, states that the site, which was previously believed to be an ancient Phoenician port dating back to at least 500 B.C. did not fall under the known parameters of a port or a shipyard.
Construction at Plot 1398 was stalled for more than a year following a decree issued by Wardy in 2011, then the culture minister. Wardy’s decree was based on the conclusions made by seven local and international archaeologists who recommended the preservation of the site because it included the ruins of ancient dry docks used for ship building and maintenance.
But officials at Venus told The Daily Star that Wardy had not provided enough evidence to prove the presence of an ancient port. “Wardy and his team never submitted clear-cut evidence that what was found in our land lot was effectively a Phoenician port, or that [the ruins] have any historical meaning or value,” said Hassan Jaafar, the firm’s assistant managing director. According to Jaafar, the report prepared by Layyoun highlights errors by the archaeologists tasked by Wardy.
During the news conference Friday, Wardy called for the establishment of a committee of independent experts to re-examine the site in light of the conflicting reports published by archaeologists. He said the decision to level the land had been made in a rush and the property owner had been informed of the decision by phone. “The property owner contacted two experts who submitted a report to the ministry, which then adopted the report’s recommendations. This means that all archaeological sites are in danger [in Lebanon],” Wardy said.
According to Wardy, the judge presiding over the case could not initiate urgent measures to stop the leveling of the land because the decision to begin work had not been formally published in the country’s Official Gazette. For his part, Mitri asked Layyoun to provide precise and legal reasons for his decision to press ahead with construction works.
“If a current minister needs to cancel a decision made by his predecessor, then he needs to provide legal and technical reasons for the decision; if he doesn’t, we have to the right to question this,” he said.
He added that archaeological experts confirmed the necessity of preserving the site while only a single expert tasked by Layyoun had said the site did not date to the Phoenician period.
Salam criticized Layyoun, asking: “Is this a Culture Ministry or a real estate ministry? “This unilateral action by the minister makes me question whether the Culture Ministry is really concerned about culture or about financial investments,” said Salam.

Security Sources: Hizbullah Committed to Security Plan after Losing Control over its Supporters
Naharnet/ 29 June 2012/Hizbullah is committed to the month-long security plan that is being implemented by the state security agencies after it found itself “unable to control its supporters and started suffering the symptoms that affected the Palestinian resistance.”
Security sources told LBC Friday that “Hizbullah is committed to the security plan due to the state of corrosion its environment is suffering, which has caused chaos and lawlessness.”
Interior Minister Marwan Charbel announced Wednesday the beginning of a one-month security plan aimed at restoring stability.
“Hizbullah is unable to control those who were considered to be its supporters, so it threw the ball in the state’s court to accomplish this mission,” the sources said, pointing out that several statesmen consider that the party is showing the “Arafat syndrome that previously led the Palestinian resistance to chaos and anarchy.”
However, the sources revealed that political parties were advised “to take advantage of what could be described as a relatively calm situation, awaiting the outcome of the Syrian developments.”
The sources pointed out that "all Lebanese parties informed the security agencies of their responsiveness to the security plan, particularly in terms of curbing all attempts to block streets.”
However, the sources acknowledged that Sheikh Ahmed al-Asir’s sit-in and blocking of the southern entrance of Sidon city “would sabotage the relative calm,” urging him to “reduce the intensity of his protest steps after he delivered his message to the leaders concerned.”

Controversial preacher Sheikh Ahmad Assir vows to continue Sidon protest, army steps up patrols
June 29, 2012/By Mohammed Zaatari The Daily Star
SIDON, Lebanon: Controversial preacher Sheikh Ahmad Assir defied a demand Friday by leaders of this southern port city that he reopen the Sidon entrance of Lebanon's highway, as the Lebanese Army stepped up armed patrols in the city. "We absolutely won't open the road, not even if a decision is made by the [U.N.] Security Council," Assir, who is protesting Hezbollah's arms, told reporters at the site.
His remarks came shortly after a statement by local leaders in Sidon denounced the blocking of roads and called on those using the tactic to cease and desist.
“Expressing an opinion is the right of every citizen ... but the practice of blocking roads is not acceptable at all,” said the statement at the end of a meeting at Sidon’s City Hall.
“We respect the opinion of he who planned the sit-in as well as its announced goals. We have the right to freedom of expression, but without blocking roads on others,” said the statement, which was read by former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.Around 150 protesters set up a tent and blocked the highway Thursday in continuation of a protest against non-state arms that began a day earlier.Assir swiftly hit back at Siniora. "You are afraid. But we only fear God," he said from the protest site.“We prefer death to humiliation,” he cried. Dozens of supporters repeated the phrase loudly after him.
“We are blocking the road on the resistance party [Hezbollah] and the Amal Movement, which dominate the country. Why should a group of rascals block the [Beirut] airport road?” he complained.
Turning to Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah and Amal Movement head Nabih Berri, Assir said: “I swear to God ... through peaceful means, we will compel you to pay the price.” He pledged to maintain the protest unless “someone convinces us” that Hezbollah and Amal will seriously respond to efforts to resolve the weapons' issue.
Interior Minister Marwan Charbel, who launched a monthlong law enforcement crackdown Wednesday, was not available for comment when contacted by the Daily Star.
“The minister is following up on security issues,” an aide to Charbel said.
Charbel had repeatedly said that while security forces can open a blocked road in a matter of minutes he would not order them to do so for fear of bloodshed.
Assir led Friday prayers at the protest site. "I apologize to the people who were affected by the road closure," Assir told some 700 followers who joined the prayer.
Security sources said both the the Lebanese Army and police were increasing patrols all over the city as a security precaution.

Egypt’s Islamist President-elect Mohammad Mursi: No power above people power
June 30, 2012/By Shaimaa Fayed Daily Star
CAIRO: Egypt’s Islamist President-elect Mohammad Mursi took an informal oath of office Friday before tens of thousands of supporters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, in a slap at the generals’ attempts to limit his power.“I swear by God that I will sincerely protect the republican system and that I respect the constitution and the rule of law,” Mursi said to the crowd, many of whom were followers of his once-banned Muslim Brotherhood.“I will look after the interests of the people and protect the independence of the nation and the safety of its territory,” said the bearded Mursi, in an open-necked shirt and suit.
Mursi is to be sworn in officially Saturday by the constitutional court, rather than by parliament as is usual.
The court dissolved the Islamist-dominated lower house this month in a series of measures designed to ensure that the generals who took over from ousted ruler Hosni Mubarak would keep a strong grip on Egypt’s affairs even after Mursi takes power.
“There is no power above people power,” said Mursi. “Today you are the source of this power.
“You give this power to whoever you want and you withhold it from whoever you want.”
His defiant speech was a clear challenge to the army, which also says it represents the will of the people.
The 60-year-old U.S.-trained engineer addressed himself to “the Muslims and Christians of Egypt” and promised them a “civil, nationalist, constitutional state.”
Mursi also paid homage to a militant Egyptian cleric jailed in the United States. “I see the family of Omar Abdul-Rahman [in Tahrir],” he said. “And I see the banners of the families of those who have been jailed by the [Egyptian] military.” He pledged to work for the release of the prisoners, including Abdul-Rahman.
Tens of thousands of Egyptians cheered Mursi in the square that was the hub of the anti-Mubarak uprising.
“Say it loud, Egyptians, Mursi is the president of the republic,” they chanted. “A full revolution or nothing. Down, down with military rule. We, the people, are the red line.”
The military council that pushed Mubarak aside on Feb. 11, 2011, has supervised a chaotic stop-go transition since then, holding parliamentary and presidential elections, but then effectively negating their outcome to preserve its own power.
“Do we accept that parliament is dissolved?” cheer leaders from the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party asked the throng in Tahrir. “No,” the party faithful thundered back.
Mursi was declared president last Sunday, a nerve-wracking week after a runoff vote in which he narrowly beat former air force chief Ahmad Shafiq, who was Mubarak’s last prime minister.
After being sworn in as the first freely elected civilian president of the most populous Arab state Saturday, Mursi would speak at Cairo University, a presidency statement said.
Hundreds of protesters have been camped out in Tahrir for weeks to press the army to transfer power to civilians.
“I’m here to tell the military council that we, the people, elected parliament so it is only us, the people, who can dissolve it,” said Intissar al-Sakka, a teacher and FJP member.
She, like many of the women in Tahrir, was wearing a waist-length “khemar” veil of the kind favored by Mursi’s wife.
The military council has long promised to hand over power to the next president by July 1, but army sources said the ceremony had been postponed, without giving a reason or a new date.
The generals have seized new powers this month, giving themselves veto rights over the drafting of a new constitution, naming a National Defense Council to run defense and foreign policies and decreeing their control of all military affairs.
The military’s insistence that Mursi take his oath before the constitutional court and his defiant riposte in Tahrir sets the stage for a protracted struggle for power in Egypt.
Scenes at the presidential palace occupied by Mubarak for three decades encapsulated the rise of an 84-year-old Islamist movement he had banned, constrained and often persecuted.
Bearded men, some in white robes, others in suits, milled around the palace while Mursi held talks Thursday with the Muslim Brotherhood’s supreme guide Mohammad Badie and consulted clerics from the Al-Azhar seat of Islamic learning, hard-line Salafists and independent evangelical Muslim preachers.
Many seemed dazzled by the grandeur of their surroundings or intrigued to be walking once-forbidden halls of power.
Security guards, still there from the Mubarak era, shook their heads in frank amazement at the bearded conclave.
After the Brotherhood’s Badie entered the gates, one said: “Good God, these men were in prison before and wouldn’t have dared walk past the compound. Look at them now.”
Many Egyptians swarmed around outside, hoping to meet the homespun president-elect with grievances and petitions. Security men said it was hard to impose order because Mursi had given instructions that people should not be turned away.
After the talks, Mursi’s Islamist visitors at the palace in Cairo’s Heliopolis district broke a daylong fast with hundreds of takeout meals in cardboard boxes hauled in by palace guards from an army-owned local restaurant – one of the many commercial interests developed by the military over the decades.
The military, the source of every previous president in the Arab republic’s 60-year history, runs business enterprises accounting for an estimated one-third of the economy.
It does not intend to jeopardize the $1.3 billion a year it receives in military aid from the United States to back Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel, widely criticized by Islamists.
Mursi has said that he would respect Egypt’s international obligations and did not want to take the country back to war.

Lebanese dies after being shot in Metn
June 30, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A Lebanese man died Saturday after sustaining gunshots wounds while in the Fanar area, Metn, during a drug-related altercation, security sources told The Daily Star.
Around 10 men in their vehicles surrounded Mario George Semaan, 35, Friday night and shot him in the stomach before fleeing the Zaetariyeh neighborhood. Semaan succumbed to his wounds at the Abu Jawdeh Hospital at around 5 a.m. Two of his friends, Elie Ghassan Sammara, 35, and Michel Maroun Aoun, 19, said they saw the men shoot at Semaan but denied any knowledge of the dispute between their friend and the shooters.During questioning, Sammara and Aoun also denied knowing the men and said they were standing far from where the incident took place.

Not by Sanctions Alone: Using Intelligence and Military Means to Bolster Diplomacy with Iran
Michael Eisenstadt /Washington Institute
June 28, 2012
To bolster diplomacy with Iran, the United States must intensify intelligence operations and more actively use the military instrument to alter Tehran's threat calculus.
With the latest round of nuclear diplomacy ending inconclusively last week, the United States and the EU are poised to impose a new round of sanctions on Iran. Given Tehran's large cash and gold reserves and still-substantial oil income, however, sanctions alone may not make the regime more flexible in negotiations. To bolster diplomacy, and thereby diminish the prospects of military confrontation, the United States must intensify intelligence operations and use the military instrument in ways it has not been willing to thus far.
RATCHETING UP THE PRESSURE
Since taking office, the Obama administration has been extremely reticent to employ the military instrument in dealing with Tehran, largely to avoid undermining nuclear diplomacy or sparking an unintended conflict. To its credit, the administration has built up the military capabilities of U.S. allies in the region, filled gaps in U.S. defenses in the Persian Gulf, and defined red lines regarding the use of force. Yet these steps do not seem to have altered Tehran's threat calculus. If diplomacy is to succeed, the United States must do just that.
Strengthening partnerships. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has stated that strengthened security partnerships and collective defenses are key to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Building on the efforts of its predecessors, the Obama administration has sought to advance these goals through the Gulf Security Dialogue and tens of billions of dollars in planned arms sales to Gulf Arab allies. The intent is to reassure these allies while convincing Iran that its nuclear program will diminish, rather than enhance its security.
Tehran, however, believes that the Gulf Arab monarchies are doomed to be swept away by the "Islamic awakening" now convulsing the region, and that their armed forces will eventually be inherited by revolutionary Islamist regimes more closely aligned with its own worldview. From that perspective, Gulf Arab militaries pose no threat to Iran, so U.S. efforts to build them up have no effect on Tehran's threat calculus.
Filling capabilities gaps. Following an internal review in 2011 that revealed critical gaps in U.S. warfighting capabilities in the Gulf, CENTCOM ordered a rush effort to enhance the readiness of U.S. forces there. These upgrades -- along with the dispatch of additional mine countermeasure ships and helicopters to the region, as well as the refitting of the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce to function as an afloat staging base for countermine and naval special warfare operations in the Gulf -- will help U.S. forces deal with small boat, mine, and submarine warfare threats. Yet, because none of these necessary steps enhances America's offensive potential in the Gulf, they are unlikely to alter Tehran's threat calculus.
Drawing red lines. President Obama and Secretary Panetta have declared that if Iran were to begin building a nuclear weapon, the United States would use all means at its disposal to prevent completion of the project. (They have also warned Tehran that any attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz would prompt U.S. military action.) Recent media reports of U.S. and Israeli cyber-spying on Tehran have undoubtedly caused some Iranian officials to wonder whether they could build a bomb in secret, should they decide to do so. But that may be beside the point: because Washington has set the bar so high with its red line concerning Tehran's nuclear program, Iran could make great progress toward acquiring the bomb, all through overt activities, without risking U.S. military action.
NEXT STEPS
Successful diplomacy may well depend on the administration's ability to convince Tehran that the price of failed negotiations could be armed conflict. To make this threat credible, Washington must first show Tehran that it is preparing for a possible military confrontation -- whether initiated by Iran or a third country -- and that it is willing and able to enforce its red lines regarding freedom of navigation in the Gulf and the regime's nuclear program.
PRESSURE DAMASCUS TO UNNERVE TEHRAN
The Obama administration's understandable caution regarding the Syria crisis has had the unfortunate side effect of convincing Tehran that Washington lacks the resolve to deal with its nuclear challenge. To help dispel this impression, Washington should more vigorously support the armed opposition in Syria, Tehran's closest regional ally. The key is to provide enough support to enable the opposition to turn the tide in Syria, yet without drawing the United States so deeply into the crisis that it diverts resources and attention from the Iranian nuclear issue.
BOOST READINESS
The United States should take additional steps to demonstrate that it is preparing for a possible military confrontation with Iran, whether as a result of an Israeli preventive strike or an Iranian provocation. For instance, it should enhance security around embassies and military facilities, raise the threat condition for its forces in the region, and undertake other steps that suggest it is preparing for the kind of turmoil a confrontation with Iran might bring. U.S. agencies and local allies should also step up surveillance of Iranian intelligence personnel serving under diplomatic and nonofficial cover in the region, making it more difficult for them to plan or implement retaliatory action.
In addition, the U.S. military should increase the pace of bilateral and multilateral exercises in the Gulf in order to demonstrate that both Washington and the Gulf Cooperation Council are ready to confront Tehran. Acting within a coalition framework is particularly important, as it would lend legitimacy to any future military operation. In particular, the United States should undertake exercises that demonstrate its ability to rapidly surge forces into the region. Finally, Washington should publicize major milestones in the development, production, and deployment of the upgraded 30,000-pound "massive ordnance penetrator" bomb, currently being developed to deal with Iran's deep underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordow.
REPOSITION GULF NAVAL FORCES
On the naval front, Washington should move the aircraft carrier that it currently keeps on station in the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. There, it would be much less vulnerable to an Iranian surprise attack and much better positioned to wage the kind of "outside-in" campaign that would provide the least costly way to restore freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf in the event of confrontation. Senior Iranian officers have stated that the carrier is a strategic prize they could hold at risk given its current location; temporarily repositioning it would deny them a major advantage in the event of conflict.
At the same time, to prevent Tehran from credibly claiming that it chased the U.S. military out of the Persian Gulf, Washington should continue to maintain other naval forces there while deploying additional strike aircraft and bombers to the southern Gulf states and elsewhere in the region. It should also quietly explain to allies that the carrier's repositioning is a temporary expedient intended to better position U.S. forces to deal with a potential confrontation with Iran.
"OUT" TEHRAN'S OPERATIVES
Should nuclear negotiations continue to languish, thereby increasing the prospects for confrontation, the United States should do what it did in the wake of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia: identify to friendly nations any Iranian intelligence operatives serving on their soil under diplomatic or nonofficial cover. This would hinder Iran's ability to carry out a wave of terrorist attacks or otherwise retaliate in the event of an Israeli preventive strike or clash in the Gulf.
All of the above steps would demonstrate that Washington believes there is heightened potential for conflict in the Gulf while simultaneously enhancing U.S. readiness for such an eventuality. They would also allow the administration to avoid overtly threatening Tehran in ways that could divide the P5+1, cause Iran to dig in its heels in order to save face, or prompt it to overreact.
CONCLUSION
If nuclear diplomacy with Tehran is to succeed, Washington must be prepared for the kind of brinkmanship it has not engaged in since the Cold War. This means ratcheting up pressure, while, backstopping diplomacy with preparations that underscore its readiness for a confrontation, in order to deter Iran from additional steps toward a nuclear breakout. To this end, Washington should reinforce three key notions in Tehran: that the Iranian nuclear program has been penetrated by foreign intelligence services, that the regime would not be able to conduct a clandestine breakout without getting caught, and that if it does try to build a nuclear weapon, the United States will destroy its nuclear infrastructure. In this way, the administration would make clear to Tehran that the only way to obtain sanctions relief and escape from its growing isolation is through a diplomatic solution -- one that meets Iran's desire for peaceful nuclear technology without allowing for the possibility of a breakout.
**Michael Eisenstadt is director of the Military and Security Studies Program at The Washington Institute.

Lebanon sucked in Syria crisis
BBC News, Tripoli, Lebanon/By Jim Muir
Like Syria's other neighbours - Turkey, Iraq and Jordan - Lebanon has absorbed thousands of refugees fleeing from the conflict now raging on the other side of the border.
But unlike the other countries, Lebanon risks being plunged into sectarian strife, possibly even civil war, by the strains inflicted on its own delicate internal situation by the Syrian crisis.
If there is a spark that sets off a wider conflagration in the country, it is most likely to come from Tripoli, where blood has already been spilled.
The majority of the city's 500,000 or so inhabitants are Sunnis, most of whom naturally side with the uprising across the border in Syria, which has taken root mainly in the country's Sunni areas.
But there is a small but tough minority of Alawites, perhaps 35,000 strong, mainly concentrated in the hilltop Jebel Mohsen quarter.
They share the same obscure faith as the ruling clan of Bashar al-Assad in Syria - an occult offshoot of Shia Islam - and most of them strongly support the Syrian regime.
More than 20 people have been killed in clashes in Tripoli this year Symbols of struggle
It is not a theoretical alliance.
During the Syrian military presence in Lebanon (from 1976 until 2005) Alawite leaders in Tripoli worked closely with the Syrians and fought on their behalf in various proxy battles over the years.
The main Lebanese Alawite faction, the Arab Democratic Party led by Rifaat Eid, is strongly linked to Damascus and is widely believed to receive arms and even instructions from the regime.
Twice already this year, there have been bouts of fighting along a civil war front line between Jebel Mohsen and Bab al-Tebbaneh - the adjacent Sunni district.
More than 20 people have been killed in clashes which nobody doubts were related to the Syrian conflict, though there were conflicting recriminations.
Sunnis accused the Alawites and Damascus of stirring up the trouble to divert attention from Syria's internal struggle and to warn the Sunnis against allowing Tripoli to become a rear base for the Syrian rebels, which it effectively is.
Alawites accused the Sunnis of trying to impose a Salafi (fundamentalist) emirate and of arming and financing the Syrian Sunnis. Rifaat Eid even suggested that the only solution was to invite the Syrian army in to impose order.
Most parts of Tripoli are clearly badged with the symbols of the struggle.
In many areas, the black-white-and-green banner of the Syrian revolution flutters, in places more prominently than Lebanon's own flag.
But in Jebel Mohsen, the posters are of Mr Assad and his father, the regime founder Hafez al-Assad, some of them featuring Rifaat Eid.
'Civil war'
Buildings on and near Syria Street, which runs along the front line just on the Sunni side, are pocked and battered by the various bouts of fighting.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
It's just a pity to see our city again having to pay for the wars of others”
End Quote
Samer Annous
Lebanese university lecturer
People here are in no two minds about who is to blame.
"Every time we open up and try to work, they shoot at us again, so people close down again and run away," said Imad, a coffee shop owner.
"It's all down to Bashar al-Assad. He promised that if Syria doesn't have security, he'll set fire to the whole Middle East. Now he's started with Lebanon, then it'll be Iraq, Jordan, Turkey.
"He's killing more than 100 of his own people every day. We're with the people who are being killed for no reason," Imad added.
There are widespread fears that more clashes between Alawites and Sunnis in Tripoli could spread along the sectarian and political fault lines that run through the country.
The Alawites may be a small minority, but they are connected to a Syrian-backed alliance which includes the Shia factions Hezbollah and Amal, as well as some Christian groups - among them the northern warlord Suleiman Franjieh in nearby Zgharta.
"All the elements of a civil war are present," said Samer Annous, a university lecturer and civil society activist.
"Poverty, rage among many people over things that are happening in Syria, sectarian divisions, corruption in government, the total collapse of the whole system.
"It's just a pity to see our city again having to pay for the wars of others, regional powers including the Gulf states and the Syrians," Mr Anbnous said.
Hezbollah's role
There is a widespread perception that a proxy struggle is already taking place, with Saudi Arabia and Qatar pouring funds into Tripoli through a proliferation of Salafi Islamist groups which have become increasingly active on the ground.
"It seems that there is a kind of competition between Qatar and Saudi Arabia to control the Sunni street in Lebanon, and especially in Tripoli," said Ziad al-Ayyoubi, another civil society activist.
"This is also directly related to the Syrian revolution. Qatar is the lead country in the Gulf supporting the Syrian rebels. It seems that it is using Tripoli and north Lebanon to get access to Syria. There are a lot of expensive new weapons on the front line here, and they're not left over from the civil war."
One of the best-known Salafi leaders in Tripoli, Shaikh Daai al-Islam al-Shahhal, also stressed the regional dimensions of the struggle.
"The end of the criminal regime in Syria is absolutely inevitable," he said.
"That will deal a huge blow to the Safavid [Iranian] project of which it is a cornerstone. It will shake the Iranian and Iraqi regimes, and the allies of the Syrian regime in Lebanon."
Chief among those allies is Hezbollah, the most powerful force in Lebanon, including the Lebanese army.
Hezbollah's reaction to a Syrian collapse would set the frame for what happens next in Lebanon.
Mr Shahhal said he believed a conflict was not inevitable.
"I think some voices within Hezbollah organisation will call for preemptive steps to overturn the table in Lebanon in security terms."
"But there will also be wiser and more aware voices, which may prevail, arguing that Hezbollah should adjust to the new Lebanese reality, and content itself with being one of the effective political parties in Lebanon. "If they turn back [from the Iranian project], there would be no problems between them and us," Mr Shahhal said.
Hezbollah has so far been extremely restrained in its attitudes on the ground in Lebanon, while strongly supporting the Assad regime politically.
There is no impression at present that it is spoiling for a fight, and when 11 Lebanese Shia pilgrims were abducted by Sunni rebels in northern Syria two months ago - they are still being held - it discouraged its supporters from making trouble to press for their release.
But one man who believes civil war is already here is Hussein Ali, an 88-year-old Alawite shopkeeper who has lived in Tripoli all his life.
One of his shops was recently attacked and smashed by Sunni thugs who he believed belonged to organised Salafi groups, part of a campaign that has sent many Alawites fleeing from mixed areas.
But he refuses to be intimidated, and has reopened. He is fiercely critical of the local Alawite leaders, who he believes are encouraging their followers on a suicidal course.
"The Alawite community here is small - they'll get swallowed up like candy," he said. "When the politics change, and the support from Syria goes, Hezbollah's influence will go too. The Alawites here seem to believe the Assad family in Syria is there forever. They've made a mistake. But that doesn't mean they deserve to be killed."

Russia, U.S. fail to agree on plan to end Assad's reign in Syria
Hillary Clinton and the Russian Foreign Minister also discuss the serious risk of destabilizing Jordan and the potential impact on Israel.
By The Associated Press | Jun.30, 2012 /Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, center right, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, center left, sit down for dinner, Friday, June 29, 2012ץ Photo by AP Text size Comments (0) Print Page Send to friend Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this story is byThe Associated Press related tagsUS Russia Syria Bashar Assad The United States and Russia failed on Friday to bridge differences over a plan to ease Syrian President Bashar Assad out of power, end violence and create a new government, setting the stage for the potential collapse of a key multinational conference that was to have endorsed the proposal.
On the eve of Saturday's conference, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met one-on-one for about an hour in St.-Petersburg, Russia, but could not reach agreement on key elements of U.N. envoy Kofi Annan's proposed plan for a Syrian political transition, officials said. They also discussed the "serious risk" of destabilizing Jordan and the potential impact on Israel. A senior U.S.¬ official traveling with Clinton said areas of "difference and difficulty" remain and was not optimistic that the gathering in Geneva would produce agreement. "We may get there tomorrow, we may not," the official told reporters as Clinton left Russia for Switzerland, where she arrived early Saturday morning.
The official said Clinton and Lavrov would try to resolve differences in Geneva out of respect for Annan, the former U.N. chief whose efforts to end the Syrian crisis have thus far fallen short.
The inconclusive results of the Clinton-Lavrov meeting may presage the unraveling of Annan's plan to end 16 months of brutal violence in Syria by creating a national unity government to oversee the drafting of a new constitution and elections. The United States and its allies attending the conference are adamant that the plan will not allow Assad to remain in power as part of the transitional government, but Russia insists that outsiders cannot dictate the composition of the interim administration or the ultimate solution to the crisis. "[We] agreed to look for an agreement that will bring us closer based on a clear understanding of what's written in the Annan plan that (all) sides in Syria need an incentive for a national dialogue," Lavrov said after meeting Clinton, according to the Interfax news agency.
"But it's only up to the Syrians to make agreements on what the Syrian state will be like, who will hold (government) jobs and positions," he said. Lavrov predicted the meeting had a "good chance" of finding a way forward. "But I am not saying that we will agree on every dot." But failing to agree on every dot may well be the plan's undoing, particularly if Russia refuses to except the implicit demand that Assad leave power. Annan on Friday laid out his expectations for the conference in an op-ed in The Washington Post that tracked very closely to the draft of his proposed plan, according to diplomats familiar with it. The future government in Syria, he said, "must include a government of national unity that would exercise full executive powers."
This government could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups, but those whose continued presence and participation would undermine the credibility of the transition and jeopardize stability and reconciliation would be excluded," Annan said. Such a proposal does not explicitly bar Assad, but the U.S.¬ and other Western powers that will participate in the conference said that is obvious and that the Syrian opposition will not sign on to the plan unless it excludes Assad. The senior official said Clinton and Lavrov also discussed the real danger for the region if the uprising in Syria that has killed some 14,000 people doesn't end peacefully. Already, Syria has shot down a Turkish warplane and Turkey has responded by setting up anti-aircraft guns on its border with Syria.
On Friday, Syrian troops shelled a suburb of Damascus, killing an estimated 125 civilians and 60 soldiers. Russia is Syria's most important ally, protector and supplier of arms. Diplomatic hopes have rested on persuading Russia to agree to a plan that would end the Assad family dynasty, which has ruled Syria for more than four decades.

Iran's UN envoy criticizes U.S., EU over nuclear talks
Says excluding Iran from talks on Syria was not in the interest of those attempts to resolve the crisis.
By Reuters | Jun.30, 2012 | 3:17 AM
EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton meeting with Iran’s chief negotiator Saeed Jalili in Moscow this week. Photo by Reuters Text size Comments (0) Print Page Send to friend Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this story is byReuters related tagsIran US EU Syria related articlesEU officials: Iran shows flexibility, agrees to discuss nuclear proposal in MoscowBy Reuters | Jun.30,2012 | 3:17 AM | 7 With Russian and Chinese backing, Iran continues to play toughBy Anshel Pfeffer | Jun.30,2012 | 3:17 AM Western powers negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program have not been "serious enough" in their attempts to resolve an escalating stand-off with the Islamic Republic, Tehran's UN envoy said on Friday.
Iran held what officials said were intense talks in Moscow earlier this month with the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany - the so-called P5+1 - about its nuclear program, but a breakthrough once again failed to materialize. "It is clear for us that some members of the P5+1 for whatever reasons ... are not forthcoming and serious enough for finding a solution," Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee said in a statement to reporters at the Iranian mission. "If the talks do not proceed as it should be, we are going to have another stand-off," he said. "The USA and some Europeans have said they are going to increase their pressure and sanctions against us, and this ... indicates that they are not willing to engage with us in a meaningful dialogue."
Iran has been in a decade-long dispute with Western powers and their allies over its nuclear program, which they suspect is aimed at developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the charge. The Moscow talks followed two rounds of negotiations since talks with Iran resumed in April after a 15-month hiatus during which the West cranked up sanctions pressure and Israel repeated threats to bomb Iranian nuclear sites if diplomacy failed to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb.
Iranian officials have repeatedly insisted on an easing of sanctions and an acknowledgment of the country's right to enrich uranium, conditions that the United States and the European Union have not accepted. Khazaee reiterated those demands on Friday.
Khazaee also touched on the 16-month conflict in Syria, where the United States and the EU have accused Iran of providing military support to President Bashar Assad in his assault on an increasingly militarized opposition. The Iranian diplomat indicated that Tehran's exclusion from Geneva negotiations of major world powers and key regional players organized by international mediator Kofi Annan on Syria was not in the interest of those attempts to resolve the crisis. "They have to take into consideration the power and influence of Iran in the region," Khazaee said. 'Illegitimate means' Khazaee reiterated comments from Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton against adopting "unconstructive measures" - a clear reference to new sanctions - that harm negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program. He distributed to reporters an English translation of Jalili's letter - Iranian state television reported about it on Thursday.
"There is no doubt that any gesture which damages the confidence-building process would be counterproductive," Jalili wrote, adding that "those who replace logic with illegitimate means in the talks shall be accountable for any damage to the productive process of the talks."
An EU embargo on Iranian oil takes full effect on July 1. Iran's crude oil exports have fallen by some 40 percent this year, according to the International Energy Agency.
Four UN Security Council resolutions since 2006 have demanded Iran suspend all its enrichment-related activities due to concerns about the nature of the nuclear program. Tehran has refused to suspend enrichment, arguing that it is a sovereign right guaranteed under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

U.S. downplays Turkish troop moves near Syrian border
By Reuters | Jun.30, 2012/
A Turkish official on Thursday described the movement as a precaution after Syrian air defenses shot down a Turkish warplane a week ago.Turkish military trucks carrying missile batteries in the center of Hatay, Turkey, on June 28, 2012. Photo by AFP Text size Comments (0) Print Page Send to friend Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this story is byReuters related articlesTurkey's maneuvers near Syria borders: Flexing muscles, not declaring warBy Zvi Bar'el | Jun.30,2012 | 3:30 AM U.S. defense chiefs on Friday downplayed Turkey's deployment of troops and military vehicles toward its border with Syria, saying the movements didn't appear aimed at escalating tensions with Syrian President Bashar Assad. A Turkish official on Thursday described the movement as a precaution after Syrian air defenses shot down a Turkish warplane a week ago. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta noted that Turkey has maintained troops along the border. "And I wouldn't read too much into the movements that have been in the press," Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon. Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that "I wouldn't read that as provocative in any way." Dempsey, who recently spoke with his Turkish counterpart, General Necdet Ozel, added: "You'd probably have to ask the Turks. I've asked them and they are not seeking to be provocative."
Commenting on his conversation with Ozel, Dempsey said: "He's taking a very measured approach to the incident. So he and I are staying in contact."
Turkish commanders on Friday inspected missile batteries deployed in the border region, seen as a graphic warning to Assad after last Friday's shoot-down of the Turkish plane.
Regional analysts said that while neither Turkey nor its NATO allies appeared to have any appetite to enforce a formal no-fly zone over Syrian territory, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan had made it clear Assad would be risking what he called the 'wrath' of Turkey if its aircraft strayed close to its borders. Erdogan told a rally in the eastern city of Erzurum on Friday, broadcast by Turkish television: "We will not hesitate to teach a lesson to those who aim heavy weapons at their own people and at neighboring countries." The Turkish border region is sheltering more than 33,000 Syrian refugees as well as elements of the rebel Free Syrian Army.

President Mursi: Points of weakness and strength
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
I told you so,” an Egyptian acquaintance said over the telephone moments after Muhammad Mursi had been declared as winner of the country’s first credible presidential election. “It was either us or them.”
Proceeding with his mocking tone, my interlocutor repeated the claim made by Egypt’s ruling elite for six decades that the alternative to rule by the military would be a dictatorship dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt’s successive dictators claimed that they provided the country and the region with stability.
I never shared that analysis because what they produced was not stability but stagnation. I believed that, given a chance, Egypt had the potential to develop options other military rule or domination by the Brotherhood.
Even then, the fact that tomorrow Mursi will be sworn in as Egypt’s first truly elected president must be rated as good news.
The military elite and its business associates have a record stretching back six decades. On balance, that record is a negative one. Under their rule, Egypt was condemned to under-achievement, to say the least. The Brotherhood, on the other hand, has no record in government. It would, therefore, be unfair to condemn it on the basis of assumed intentions. Of course, once in government, the Brotherhood may well end up doing a great deal of mischief. However, it is fair to remember that they haven’t done so yet.
Mursi starts his presidency with several points of strength.
First of these is his democratic legitimacy. The elections were generally free and clean with the results accepted by all concerned. The election campaign, fought in two rounds, allowed for a range of views to be put on the market. Mursi won because he was able to produce a broader synthesis of those views than his run-off rival Ahmad Shafiq.
Mursi’s second point of strength is that his presidency comes in the context of a broader historic movement that is reshaping Arab politics across the region. In other words, his victory is not a freakish trick of history.
Finally, Mursi may have yet another point of strength: his moderate temperament and penchant for pragmatism.
Judging by his statements over the years he seems to have learned a great deal from the Turkish experience in which a new generation of Islamists, led by Recep Tayyib Erdogan, developed the concept of coexistence between a religious society and a secular state.
Inevitably, Mursi also has points of weakness.
The first is the narrowness of his victory.
In the first round of voting he collected around 25 per cent of the votes in a turnout of 42 per cent. In other words, only 11 per cent of the total electorate voted for him. In the second round he collected just over 51 per cent in a turnout of 51 per cent which means that he attracted only a quarter of eligible voters. In other words, 75 per cent of the electorate did not vote for him.
The narrowness of Mursi’s victory does not undermine his legitimacy. In political terms, however, it limits his options.
Mursi’s second point of weakness is the confusion that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), the country’s interim authority, has spun around the function of the presidency.
Perhaps, Egypt would have done better to get a new constitution before holding presidential elections.
The establishment of a new constitution and the election of a new parliament within the next year or so, as SCAF has promised, could produce a new vision of the presidential function. In other words, within a year or so, Egypt could face another presidential election under a new constitution.
Many in Egypt want to replace the presidential system with one in which executive power is exercised by a prime minister answerable to the national assembly. The reason is that a presidential system is more vulnerable to the emergence of dictatorial temptations.
More importantly, perhaps, Mursi’s relationship with the Brotherhood may also be a point of weakness.
I don’t agree with those who mocked Mursi as “the fifth wheel”. History is full of instances in which “second choices” emerged as strong leaders.
Who could have imagined that poor old Claudius would one day become Emperor of Rome and outclass many of his predecessors? And who would have thought that Harry Truman, “the grocer from Missouri”, would become one of the strongest presidents in US history? And what about Georges Pompidou, dismissed as “that schoolteacher from Auvergne”, who succeeded General de Gaulle and became the most successful president of the French Fifth Republic?
Some Egyptian friends dismiss Mursi as “Khairat al-Shater’s man”. In politics, however, nobody is anybody’s man, and biting the hand that feeds you is routinely practiced. So, I don’t believe that Mursi would be on the telephone to Shater asking for instructions. Shater, of course, may now make a deal with the generals to develop a prime ministerial, rather than a presidential system, in the hope that he himself with get the premiership. However, that would be legitimate political manoeuvre and need not affect Mursi’s position at least during the transition.
Nevertheless, sandwiched between SCAF and the Brotherhood, Mursi, who lacks his own organisational base, still faces a tough ride.
Of course, if he has time to seize effective control of the state machinery he would need neither SCAF nor the Brotherhood.
But will he have the time needed?
It is in everyone’s interest that the transition presided over by Mursi succeeds. A stable Egypt in which the state and the people are not at war against each other would be in everyone’s interest. Mursi’s election offers a chance. It should not be missed.

Christian Victims of Radical Hindu Attack Discharged from Hospital
Perpetrators Still At Large
Washington, D.C. (June 28, 2012)-International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that three victims of a recent attack against Christians in Assam, India, have been released from the hospital. ICC sources are reporting that riots in the city and nearby villages were brought under control via police and the government lock-down of nearby villages. However, the perpetrators of these attacks have not been brought to justice.
On June 9th, forty Hindu radicals broke into the home of Manesor Rabha, a Christian convert from Hinduism. Manesor’s wife, Mala Rabha, along with Michael and Prashanto Rabha, were threatened by the radicals who wanted them to recant their faith. When the Christians refused, ICC sources say the radicals “beat them with their hands, feet and flashlights all the while abusing them with filthy language.” When the victims were taken to the hospital, rioters began breaking into the homes of Christians to beat them and steal their belongings, including livestock. Out of fear, families fled to the surrounding jungle to hide.
Manesor lodged a complaint, First Information Response (FIR), with the police, asking for an investigation against the perpetrators who attacked his wife, Mala. ICC sources confirm that since lodging the FIR, which requires the police to investigate, Manesor has received threats from local Hindus demanding he withdraw the FIR. Manesor and Mala, unwilling to withdraw the complaint, are unable to return home. They fear being beaten once again, this time for reporting the crimes committed against them.
ICC sources say that the police are investigating the attack, but have made no arrests at this time. Nor have they responded to the threats Manesor and Mala have received for filing the FIR.
Corey Bailey, ICC Regional Manager for Asia, said, “We are concerned for the safety of the victims and implore the government to provide them protection from those threatening them. Furthermore, we urge the police to do an actual investigation and bring the perpetrators to justice.”
Please call the Indian embassy in your country and politely ask Indian officials to bring the perpetrators of this attack to justice and provide protection for the Rabha’s.
USA: (202) 939-7000 [Phone] (202) 265-4351 [Fax]
Canada: (613) 744-3751 [Phone] hicomind@hciottawa.ca
UK: 020 7836 8484 [Phone] att.pni@hcilondon.in

Canada Alarmed by Crackdown on Protests in Sudan
June 29, 2012 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement:
“Canada is concerned by the response of security forces to protests that have escalated in Khartoum and other cities in Sudan over the last 10 days.
“We condemn the arrests of bloggers, journalists and political activists that have taken place over the last week and call for their immediate release.
“The Government of Sudan must immediately halt all violence.
“We impress upon the government the importance of carrying out a genuine and inclusive reform process that addresses the true needs and interests of the Sudanese people.”
Canada is a key player in a concerted international effort to foster a just and lasting peace in Sudan and South Sudan. Since 2006, Canada has made significant contributions toward peace, humanitarian assistance, development aid, security and peacebuilding, including through the strategic deployment of military personnel and Canadian police to peace-support operations in both countries.
For more information on Canada’s contributions to Sudan, please consult Canada’s Approach.

Canada Pleased with World Trade Organization Appellate Decision on United States Country-of-Origin Labelling
Appeal decision agrees with findings in favour of Canadian livestock industry, farm families and North American economies that COOL is discriminatory
June 29, 2012 - Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, International Trade Parliamentary Secretary Gerald Keddy and Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification and Member of Parliament for Blackstrap Lynne Yelich today met with livestock producers and processors in Dundurn, Saskatchewan, to welcome a victory for Canada’s livestock industry. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body confirmed today that the United States Country-of-Origin Labelling (COOL) measure discriminates against Canadian livestock and is inconsistent with the WTO trade obligations of the United States.
“We are pleased with today’s World Trade Organization appeal decision in favour of our livestock industry,” said Minister Ritz. “Our government has always stood with our cattle and hog producers, in order to create a stronger and more profitable integrated North American livestock industry.”
COOL is a mandatory United States labelling measure that forced the livestock industry in Canada and other countries to implement a burdensome labelling and tracking system. When the United States implemented COOL in 2008, the impact on the Canadian livestock industry was immediately negative. Between 2008 and 2009, exports to the United States of Canadian feeder cattle declined 49 percent and exports of slaughter hogs declined 58 percent. COOL led to the disintegration of the North American supply chain, created unpredictability in the market and imposed additional costs on producers on both sides of the border.
“We are very pleased with today’s decision,” said Parliamentary Secretary Keddy. “We will continue to engage with our U.S. partners to ensure trade can move more freely and benefit producers and processors on both sides of the border. That is why we are asking the United States to respect its international trade obligations and comply with the outcome of the World Trade Organization findings.”
Canada and the United States enjoy the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, with two-way trade in goods and services reaching almost $709 billion last year. Agriculture and agri-food bilateral merchandise trade accounted for $43 billion in 2011. Reducing obstacles to trade contributes to mutually beneficial supply chains, making both countries more competitive domestically and internationally. All told, the jobs of over 8 million Americans depend on trade with Canada, and over 2.4 million Canadian jobs depend on exports to the United States.
For the full findings and for more information on the World Trade Organization dispute settlement process, please visit WTO Appellate Body issues report on U.S. “country of origin” disputes and Dispute settlement.
- 30 -
A backgrounder follows.
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Rudy Husny
Press Secretary
Office of the Honourable Ed Fast
Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway
613-992-7332
Meagan Murdoch
Director of Communications
Office of the Honourable Gerry Ritz
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
613-773-1059
Trade Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-996-2000
Follow us on Twitter: @Canada_Trade
Media Relations
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
613-773-7972
1-866-345-7972
Backgrounder - World Trade Organization Trade Dispute on United States Country-of-Origin Labelling
On June 29, 2012, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body released its report on the United States Country-of-Origin-Labelling (COOL) measure. It confirms that the U.S. COOL measure discriminates against Canadian livestock. However, the appeal decision found that there was not enough evidence to determine whether the COOL measure is more trade restrictive than necessary.
Timeline
On September 30, 2008, the COOL measure was implemented by the United States through an Interim Final Rule. The Final Rule came into force on March 16, 2009.
On December 1, 2008, Canada initially requested World Trade Organization consultations with the United States.
On December 16, 2008, consultations were held, with the participation of Mexico.
On February 20, 2009, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack issued a letter to industry requesting that they comply with stricter guidelines than those found in the Final Rule.
On June 5, 2009, Canada held a further round of consultations with the United States on COOL. The consultations did not resolve the issue.
On October 7, 2009, Canada requested a World Trade Organization panel and, on November 19, 2009, the panel was established.
Throughout 2010, legal submissions were made to the panel and two oral hearings took place in Geneva.
On July 29, 2011, the World Trade Organization panel provided its final report to the parties to the dispute on a confidential basis.
On November 18, 2011, the World Trade Organization panel released its final report determining that the United States COOL measure discriminates against foreign livestock, does not fulfill its stated objective and that the letter sent from Secretary Vilsack to industry was an unreasonable administration of the COOL measure. Thus, COOL is inconsistent with the United States’ World Trade Organization trade obligations.
On March 23, 2012, the United States appealed several findings in the panel’s report.

What to expect from Egypt's Morsi
by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi/Ha'aretz
June 29, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3274/egypt-morsi
What to make of Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi's election as president of Egypt? What seems to be the most likely outcome is something analogous to the "constitutional settlements" of the early Roman Empire. That is, the military, like the Emperor Augustus in antiquity, will entrust to itself management of foreign policy, while granting Morsi (and a parliament, if new elections are allowed) - akin to the Senate in Rome - considerable autonomy with regards to the direction of domestic affairs, even as the military has assumed control over the drafting of the constitution.
Indeed, such a settlement would work well for the military, because, despite its extensive control of the economy, the burden of resolving the economic crisis would ultimately rest in Morsi's hands. Currently, as Reuters reports, the country's depleted foreign reserves can only cover "three months of import coverage," while the local currency debt has increased to 600 billion Egyptian pounds ($99 billion), up from 500 billion before the unrest began in January 2011.
The International Monetary Fund has indicated that a $3.2 billion loan will only be granted if the country gets its finances in order, but the prospects of such a resolution appear to be bleak. Having Morsi take responsibility, therefore, can prove useful in directing potential civilian anger away from the military. On the other hand, the perception of a settlement between the military and the president could help to attract foreign investment.
With the military managing foreign policy, the chances of a full-blown war between Egypt and Israel are slim, despite bellicose rhetoric emanating from some quarters of the Muslim Brotherhood calling for the liberation of Jerusalem and establishment of a "United Arab States." For one thing, Egypt lacks the means to launch and sustain a war against Israel. At the same time, however, one should not expect Egyptian firmness in dealing with rocket fire against the Jewish state or militant activity in the Sinai Peninsula.
In fact, one could well see the military adopt an approach toward militancy not dissimilar to the methods of the Pakistani security forces: that is, targeting those perceived to pose a direct threat to Egypt's stability, while lacking resolve at best, and at worst playing a double game with other militants in order to continue receiving U.S. aid.
As for the domestic scene, it is probable that the Islamization trend that has been apparent over the past five or so decades will not only continue but could also accelerate. When the likes of Hosni Mubarak were in charge, the arrangement was such that Islamist ideology was allowed to disseminate at ground level. Now that Egypt has an elected Islamist president, it is to be expected that sentiments on the ground will only become more hard-line.
Although it is easy to dismiss outlandish claims that Morsi wants to reinstate the discriminatory jizya poll tax - essentially the equivalent of a Mafia protection racket - on Christians (the report is an uncorroborated rumor that can be traced to one obscure Arabic website), there is evidence that he would like to restrict the rights of non-Muslim minorities and women. Just under half of voters chose Ahmed Shafiq, but that will not act as a firm barrier against a gradualist approach to implementing Islamic law that many in the Brotherhood see as the ideal strategy to adopt.
In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic magazine last year, Morsi made it clear that neither he nor the Brotherhood could tolerate the idea of a Christian or woman running for the presidency of Egypt.
While much has been made of a recent announcement by an advisor to Morsi that there are plans to appoint a Copt and a woman as vice-presidents, it should be appreciated that such positions are likely to be no more than symbolic. In fact, problems of discrimination against non-Muslims and women will in all likelihood only worsen under Morsi's presidency. Further, the spike in Salafist mob attacks on Coptic churches since the ousting of Mubarak - attacks usually sparked by the flimsiest rumors and trivialities - is unlikely to subside, and the authorities will probably continue to do nothing about it.
In the long run, chaos and instability are most likely to dominate the country's future. Unlike Iran, which has, since the mid-1980s, implemented a major family planning program that has dramatically slowed population growth, Egypt's population (83 million as of October 2011) continues to grow. It could reach 100 million by 2020, with more than 99 percent of the population living on an area of land around the Nile only 2.5 times the size of Israel.
Even assuming Egypt can escape from its current economic crisis, there is no sign its economy can keep up with the pace of population growth even to sustain present standards of living. The Muslim Brotherhood and other Egyptian Islamists have on past occasions denounced family planning as a Western conspiracy to keep the number of Muslims in the world in check. They have shown no intention of implementing a program to reduce the birth rate.
Egypt is unlikely to become a "Somalia on the Nile" as economist and columnist David P. Goldman has predicted, but in the long-term, internal stability is a remote possibility.
Update from June 29, 2012: Concerning Egypt's economy and the Muslim Brotherhood's plans, Martin Kramer summarizes the situation well:
The Muslim Brotherhood is in a bind, because it has to deliver. For the masses of people who voted for the Muslim Brotherhood, the revolution wasn't about democracy and freedom. It was about bread and social justice.
The Brotherhood has a so-called "Renaissance" plan for the overhaul of the Egyptian economy. I won't pretend to judge its feasibility. Could modernization of tax collection double or triple tax revenues? Can Egypt double the number of arriving tourists, even while contemplating limits on alcohol and bikinis? Can a renovation of the Suez Canal raise transit revenues from $6 billion a year to $100 billion? Can Egypt's economy surpass the economies of Turkey and Malaysia within seven years? These are all claims made at various times by the economic thinkers of the Muslim Brotherhood, who trumpet Egypt's supposed potential for self-sufficiency.
To these big promises, one can add Morsi's pledge to tackle congestion problems within the first 100 days of his time in office.
Kramer goes on to suggest that the Brotherhood will try to solicit aid from Gulf Arabs and the West, drawing attention to remarks made by Khairat El-Shater, the deputy supreme guide of the Brotherhood, back in February, when he "strongly" advised Europeans and Americans to "support Egypt during this critical period as compensation for the many years they supported a brutal dictatorship."
However, the question of the Brotherhood's relations with the U.S. and the West at large is a tricky issue. It should not be forgotten that the Islamists have spent the past thirty years attacking Mubarak and the establishment for supposedly being too close to the U.S. and the West, and the popular sentiment in Egypt is deeply anti-American.
That the military will continue to receive Western aid is almost certain, but Kramer correctly notes that the Brotherhood is trumpeting an image of self-reliance. A perception of economic dependence on America and the West could backfire on the Brotherhood. This is not like the North Korean regime that has a philosophy of autarky but can portray its reliance on foreign aid as tribute to the greatness of the nation.
As for the Gulf Arabs, let's just say that they have frequently proven themselves to be remarkably stingy when it comes to helping Muslim brothers in need. Saudi Arabia in particular is still angered by the 'betrayal' of Mubarak (hence its uncompromising stance on Bahrain).
* * *
Fawaz A. Gerges appears to agree with my idea of a "constitutional settlement" along the lines of the early Principate but with unfounded optimism proclaims:
After decades of persecution and incarceration, what is unfolding today clearly shows the weight and influence of the Muslim Brothers, most of whom are centrist and modernist and accept democratic values, in shaping the political future of their society…Arab Islamists are traveling a similar path as did the Christian fundamentalists and later the Christian Democrats and Euro-communists in Western Europe who in the 20th century subordinated ideology to interests and political constituencies.
As Jonathan Schanzer aptly comments on Twitter: "Fawaz Gerges just slobbers all over the Brotherhood here. Behold, the personification of MidEast studies failures today."
*Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University, and an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Robert Fisk Demonizes Mideast's Persecuted Christians
by Raymond Ibrahim
PJ Media /June 28, 2012
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11933/robert-fisk-demonizes-mideast-persecuted
Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent for the U.K.'s widely-read Independent, recently showed why it is that Islamic jihadists and terrorists, including the late Osama bin Laden, strongly recommend his propaganda to Western readers.In a recent article, Fisk goes out of his way to demonize the abused Christian minorities of the Middle East for supporting those secularist leaders most likely to preserve their freedoms and dignity. For instance, after portraying the Middle East's "old guard" in the worst possible terms, he complains that "Ahmed Shafiq, the Mubarak loyalist, has the support of the Christian Copts, and Assad has the support of the Syrian Christians. The Christians support the dictators. Not much of a line, is it?"
In Fisk's way of thinking, Christians of Egypt and Syria are freedom-haters because they support secularists, whereas the Sharia-pushing Islamists are freedom-lovers for not.
"Not much of a line, is it?"—especially from someone who supposedly lives and travels in the Middle East and is deemed an authority on the region. Completely missing from his narrative is why Christians are supporting Shafiq and Assad: because the alternatives, the Islamists, have been making their lives a living hell.
Fisk's biased narrative is, of course, not original to him, but rather originates with his friends—the Islamists. Soon after the first presidential elections in Egypt, many Islamists bemoaned Shafiq's good showing, laying the blame directly on Egypt's Christian Copts, who reportedly came out in large numbers voting for the secular candidates. Tarek al-Zomor, a prominent figure of the Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the terrorist organization that slaughtered some 60 European tourists, including several of Fisk's countrymen, during the Luxor Massacre, "demanded an apology from the Copts" for voting for Shafiq, threatening that "this was a fatal error."
Others, like Abu Ismail, the Salafi presidential candidate who was disqualified, expressed "great disappointment" in "our Coptic brethren," saying that "I do not understand why the Copts so adamantly voted for Ahmed Shafiq," portraying it as some sort of conspiracy between the Copts, the old regime, and even Israel: "Exactly what relationship and benefit do the Copts have with the old regime"?
The uncritical Fisk follows suit and asks the same questions, portraying the Mideast's Christians as unpatriotic.
Missing from the Islamists'—and Fisk's—narrative is the fact that Christians are under attack by Islamists, especially in Egypt and Syria, where Christian women and children and regularly abducted, molested, and forced to convert; where churches and monasteries are regularly attacked; where blasphemy laws imprison or kill and calls for jizya are back—in short, where Christians are persecuted (see entries for Egypt and Syria in my monthly "Muslim Persecution of Christians" for an idea). Moreover, the ultimate goal of Fisk's supposedly "freedom-loving Islamists—the enforcement of a decidedly anti-freedom Sharia law—will naturally spell disaster for Christians, since this draconian law code emphatically condemns non-Muslim "infidels" to dhimmi status—barely-tolerated, second-class "citizens" of the Islamic state.
Back in the real world, the reaction to Islamist complaints that Copts are not voting for them has been one of amazement. As one Coptic activist put it: "Did they [complaining Islamists] really expect a Christian to choose a president to represent him from those who cut off the ear of a Christian, blocked the railways in objection to the appointment of a Christian governor in Qena, burn down several churches and who are diligently working to write a Constitution which undermines the rights of Christians?"
Even Egyptian Muslim writer Khaled Montasser, in an article titled "The Muslim Brotherhood Asks Why Christians Fear Them?!" explained that the Brotherhood's own official documents and fatwas decree several anti-Christian measures, including the destruction of churches and the prevention of burying Christian "infidels" near Muslim graves—hence why Christians are not voting for Islamists.
As for Syria, since the uprising, "opposition forces"—that is, Islamists—have been attacking Christians and churches, including through "kidnappings and gruesome murders." None of this happened before the uprising and under Assad's secular rule. As an earlier report put it, "Should Assad fall, it is feared that Syria could go the way of Iraq post-Saddam Hussein. Saddam, like Assad, restrained the influence of militant Islamists, but after his fall they were free to wreak havoc on the Christian community; hundreds of thousands of Christians were consequently forced to flee the violence."
Should the "opposition" get their way and topple the Assad regime, the same brutal pattern experienced by Iraq's Christian minorities—who have been liked to, and killed off like, dogs, to the point of nearing extinction—will come to Syria, where a preacher recently urged Muslims to "tear apart, chop up and feed" Christians who support Assad "to the dogs."
All of these "subtleties" are completely missed by the Independent's Middle East foreign correspondent. Instead, he bemoans how those in Washington who support secular rulers "will want to pump up Christian fears and frighten the West with the awfulness of 'Muslim fundamentalism.'"
At a time when Christian minorities in the Islamic world are experiencing a form of persecution unprecedented since the pre-colonial era, it is commonplace for Western "reporters" to ignore or whitewash their plight. Robert Fisk, however, takes it a step further and paints these persecuted Christians as the bad guys, thereby facilitating their ongoing sufferings. He and the Independent should be ashamed of themselves.

Muslim Persecution of Christians: May, 2012
By Raymond Ibrahim
Originally published by the Gatestone Institute
June 29, 2012
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11930/muslim-persecution-of-christians-may-2012
Unlike those nations, such as Saudi Arabia, that have eliminated Christianity altogether, Muslim countries with significant Christian minorities saw much persecution during the month of May: in Egypt, Christians were openly discriminated against in law courts, even as some accused the nation's new president of declaring that he will "achieve the Islamic conquest of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam"; in Indonesia, Muslims threw bags of urine on Christians during worship; in Kashmir and Zanzibar, churches were set aflame; and in Mali Christianity "faces being eradicated."
Elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa—in Nigeria, Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, the Ivory Coast—wherever Islam and Christianity meet, Christians are being killed, slaughtered, beheaded and even crucified. Categorized by theme, May's assemblage of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world includes (but is not limited to) the following accounts, listed in alphabetical order by country, not severity. Note: Because Pakistan had the lion's share of persecuted Christians last month, it has its own section below, covering the entire gamut of persecution—from apostasy and blasphemy to rape and forced conversions.

France: Prior to celebrating mass, "four youths, aged 14 to 18, broke into the Church of St. Joseph, before launching handfuls of pebbles at 150 faithful present at the service." They were chased out, though "the parishioners, many of whom are elderly, were greatly shocked by the disrespectful act of the youths of North African origin."

Kashmir: A Catholic church made entirely of wood was partially destroyed after unknown assailants set it on fire. "What happened is not an isolated case," said the president of the Global Council of Indian Christians, and follows the "persecution" of a pastor who baptized Muslims. "With these gestures, the Muslim community is trying to intimidate the Christian minority."

Kuwait: Two months after the Saudi Grand Mufti, in response to a question on whether churches may exist in Kuwait, decreed that all regional churches must be destroyed, villa-churches serving Western foreigners are being targeted. One congregation was evicted without explanation "from a private villa used for worship gatherings for the past seven years"; another villa-church was ordered to "pay an exorbitant fine each month to use a facility it had been renting… Church leaders reportedly decided not to argue and moved out."

Zanzibar: Hundreds of Muslims set two churches on fire and clashed with police during protests against the arrest of senior members of an Islamist movement known as the Association for Islamic Mobilization and Propagation. Afterwards, the group issued a statement denying any involvement of wrong doing.

[General Abuse, Debasement, and Suppression of non-Muslims as "Tolerated" Citizens]

Egypt: A court verdict that was criticized by many human rights groups as "unbelievable" and "extremely harsh" towards Christians was decided according to religion: all twelve Christians were convicted to life imprisonment, while all eight Muslims—including some who torched nearly 60 Christian homes—were acquitted, all to thunderous cries of "Allahu Akbar!" in the courtroom. Another Muslim judge in Upper Egypt dismissed all charges against a group of Muslims who terrorized a Christian man and his family for over a year, culminating with their cutting off his ear in a knife attack while trying to force him to convert after they "falsely accused him" of having an affair with a Muslim woman. And a new report describes the plight of Coptic girls: "hundreds of Christian girls … have been abducted, forced to convert to Islam, and forced into marriage in Egypt. These incidents are often accompanied by acts of violence, including rape, beatings, and other forms of physical and mental abuse."

Eritrea: Activists taking part in a protest outside the Eritrean embassy in London revealed that "Some 2,000 to 3,000 Christians are currently detained in Eritrea without charge or trial… Several Christians are known to have died in notorious prison camps" and "thousands of Eritreans flee their country every year," some falling "into the hands of abusive traffickers, and are held hostage in torture camps in the Sinai Desert pending payment of exorbitant ransoms, or the forcible removal of organs."

Ethiopia: A Christian man accused of "desecrating the Koran" spent two years in prison, where he was abused, pressured to convert to Islam, and left paralyzed. Now returning home, he has found that his two young children have been abducted by local Muslims: "My life is ruined—I have lost my house, my children, my health. I am now homeless, and I am limping."

Greece: Abet Hasman, the deputy mayor of Patras who recently passed away, left a message to be revealed only in his obituary—that, though born to Muslim parents in Jordan, he was "secretly baptized" a Christian (demonstrating how some Muslims who convert to Christianity, knowing the consequences of apostasy, opt for secrecy).

Indonesia: A predominantly Christian neighborhood was attacked for several days by "unidentified persons" who set fire to homes and cars. Dozens of Christian families fled their homes, "many fear[ing] the involvement of Islamic extremist groups."

Iran: A prominent house church pastor 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; authorities refuse to give him medical treatment. Also, the attorney of Youssef Nadarkhani—the imprisoned Christian pastor who awaits execution for apostasy—was himself "convicted for his work defending human rights and is expected to begin serving his nine-year sentence in the near future." Meanwhile, in a letter attributed to him, the imprisoned pastor wrote: "I have surrendered myself to God's will...[and I] consider it as the day of exam and trial of my faith...[so that I may] prove my loyalty and sincerity to God."

Jordan: After the Jordanian Dubai Islamic Bank decreed that all females must wear the hijab, the Islamic veil, or be terminated, all female employees who refused to wear the hijab—mostly Christians, including one Christian woman who worked there for 27 years—were fired. There are suspicions that this new policy was set to target and terminate the Christian employees, since it is they who are most likely to reject the hijab.

Lebanon: A 24-year-old woman, the daughter of a Shiite cleric, who was "physically and psychologically tortured by her father for converting to Christianity three years ago," managed to escape and then got baptized by a Christian priest—who was abducted and interrogated to disclose the whereabouts of the renegade woman. In connection, Muslim assailants fired gunshots at the house of another priest and at a church. This "is part of an escalating pattern of violence against local Catholics," in the words of the region's prelate.

Macedonia: After some Muslims were arrested in connection to a "series of murders of Christians," thousands of fellow Muslims demonstrated after Friday prayers, shouting slogans like "death to Christians" and calling for "jihad."

Mali: Ever since the government was overthrown in a coup, "the church in Mali faces being eradicated," especially in the north "where rebels want to establish an independent Islamist state and drive Christians out… there have been house to house searches for Christians who might be in hiding, church and Christian property has been looted or destroyed, and people tortured into revealing any Christian relatives."

Nigeria: Muslim gunmen set fire to a home in a Christian village and then opened fire on all who tried to escape the inferno, killing at least seven and wounding many others, in just one of dozens of attacks on Christians.

Sudan: Without reason, security officials closed down regional offices of the Sudan Council of Churches and a much needed church clinic for the poor; staff members were arrested and taken to an undisclosed location: "Their families are living in agony due to the uncertainty of their fate."

Uzbekistan: Police raided a Protestant house church meeting, claiming "that a bomb was in the home." No bomb was found, only Christian literature which was confiscated. Subsequently, 14 members of the unregistered church were heavily fined—the equivalent of 10-60 times a monthly salary—for an "unsanctioned meeting in a private home." Between February and April, 28 Protestants were fined and four were warned for the offence, with three Baptists also being fined for not declaring their personal Bibles while crossing the border from Kazakhstan into Uzbekistan. Fines and warnings were accompanied by the confiscation of religious literature.

Because the persecution of Christians in the Islamic world is on its way to reaching epidemic proportions, "Muslim Persecution of Christians" was developed to collate some—by no means all—of the instances of persecution that surface each month. It serves two purposes:

Accordingly, whatever the anecdote of persecution, it typically fits under a specific theme, including hatred for churches and other Christian symbols; sexual abuse of Christian women; forced conversions to Islam; apostasy and blasphemy laws; theft and plunder in lieu of jizya (tribute); overall expectations for Christians to behave like cowed "dhimmis" (barely tolerated citizens); and simple violence and murder. Oftentimes it is a combination thereof.

Because these accounts of persecution span different ethnicities, languages, and locales—from Morocco in the west, to India in the east, and throughout the West, wherever there are Muslims—it should be clear that one thing alone binds them: Islam—whether the strict application of Islamic Sharia law, or the supremacist culture born of it.