Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 19/12
Anti-Israel attacks to mount in sync with Syrian war, looming strike on Iran
Israel, U.S. and Bulgaria pushing for Security Council condemnation of Burgas attack  
Israel: Hizbullah could Transfer Syria’s Advanced Arms to Lebanon
Netanyahu Accuses Hizbullah of Bulgaria Attack as FBI Joins Probe
STL sets tentative 2013 date for trial of Hezbollah members
Nasrallah renews support for Assad
Lebanon's Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji : We Will No Longer Remain Silent over Any Verbal Attack against us
March 14 opposition coalition members hold a meeting in Beirut
Israeli PM blames Hezbollah for Bulgaria attack
Berri condemns Damascus attack on top Syrian officials
U.N. hails Blue Line stability, worried about Lebanon-Syria border
20,000 Syrians cross into Lebanon after violence
Dar al-Fatwa: Aoun should Apologize over Abdul Wahed ‘Slander’
Berri Condemns Damascus Bombing: This Terrorist Act is Aimed at Fragmenting Syrian Army
Examining Magistrate Asks for Death Penalty for 88 Nahr al-Bared Suspects
More Syrian shelling of Lebanese border towns
Majority of Lebanese say economy is in very bad state
FPM supporters attack MTV crew
Mufti Qabbani announces Ramadan to begin Friday
Khalil, Bassil Engage in Sharp Quarrel over EDL Contract Workers Crisis
Miqati Threatens to Resign over Cabinet’s Lack of Productivity
EDL says unable to carry out maintenance due to strike
Canada Offers Condolences After Deadly Explosion in Bulgaria
Bulgaria says Israelis killed by suicide attacker  
Iran denies link to attack on Israelis in Bulgaria
Egypt court says can't rule on fate of parliament
Russia, China veto UN Security Council resolution on Syria
Syrians Flock to Lebanon after Damascus Bombing to Flee Their Country’s Unrest
Syrian Opposition Chief Says Regime 'in Its Final Days'
Rebels keep pressure on Assad, fight near government buildings
Bandar bin Sultan Named Saudi Intelligence Chief

STL sets tentative 2013 date for trial of Hezbollah members
July 19, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: The trial for the men accused in the 2005 attack that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is set for March 25, 2013, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon announced Thursday. Pre-trial judge Daniel Fransen issued an order setting the tentative start date of March 25 for the trial in absentia of the four members of Hezbollah indicted by the U.N.-backed court.
"The setting of a provisional date for trial by Judge Daniel Fransen is an important judicial step on the road to trial," said Marten Youssef, the STL’s spokesman. The order provides the prosecution and defense with a concrete starting date allowing them to continue preparing for trial. Fransen made that decision after consulting with members of the prosecution, defence, Trial Chamber, registrar and president of the STL. The date, however, is subject to change pending further developments, such as the possibility of the prosecutor filing a request to amend the indictment, or the arrest of any of the accused, who remain at large. It could also change based on the Trial Chamber's decision on the tribunal's jurisdiction and their rulings on other preliminary motions.

Israeli PM blames Hezbollah for Bulgaria attack
July 19, 2012/Daily Star/JERUSALEM: Israel's prime minister has blamed the Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrilla group for a deadly attack against Israelis in Bulgaria. Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that Iran and its protege Hezbollah have been carrying out a "global terror campaign" for more than a year that has targeted Israeli and others. He says the Islamic militant group carried out the suicide attack that killed five Israelis and the Bulgarian driver Wednesday in Burgas, Bulgaria.

Aoun, or when tragedy becomes farce
July 19, 2012/By Michael Young/The Daily Star
We can take it as a given that for as long as Michel Aoun can take a full breath without the assistance of a respirator, he will continue to aspire to the presidency. And if that respirator becomes a necessity, the general will think seriously about transporting it to Baabda with him.
The farce in which the Aounists have engaged during the past few days has exposed their anxieties. On the one side they have blocked roads to support the Army, after three officers were detained for their alleged involvement in the killing of Sheikh Ahmad Abdel-Wahed and Hussein al-Mereb last May. On the other, the Aounists have picked a fight with contract workers at Electricite du Liban, on the grounds that they were undermining the authority of the state.
Why the sudden, and brazen, encouragement of the Army? It didn’t take much to see that Aoun’s embrace of the military institution was more embarrassing than helpful.The Army can be ham-fisted when organizing campaigns to bolster its popularity, but the blocking of the Sarba highway was not something it would have readily done. The demonstration exasperated thousands of drivers. It also implied that the Army command was behind the protests, therefore was disrespectful of the legal system in place to deal with the officers. An Army statement released Tuesday sought to dispel that impression.
Aoun is aware that his primary competitor for the presidency in 2014 will be Jean Kahwagi, the Army commander. Kahwagi is dancing like a ballerina these days, as the Syrian regime totters, wondering just where to place his political feet. He is looking to remain on the good side of the Americans, but also of the Sunni community, which will gain in power once President Bashar Assad is ousted. Recently, the head of military intelligence in the north reportedly contacted Khaled Daher of Al-Jamaa al-Islamiyya, who has been especially critical of the Army. The conversation, unlike those in the past, was apparently cordial.Aoun wants to see Kahwagi discredited. Ideally, he would like one of his own to lead the Army, perhaps his son in law Shamel Roukoz, to better pave the way for Aoun’s election as president. Under the veneer of defending the Army, the Sarba incident did not make Kahwagi look good. Worse, it put him in a bind if the officers are found guilty and sentenced. Kahwagi would then appear to be someone incapable of defending his institution; someone too willing to please those like Khaled Daher, in other words those Sunnis (and Aoun’s cynical appeal to Christian sectarian sentiment was plain) who purportedly do not have the Army’s interests at heart.
The EDL episode was related. Even though the contract workers whom the Aounists assaulted are in their majority regarded as clients of Nabih Berri, the parliament speaker, the Aounists were indirectly targeting Hezbollah. In fact, there were accounts that the Aounists shouted insults at both Berri and Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary-general. Why did Aoun go after his Shiite allies?
For two reasons, primarily. Aoun knows that Hezbollah is more likely to approve of Kahwagi as president than of Aoun himself. That is intolerable for the general. Not only have Hezbollah and Amal partisans burned tires against Aoun’s son-in-law, Gebran Bassil, for his abysmal handling of the electricity crisis; not only did Berri attempt to impose a fait accompli on Bassil with respect to the contract workers, in a way that favored the speaker and created a sectarian imbalance; not only have Hezbollah and Amal failed to come down on Aoun’s side in government disputes, particularly over civil service appointments. On top of this, there are no guarantees that Hezbollah will endorse a Aoun presidency, in fact quite the contrary.
So, Aoun was out to catch Nasrallah’s attention, and the two men purportedly plan to meet soon to discuss their differences. That said, a divorce is to the advantage of neither party. Aoun will require the Shiite vote, above all in Baabda, Jbeil, the Metn and Jezzine, to be successful in parliamentary elections next year; while Hezbollah will very much need a Christian partner in several mixed districts.
Which leads us to a second reason why Aoun has decided to lash out against his Shiite partners. Even as the general seeks to strengthen his bargaining hand with Hezbollah and Amal, he also needs to rally Christian voters behind him at election time. If elections were held today, Aoun would probably do fairly well, thanks to the bloc votes currently provided by his Shiite and Armenian allies.
However, these are volatile times. The Aounists, by their own admission, are losing ground in the Christian heartland district of Kesrouan, which is always a good barometer of the communal mood. Their atrocious performance in government has been a debilitating drag. So too has the ambient Christian disgust with the way Hezbollah and Amal have behaved in Lebanon’s streets (a habit the Aounists have since taken up), not to mention supposed Shiite indifference to Christian sensitivities. For example, Christians were greatly disturbed by the way Shiite inhabitants of Lassa behaved in a land dispute with the Maronite Church last year, as they were by Shiite students praying on the esplanade of the Antonine University in March.
Then there is Syria. Aoun has nailed his flag to the survival of Assad, the latest of the general’s ruinous calculations, in a vast anthology. If Islamists come out on top in a post-Assad Syria, Aoun will try to play on Christian fears. But the general will mainly see his pro-Syrian allies in Lebanon weakened, which will harm the Aounists, and he will pay a heavy political price for his sustained hostility to the Sunni community. Aoun cuts an utterly pathetic figure these days, but he really needn’t obstruct our roads to halt his anticipated decline.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

March 14 suspends its participation in National Dialogue
July 19, 2012/The Daily Star /Lebanon's March 14 opposition coalition said Thursday its leader would boycott a National Dialogue session scheduled for next week over Hezbollah's weapons.
The coalition announced its decision in a statement after representatives of its various parties held a meeting in Beirut. It cited Hezbollah's refusal to discuss the fate of its arms at the talks as a main reason behind well as the government's laxity in providing protection to "threatened" March 14 figures and handing over communications data to investigators looking into a failed bid to kill MP Butrous Harb.
The next dialogue session is scheduled for July 24 at the presidential palace. Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad said earlier this week that it was premature to discuss a national defense strategy.
Hezbollah has steadfastly refused to discuss the issue of handing over its weapons to the state. March 14 parties had expressed the hope that the National Dialogue would at least tackle the issue of a national defense strategy, but Raad’s comments have dispelled even this hope.

Nasrallah renews support for Assad
July 19, 2012/By Hussein Dakroub
The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah renewed his support Wednesday for the regime of embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad and praised the three generals killed in a bombing in Damascus, describing them as comrades-in-arms to the resistance party.
He also reiterated his call for dialogue between the Syrian regime and opposition to end the 16-month unrest.Nasrallah also called for genuine national consensus among Lebanon’s rival political parties on the need to bolster the country’s Army after the role of the military establishment had come under fire by some March 14 politicians in the wake of the May killing of two sheikhs in the northern district of Akkar.
In a televised speech addressing a mass rally organized by Hezbollah at Al-Raya Stadium in Beirut’s southern suburbs marking the sixth anniversary of the 2006 war with Israel, Nasrallah said Syria under Assad was the main backer of the resistance against Israel, not only at the popular and political level, but also at the military level.
“The most important weapons in which we fought Israel during the [2006] July war came from Syria,” he said, speaking through a giant screen via a video link.
Declaring that Syria had sent rockets to Hamas in the Gaza Strip to fight Israel, Nasrallah said: “Syria risked its presence and regime for the sake of the resistance.”
He offered condolences over the killing of three Syrian generals in an attack in Damascus, saying that such acts served only Israel’s interests.
A bombing claimed the lives of Assad’s brother-in-law, his defense minister and a former defense minister, in the boldest attack in the 16-month revolt against Assad’s regime. The attack was claimed by both the rebel Free Syrian Army and an Islamist group.
“We are sad over the killing of the three [generals] because they were comrades-in-arms to the resistance and comrades in the [struggle] against the [Israeli] enemy,” Nasrallah said.
He said the turmoil in Syria comforted the Jewish state. “Israel is happy today because there are pillars in the Syrian army that have been targeted and killed,” he said.
Nasrallah spoke of “an American-Israeli plan” to crush the resistance in Lebanon, topple the Assad regime and destroy the Syrian Army. “But the resistance’s victory in Lebanon [in 2006] had foiled the plan,” he said.
He reiterated his call for dialogue between the regime and opposition groups to solve the crisis in Syria. “We renew our call for the protection of Syria, its people and army. The only solution is through the acceptance of dialogue and this should be done swiftly,” Nasrallah said.
He voiced confidence that the Syrian army wound stand fast in the face of armed rebel and opposition groups seeking to topple the Assad regime. “We are confident that the Syrian army, which has had to cope with the intolerable, has the ability, determination and resolve to endure and foil the enemies’ hopes,” Nasrallah added.
The Hezbollah chief placed the Syrian crisis within the context of what he described as a long-term policy by the U.S. and Israel to strip Arab states of real military capabilities. “They just want a police [force],” he said, noting that one of the U.S. military’s first acts in Iraq following the conquest of Baghdad was to disband the military. He said this plan served only to protect Israel at all costs.
He warned Israel against staging “a first strike” in any future attack on Lebanon, saying the Jewish state would get “a big surprise” from Hezbollah. Nasrallah reiterated Hezbollah’s support for a strong Lebanese Army and called for genuine national consensus on boosting the Army’s military capabilities.
“In order to confront internal and external threats, there is one point of national consensus on strengthening the Lebanese Army as an institution defending the country. But is there really a national consensus on this? I doubt it,” he said. “What weakens the Army these days most is accusing it of confessionalism and sectarianism, infiltrating it by groups and casting doubts about its patriotism and neutrality on national issues even though it has proved its neutrality,” he added.

Russia, China veto Syria sanctions resolution at UN
AFP – Members vote during a United Nations Security Council meeting on Syria at the United …Russia and China on Thursday vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would impose sanctions against Syria's President Bashar al-Assad if he does not end the use of heavy weapons.It was the third time in nine months that Russia and China have used their powers as permanent members of the 15-nation council to block resolutions on Syria. There were 11 votes in favor, Russia and China's votes against and two abstentions. "The United Kingdom is appalled at the veto of Russia and China," said Britain's UN envoy Mark Lyall Grant, whose country took the lead in writing up the resolution. The text, backed by the United States, France, Germany and Portugal, calls for non-military sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter if Assad does not withdraw heavy weapons from Syrian cities in 10 days.Russia had said it could not accept sanctions.

Canada Offers Condolences After Deadly Explosion in Bulgaria
July 18, 2012 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement:
“I was deeply saddened to learn of the deadly terrorist attack on a bus carrying tourists, some of them from Israel, in the Bulgarian city of Burgas.
“On behalf of all Canadians, I offer our sincere condolences to those who lost loved ones in the deadly explosion. I wish a speedy recovery to those who were injured.
“Canada condemns such heinous acts without reservation and is confident that Bulgarian authorities will do all they can to ensure the perpetrators of this attack are brought to justice.”
Today’s deadly bombing comes on the 18th anniversary of the devastating attack on a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires, Argentina, that killed 85 and injured hundreds more, for which Iranian officials and a Hezbollah operative have been accused by the Argentine judicial authorities. It is thus a sad reminder of the need to remain vigilant against anti-Semitic violence, which can strike anywhere around the world.
Minister Baird has referred to the fight against terrorism as the great struggle of this generation and has said that, too often, Israelis find themselves on the front lines of this struggle. Canada stands with freedom-loving countries around the world in condemning terrorism in all its forms.

Lebanon's Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji : We Will No Longer Remain Silent over Any Verbal Attack against us
Naharnet/19 July 2012/Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji stressed on Thursday that the criticism and praise issued against the army by various political sides will not affect the unity of the institution or the morale of its troops.He said before the Army Command and top officers: “We will no longer remain silent over any verbal, media, or moral attack.”
He stated that political figures are making the attacks out of political or electoral purposes. “The army has long maintained silence out of its keenness to prevent the institution from being dragged into pointless debates, however due to the incitement against officers and soldiers, the army will no longer remain silent against any attack,” declared Qahwaji. “Some sides have unfortunately interpreted the army’s silence as a weakness,” he noted. “The army is keen against getting embroiled in internal disputes because it is too busy focusing on greater issues in light of the dangerous regional developments and constant fears of an Israeli assault against Lebanon,” he stressed. In addition, he said that the army “will never alter its convictions and national role.” On the regional situation, Qahwaji remarked: “These developments, especially those in Syria, require the army to exert exceptional efforts to overcome this critical phase with as little damage as possible, in particular because it is one of the primary powers concerned with averting the repercussions of these events.” The army commander stressed the importance of exercising caution while defending Lebanon’s southern border against Israel and controlling the border with Syria in a manner that would preserve the security of the residents of those areas. Qahwaji stressed the need to “immediately retaliate against any attack against the army, regardless of who launched the assault.” The army has recently come under criticism since the death of Sheikhs Ahmed Abdul Wahed and Mohammed Merheb at an army checkpoint in the northern region of Kweikhat in May. Lebanon has witnessed in recent days protests by the families of the officers and soldiers detained for their connection to the case. Supporters of the Free Patriotic Movement and families of the detainees have blocked roads in support of the army

After the Damascus Assassinations: A New Phase for U.S. Syria Policy
Robert Satloff /Washington Institute
July 18, 2012
The United States should take advantage of the latest blow to Assad's inner circle, hastening his demise while preventing worst-case follow-on events.
Today's apparent assassination of top military officials in Syria marks a new and possibly decisive phase in the civil war between Bashar al-Assad's regime and the broad, loosely coordinated, but clearly potent opposition. For the United States, this turn of events should shift the policy discussion from a UN debate over renewal of the ineffectual Annan peacekeeping mission to ways of exploiting the disarray, namely by pressing Assad to leave power while avoiding outcomes such as chaos, ethnic bloodbath, or jihadist takeover.
With at least three of the eight targeted military leaders apparently dead, the Damascus bombing will almost certainly be a major blow to the regime's ability to conduct its war against the Syrian people. The impact will be felt both operationally and psychologically, with the potential for cascading problems in conducting military actions across the country. The surviving leadership will have to rebuild a command structure in an environment where increasing numbers of military officers and civilian supporters are likely to see the assassinations as the writing on the wall for the regime and begin to seek alternatives for their own survival. Depending on whether the regime is able to steady itself quickly, the incident could also provide an opportunity for opposition forces to press ahead with creating safe zones in various parts of the country, or even to take decisive action against Assad.
IDEAS FOR U.S. POLICY
The decimating of Syria's top security leadership clearly moves the goalposts for U.S. policy. Assad's near-term demise, while not assured, is now more likely than ever, and if it comes to pass, it will have been achieved by the courage and ingenuity of Syrian opposition forces. For some in Washington, this will validate both the arm's-length approach the Obama administration has taken to the idea of more direct involvement in the anti-Assad effort and its reliance on economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation. In reality, though, Assad's demise will have come because of armed action by Syrians, not outside measures that came months later than necessary and at the cost of thousands of innocent lives and the potential for greater radicalization in his wake.
But Assad is not yet gone. To facilitate his fall, U.S. policy must now shift gears away from the diplomatic ballet over the Annan mission, the covert effort to support the arming of opposition elements, and the low-intensity effort to organize the Syrian political opposition (via the equally unwieldy collection of nearly a hundred countries in the "Friends of the Syrian People" group). Instead, Washington should build on the Damascus attack to hasten the regime's collapse, focusing on the dangerous period marked by Assad's last stand and the emergence of whatever comes next.
Specifically, the administration should do the following:
In coordination with key allies, urge Assad both publicly and privately to leave for exile with his remaining family while he still has a chance to avoid the fate of Muammar Qadhafi and Saddam Hussein.
Privately urge Iran and Russia to remove any residual military presence in Syria.
Convene leaders of the Syrian opposition (both civilian and military) and key "Friends of Syria" (e.g., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and major European powers) to discuss a blueprint for the endgame, including the formation of a successor government-in-waiting. Neither Russia nor Iran should be invited. This is as much political theater as practical policymaking, given that the goal at the moment should be to drive an ever-deeper wedge between Assad and his shrinking circle of support, especially among Alawites outside his clan and his remaining Sunni collaborators.
Work with the Syrian opposition, the Arab League, and Turkey to issue a statement offering specific commitments to the protection of Syrian minorities in the event of Assad's departure, with reference to Alawites, Christians, Kurds, and Druze. Dispatch military/security officials to consult with Syria's neighbors -- Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel -- in a high-profile display of coordination to warn Assad against a desperate, last-chance external adventure. Begin intensive preparations for the deployment of an international stabilization and humanitarian support force designed to reduce the risks associated with post-Assad transition. Its mission should include securing and possibly removing Syria's chemical weapons stocks, supporting the successor government's efforts to prevent violent retribution against Alawites and others perceived as pro-Assad, and providing humanitarian assistance. The latter element should include medical care (on hospital ships and onshore) and other aid to Syrians who suffered during the regime's brutal crackdown, as well as assisting in the repatriation of Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. Although this could eventually become a UN-sanctioned operation, it is important for the United States to take the lead in defining the mission with key allies as soon as possible.
More generally, Washington now has the opportunity to apply the difficult and often painful lessons learned from political transitions elsewhere in the Middle East over the past eighteen months. While the arc of Syria's history may be bending toward justice -- paraphrasing President Obama's comments after Egyptian revolutionaries forced Hosni Mubarak out in 2011 -- transitions in the Middle East have produced not just popular governments, but also regression in minority rights (Egypt), weapons proliferation (Libya), and the empowerment of political movements long critical of U.S. policy in the region -- let alone the emergence of horrific, Taliban-style rule in Mali. Despite not giving the opposition the material support it has wanted, the United States has avoided damaging its position among Syrians the way Russia has. If the Assad regime is truly on the edge, the Obama administration has been gifted the opportunity to help shape the transition in a way that limits the potential for negative outcomes and, along the way, bolsters America's standing in a post-Assad Syria.
*Robert Satloff is executive director of The Washington Institute.

Anti-Israel attacks to mount in sync with Syrian war, looming strike on Iran
DEBKAfile Special Report July 19, 2012/The tactics Iran, Syria and Hizballah have set out for escalating their terrorist attacks on Israel differentiate between “local” and high-value “strategic” targets. They have now decided to up the assaults on the latter to keep pace with the worsening war situation in Syria and the approach of an attack on Iran’s nuclear program. This is reported by debkafile’s intelligence and counter-terror sources. Iranian terror planners classify the blowing up of the Bulgarian bus Wednesday, July 18 as “local” notwithstanding its “success” in killing at least seven Israelis and wounding more than thirty. Destroying an Israeli passenger plane in Limassol, Cyprus, or assassinating an Israeli ambassador, in which they have failed so far, would have been “strategic” as would key Israeli security figures, politicians, business executives and Israel’s Mediterranean oil and gas fields. Just by coincidence, two major episodes occurred on the same day only hours apart – a large hole was struck in Bashar Assad’s inner circle with the deaths in Damascus of half the management of his killing machine against the Syrian opposition and, soon after, the Israeli tour bus was blown up by means still under investigation.
This chance synchronicity heralds a new period of horrific Middle East violence which will reach not only Israel, but the United States and the West as well.
This realization was uppermost in the conversation between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Thursday morning, July 19. Neither doubted that Tehran and Damascus were hatching retribution for the assassination of top Syrian ministers. They had information missing from media reports on the two events, including the news that straight after the deadly attack on Assad’s henchmen, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called an Iranian leadership conference which lasted most of Wednesday and was punctuated with frequent phone calls by Iranian officials to the Syrian President. The content of those phone calls reaching reached Obama and Netanyahu showed clearly which way the wind was blowing in Damascus and Tehran: Neither intended pulling their punches. The US and Israeli leaders agreed to work together in the investigation of the bus explosion in Bulgaria. Our sources stress that this is just diplomaticspeak for holding off on action. Despite Netanyahu’s pledge of a “strong response” to the attack, it was decided that a proactive response to the attack by striking an Iranian or Hizballah target would exacerbate a situation which US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described as “spinning out of control.” Israelis have learned in the three years of Netanyahu's tenure as prime minister that expressions like “strong,” “forceful,” “determined” “we cannot tolerate” etc. mean just the opposite. Israel’s enemies also understand him to mean that he will sit tight and do nothing. However, an escalation of attacks on Israeli “strategic targets” predicted by intelligence experts in the coming days may make this do-nothing policy untenable. After all, talking to Obama won’t deflect Iran, Syria and Hizballah from their resolve to vent their urge for revenge on Israel. Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah has often managed to stay a step or two ahead of US and Israeli thinking – especially in his propaganda campaigns - ever since he surprised Israel by launching the Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006. A few hours after the attacks in Bulgaria and Damascus, Nasrallah had found his tongue and was crowing: "We know what your [Israel’s] first strike will be and we promise you a big surprise." His words were a warning to Israel and a message to Washington that anyone trying to reach the bunker in which he has been hiding since 2006 was in for a big surprise. Israel was painfully reminded of the Iranian C-802 shore-to-ship missile fired from the Lebanese coast which surprised and crippled the unready INS Hanit missile ship exactly six years ago.

Who rules Damascus now?
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid/Asharq Alawsat
Following yesterday’s exciting dramatic events, the al-Assad regime may not live through Ramadan to celebrate Eid at the end of the month. In fact, the regime may not even survive the night! Yesterday, we were watching our television screens and not asking who died, but rather who is still alive, and where is President Bashar al-Assad himself who – at the time of writing this article – has failed to make a public appearance after a number of his senior ministers and officials had been killed. Al-Assad has not appeared in public since this attack, nor have any of his senior officials. This means that al-Assad was either killed in the attack – and this is possible but unlikely – or that he is alive and secluding himself in a secret location. Even if he does appear and issue a statement, his followers all believe that he is completely responsible for the successive failures that have struck the regime. Al-Assad is a man who has failed to learn any lessons from his successive failures over the years, transforming failures into crises, and leading the country into the inferno of the revolution. Despite all the ropes that have been thrown to him, al-Assad has played the role of Nero whilst Syria burns!
Following the mass killing of the leaders of the Damascus regime, we can only ask ourselves: will the al-Assad regime last for weeks or hours? Nobody is asking whether al-Assad will remain in power or be toppled, for the annihilation of the leadership of this security military regime is too great for it to overcome, both in terms of morale and numbers.
As a result of what happened yesterday, the majority of the [opposition] fighters will attack the capital, believing that it is now possible to achieve the moment of victory in light of the regime’s confusion and the weakness of its forces, which have been broken, both in terms of morale and numbers. We must also recall the battles that broke out at the beginning of this week in Damascus and the swift and surprising deployment which proved that the Free Syrian Army [FSA] is larger than analysts previously thought. The FSA’s sudden attacks from the Damascus neighborhoods of Al Qaddam and Midan forced the al-Assad regime to use helicopters and heavy weaponry. This confirmed that the Syrian regime is fragile and its military fatigued, after it had been fighting long battles outside of Damascus for more than a year. I believe that the Syrian opposition fighters sudden storming of the capital has confused the regime and frightened its followers, and perhaps this is what precipitated the massacre of the leaders on the third day of the fighting.
Whether what happened was an explosion or a counter-coup, namely an internal elimination, there can be no doubt that the regime has suffered an injury that it will not recover from. It seems that al-Assad’s Damascus will face a similar fate to Saddam’s Baghdad, which collapsed rapidly. How is it possible that al-Assad’s forces have been fighting for over a year – including in Homs – but are now witnessing a rapid collapse in Damascus? This is thanks to the resolve and steadfastness of the Syrian revolutionaries, which is unparalleled in modern history. They demonstrated from the outset that they are capable of marching on the capital, albeit slowly, and despite their modest capabilities. Accordingly, everybody –from the government to regional and international powers – must review their calculations in this regard.
How have the Russians benefited by clinging to a president who has completely failed to manage political and military battles? They have truly entangled themselves with a regime that is hated in the Arab world and whose hands are stained with blood, a regime that is being defeated in the most humiliating manner.

Is this a “Syrian Sunni” uprising?
By Adel Al Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat
The popular uprising that erupted in Syria 16 months ago has not been met with the same enthusiasm and support from a broad section of intellectuals and writers, both Arab and Western, compared to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.The reason – according to these intellectuals and writers – is that Tunisia and Egypt witnessed “peaceful revolutions”, while the uprisings in Libya and Syria morphed into civil wars. For them, the moral stance against the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes was clear, whilst their stance towards the events in Libya and Syria is considerably more complicated. Libya witnessed external intervention from the Gulf States and European countries, through the Arab League and NATO, whilst in Syria there is an “armed revolution” led in the majority by the Sunnis, with Salafis and Islamists among the ranks.
Hence we find that Arab and Western intellectuals and writers are skeptical of the Syrian uprising, sometimes accusing it of sectarianism, fearing a civil war between different components of society, and at other times talking about how it is being dominated by fundamentalist Salafi groups or al-Qaeda, and hence warning against military support. Tariq Ali, the well-known left-wing writer, argued a few months ago that armed opposition against the al-Assad regime combined with Western intelligence would be nothing but an attempt to overthrow the regime and bring in a puppet colonial government. It is noteworthy that Tariq Ali, after all the battles that have taken place, is still calling for dialogue between the opposition and Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
It is natural for supporters of the opposition and resistance axis to support the Syrian regime, but it is interesting to see democracy activists and Western writers, including those who supported the Iraq war in 2003, warning that the fall of the Syrian regime would mean an open sectarian war between the Sunnis and the Alawites. In an interview with Vali Nasr – author of the book “The Shia Revival” – about the Syrian crisis, he warned of the growing Sunni fundamentalist dimension within the armed opposition, and that the fall of al-Assad would lead to a state of Sunni retaliation against Syrian minorities, especially the Alawite sect. Nasr said: “And now that there's been so much bloodshed in Syria, there is palpable fear of a reprisal if the minorities ever lose power to the majorities” (What Syria's Power Struggle Means, The Council on Foreign Relations, June 4th 2012).
But is this really a Syrian Sunni uprising? Some supporters of the Syrian revolution try to completely distance the popular uprising there from any element of sectarianism, placing the blame entirely on the Syrian regime for inciting the sectarian dimension, while others believe that sectarianism doesn’t exist in the first place, given that many key figures and symbols in the Syrian opposition, whether domestically or abroad, belong to the Alawite, Druze, Christian and Kurdish sects. This is true, but on the other hand it is hard to deny the predominance of the Sunni sect among the ranks of the opposition both domestically and abroad, despite the fact that the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood did not have a strong presence in the opposition conferences held in Istanbul and Cairo. However, this may be due to the demographic reality, whereby the Sunnis are the most populous sect, and they constitute the largest proportion in most Syrian cities and provinces.
In reality, the Syrian uprising is no different in principle from those in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya. The concerns raised by skeptics of the Syrian uprising – some of which are valid – such as the emergence of the Islamists and Salifis, can be found in most countries of the “Arab Spring”. So why should the Syrian uprising be condemned or feared because some of its fighters are “Salafis”, whilst at the same time the revolution against former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was widely praised, even though the Salafis have since come to power there in both the People’s Assembly and the Shura Council? If one wishes to make a stand against the Islamists or the Salafis in the Arab Spring uprisings, why focus on Syria and remain silent about these groups elsewhere? Take for example the Libyan uprising, where Lebanese delegates participating in a Security Council session (September 2011) were quick to propose a vote for military intervention in Libya, while Lebanon today, officially at least, is supportive of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
Individuals, as well as governments, try to present their decisions in a moral guise, and find excuses and justifications when they don’t correspond with their personal interests, or are not consistent with their ideological orientations. When it comes to states the matter is clear; we assume that a state – any state – operates according to its interests, but when it comes to intellectuals and writers the matter becomes more complex, and few of them ever admit they have made the wrong choice. Take for example the supporters of the Syrian-Iranian axis, who have accused some Arab regimes of being agents of America and the West. They rarely speak of political tyranny in Iran or Syria, but whenever it seems that a regime that does not share their interests may be overthrown, they cheer for that.
The Syrian opposition at the present time is suffering from turmoil and the same problems experienced by its counterparts in the other “Arab Spring” states. The opposition consists of honest individuals looking to defend themselves and their families, yet there are also those who have extremist orientations. Above all this it suffers from fragmentation, and the lack of a clear political vision for any transitional project to build the institutions of a modern state. As you can see, it is possible to criticize the armed and peaceful opposition for many reasons, but focusing on the Sunni element, or fearing a Salafi uprising, does not seem to be a wholly innocent endeavor, but rather a means of concealing self-interests or ideological positions.
During the four decades of the Syrian Baath Party’s dominance, the Syrian regime established close ties with Iran for strategic and sectarian motives, and likewise supported Hezbollah under the same pretext. If religious fundamentalism is the charge lodged against the Syrian uprising, then we should consider that the regime itself used to support militant fundamentalist movements such as Hamas, which it is yet to explicitly condemn what the Syrian regime has done, despite the enormous extent of human damage.
As you can see, your position towards the Syrian uprising depends on the angle which you view it from. The Syrian army, for example, was not considered a sectarian military institution until at least the early 1980s, before which most of its soldiers and officers were from the Sunni sect. However today it is experiencing a continual disintegration as a result of daily defections. What is noticeable is that the majority of defectors are from the Sunni sect, whilst the regime itself - which was formed from an Alawite alliance with minor Sunni participation - today is suffering from the defections of regime officials also from the Sunni community, either because they are personally convinced of the regime’s imminent end, or because the regime itself has become suspicious of them and placed them under house arrest.
In an article published in The Daily Telegraph entitled “What lies behind the Syrian massacres?” (July 13th), the newspaper quoted a large number of intelligence sources saying that some members of the Alawite community no longer trust the army, or the regime’s ability to protect them for the foreseeable future, and hence over the past few months they have been working to form their own militias, similar to what happened during the Lebanese civil war. Meanwhile, The Sunday Times (15th July) newspaper contends that the recent massacres were intentionally carried out by Alawite militias as a form of “sectarian cleansing” of certain towns and villages, paving the way for the creation of an Alawite state along the Syrian coast. There may be an element of exaggeration here since Syria’s modern history, despite including some sectarian conflicts, has at other times served as a model of civil coexistence and national unity.
The problem is not the rise of the Sunnis, but rather the failure of the Baathist regime, with its resistance ideology, to create a modern civil state, and because of that, the damage caused by the regime reaming at this time would be greater than if it were to leave.

Al-Assad is alone!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
Away from the controversy over whether the explosion that struck the national security headquarters yesterday was part of a coup, or al-Assad eliminating his own men, or an operation by the Free Syrian Army [FSA], what is certain today is that al-Assad has suffered a severe blow, and the tyrant of Damascus is like a giant who is standing with both hands cut off! This explosion killed a number of senior al-Assad regime security officials, who can be considered the security cell of the tyrant of Damascus.
Therefore the death of the al-Assad regime’s Defense Minister, as well as the tyrant’s brother-in-law and other senior security figures, means that Bashar al-Assad today is alone, and the only security figure that remains for him is his brother Maher al-Assed. Whether this assassination operation was the thwarting of a coup attempt against him or not, this represents a harmful blow to al-Assad, and means that he is following the path of Gaddafi, who lived his final days alone, after his aides had either been killed or defected. Therefore what happened yesterday at the national security headquarters in Damascus represents a stunning blow to the morale of the al-Assad regime forces, and all the allies of the tyrant. This operation targeted al-Assad’s inner circle, killing some of those closest to him, during a critical time in the life of the revolution. If what happened yesterday was al-Assad eliminating his own men, this means that al-Assad’s days are numbered as there is a lack of trust in the circles closest to power, particularly as one of the victims of this bombing was al-Assad’s own brother-in-law. This in turn means that there is not just a conflict in the circles closest to power in Syria, but within the al-Assad family itself! Whilst if the operation was carried out by the FSA, which is most likely, particularly as it has already claimed responsibility for this, describing it as an operation targeting the pillars of the tyrant’s regime, this also means that al-Assad’s days are numbered, as his inner circle has become an easy target. From here, we can understand the escalation in the pace of defections from the forces of the tyrant, and the immediacy of the announcement of the death of the al-Assad security officials.
Therefore all signs today indicate that al-Assad is alone in his losing battle, and the clashes today are not in Homs or Aleppo or Daraa, but in the heart of Damascus. This is a battle that is similar to the battle of Tripoli during Gaddafi’s last days when the gates to the Libyan capital were thrown open in such a sudden and surprising manner by the Libyan rebels. This is precisely what has happened and is happening today in the Syrian capital Damascus, where the FSA has deployed in a rapid and stunning manner, confounding and devastating the battalions of the al-Assad regime. As we said yesterday, the fires of the Syrian revolution are close to engulfing the tyrant of Damascus, and his men are falling one after another. Indeed, the situation has reached the point that some FSA operations against al-Assad centers of power in Damascus were being broadcast on air on television yesterday, as if Damascus were no longer the central authority!
Therefore, who did what is not important, what is important is that it is clear we are facing the last days of the tyrant’s regime which is receiving blows not just on the outskirts of Syria, but in the heart of the country, and in the circles of power closest to al-Assad. These are painful blows to morale, as well as politically, therefore the question that must be asked today is not whether or not al-Assad will be toppled, but rather when?

Flight of Christians from Middle East Reaches Syria
By Aidan Clay
07/18/2012 Washington, D.C. (International Christian Concern) — There is a mass exodus of Christians, including a group evacuated from the besieged city of Homs last week, fleeing Syrian cities for safety. Caught in the middle of a showdown between opposition forces and the Syrian army, many Christians fear the prospect of an Islamist-led government if President Bashar al-Assad is deposed.
On July 11, Maximos al-Jamal, a Greek Orthodox priest, negotiated a deal between armed rebels and the army to evacuate 63 Christians caught between the crossfire in the bombed-out city of Homs, The Associated Press (AP) reports. Al-Jamal feared that rebels were keeping Christians in the city as bargaining chips while army attacks intensified.
“Gunmen have told the besieged people that if you go out of these areas, we will die,” al-Jamal told AP.
Thousands of Christians lived in Homs before Syria’s uprising began early last year. Today, however, al-Jamal said that only 100 Christian civilians remain, the result of which is more likely contributed to rebel attacks against Christians than the army’s bombardment of the city.
“The armed [rebels] in Syria [have] murdered more than 200 Christians in the city of Homs, including entire families with young children. These gangs kidnapped Christians and demanded high ransoms. In two cases, after the ransoms were paid, the men's bodies were found,” a priest in Homs told Barnabas Aid.
The evacuation of Christians from Homs is only the latest occurrence in a mass exodus of Christians from Syrian cities. In June, nearly 10,000 Christians fled Qusayr after being given an ultimatum to leave the city by a rebel commander, reported Barnabas Aid. The threat was reportedly echoed in the city mosques: “Christians must leave Qusayr within six days, ending Friday (June 8).” Rebels, however, denied the accusations, claiming that Christians began fleeing months earlier when the army shelled the city.
Many Syrian Christians, considered loyal to President Assad, are afraid that rebel groups—widely led by Islamists—will persecute non-Muslims and stifle religious freedoms. Historically, Christians have been granted a higher degree of freedom in Syria than in most other Middle Eastern countries. Despite reports of massive violence initiated by the regime, many Syrian Christians still believe that Assad is their final hope for a peaceful existence.
“Christians are increasingly being targeted and driven out of their homes and districts,” Elizabeth Kendal wrote for the Religious Liberty Prayer bulletin. “Some 138,000 Christians have fled Homs, where Christians have been terrorized and churches have been looted and occupied by rebel forces…. In areas under rebel control, intolerant, hard-line Sunni fundamentalism is making Muslim-Christian coexistence impossible. For the jihadists, neutrality is not an option, and Christians (and Muslims) refusing to support the jihad are being tortured, expelled and murdered.”
Like in Egypt, Tunisia, and other Arab countries, the uprisings in Syria—initially calling for democratic change and greater freedoms—provided a platform for Islamists long-suppressed under authoritarian rule to rally behind a fundamentalist agenda.
“For the newest generation of Sunni jihadists, Syria has become the latest front in the struggle to wrest control of the region from rival religious sects and foreign occupation,” Daniel Brode, Roger Farhat, and Daniel Nisman, intelligence analysts at Max-Security Solutions, wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times. “Many of these fighters hail from the vast reaches of North Africa and the Gulf, arriving in Syria with weapons, funds and a radical ideology.”
Asia News, quoting Kuwait’s Arabic-language newspaper Al-Qabas, reported that “jihadists” from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Pakistan “crossed the Syrian-Turkish border to fight in the jihad alongside [opposition forces]… against the regime of Bashar el Assad.”
Moreover, Agenzia Fides, the official Vatican news agency, reported that, “armed opposition… is gradually radicalizing towards Sunni extremist ideology.” In another report, Agenzia Fides stated that Syria’s Salafis—who follow the strict Wahhabi doctrine of Islam found in Saudi Arabia—are carrying out “brief executions” against Christian “infidels” while initiating a “sectarian war.” These Christians are given a choice to either join the opposition or face “harassment, discrimination, [and] violence.”
As war continues without resolution, there is grave concern that Syrian Christians will follow the path of other ancient Christian communities throughout the Middle East. In Iraq, more than half the Christian population—caught between Sunni and Shia sectarianism—has fled the country following the US-led invasion in 2003. In Egypt, reports indicate that at least 93,000 Christians have sought visas to western countries since March 19, 2011 following the political rise of Islamic parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood. The endangered status of Christians in Arab countries is so severe that Ken Blackwell, a human rights expert and board member of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, wrote that “Christians are being ethnically cleansed throughout the Middle East.”
“Look at what happened in Egypt and Iraq,” a Syrian church leader who asked to remain anonymous told ICC. “Christians want to peacefully go out and ask for certain changes, but Islamist groups are sneaking in with their goal, which is not to make changes for the betterment of Syria, but to take over the country with their agenda. Christians will be the first to pay if this happens.”