VOA: "... Mr. Hariri's office said Wednesday the report by Ad-Diyar newspaper was not accurate..."
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Hariri denies the Ad Diyar report ...
US Official: "We would like Hezbollah to get a 'black eye'" out of the the whole 'Hariri tribunal' affair ...
MEPGS brief: December 22, 2010
"A clearly chastened Obama Administration has "gone back to
the drawing boards" for a new approach to peacemaking between
Israelis and Palestinians. "I would say the President is more
sober minded than before," said one top Administration official.
Despite reports to the contrary, the Administration never wavered
in its commitment to provide a written version of promises,
should the Israeli government accept a 90 day partial settlement
freeze. Notably, this would have included funding for a squadron
of advanced F-35 fighter jets, over and above those already
promised Israel and funded through annual foreign aid
appropriations.
According to reliable sources, the main stumbling block was
the Israeli government's determination to trumpet the exception
to the settlement freeze, that is, continued building in East
Jerusalem. "There was no way we could get negotiations going if
the main focus was going to be on Jerusalem," said one well-
placed US official. Then, there was the problem of what would
have happened at the end of 90 days. "After getting the
Palestinians to resume talks -- and pay a political price in
doing so -- what were we going to be able to produce on day 91?"
asked this official rhetorically.
While unwilling to spell out specific US strategy going
forward, senior Administration officials have made it clear that
it cannot look like the US wants a deal more than the parties
themselves. That is not to say they don't see the urgency for
both sides. For the Israelis, it is a status quo on the ground
that cannot be maintained let alone improved (as has been done on
the West Bank under Prime Minister Sallam Fayyed). For the
Palestinians, their latest gambit of rounding up international
recognition for their state is a "dead end" in the view of US
officials, who make it clear that they will block its adoption if
necessary but say it will also set back chances for eventual
progress in peace talks. One top US officials sums up
Administration thinking this way: "We need to find a way for the
two sides to negotiate. We will not do it in the place of them."
Key US officials are a good deal more upbeat about their
diplomatic political successes on the issue of Iran's nuclear
program. The meeting earlier this month in Geneva, according to
US officials, demonstrated to the Iranians that they could not
divide the six powers who are in talks with them [US, UK, France,
Germany, Russia and China]. While this first meeting was
designed to allow the Iranians to "vent" [in the words of one
European diplomat], the next, in January in Istanbul, will find
the "Six" a lot less accommodating. Meanwhile, the US is going
forward with additional measures to make it more difficult for
Iran to do business in the international arena. "We are closing
every loophole we find on individuals and companies large and
small [including the Iranian "trading companies" or "bonyards",
which, according to US officials have increasingly become
vehicles for Revolutionary Guard business dealings]
The Europeans, led by France, are also focusing on
developing a model similar to the US and in some cases going
beyond Administration efforts. "We want to develop our own
`Stuart Leveys' [the US Treasury department UnderSecretary whose
has been in the forefront of going after companies doing business
illegally with Iran]," is the way one European diplomat put it
recently. Moreover, the Europeans want to press Iran on human
rights issues, arguing they are better placed to have an effect,
since their criticisms do not come with the burden of "regime
change" as US attacks might well do.
While future talks may well be held in Brazil or even Iran,
say US officials, the US, Britain and France in particular will
offer no rewards for partial gestures from Iran. "This is not a
`carrot and stick' approach, says one well-placed source. We are
going ahead with talks for two reasons. First, if unexpectedly
the Iranians change their minds about `going nuclear', we want to
have a channel open for them to be able to back down somewhat
gracefully." Second, if they do display some willingness to
negotiate seriously, we want to be prepared to respond quickly."
At the same time, there is a palpable sense of relief over
what has been called the "ticking clock" of Iranian nuclear
development. Most recently, the technical setbacks indicate to
most observers that outside forces [most assume the Israelis]
have been able to introduce destructive computer bugs into Iran's
enrichment program. Another widely mentioned issue is whether
the Iranians are really up to producing a weapon. More than one
expert questions that after two decades, predictions of Iran
"crossing the threshold" constantly have to be revised to a later
date.
That being said, it has been more than three years since
Iran achieved the ability to create fissionable material that
eventually, after enrichment, could be used to produce a nuclear
device. It was also supposed to be a "red line" that many
assumed the Israelis would never let them cross ["It turned out
to be more of a `pink line'", commented one US official]. Still,
top US and European officials remain convinced that there is a
red line for Israel. It involves a number of factors that, in
combination, would provoke a military attack by Israel on Iran.
And this assumption, as much as any combination of other factors,
energizes efforts to deny Iran the capability to produce a
nuclear device. However, Israeli officials have made it clear to
their US counterparts that, so far they are impressed (and
surprised) with the success the Administration has had in
ratcheting up pressure on Iran. In return, US officials
acknowledge that Israel would like nothing better than a peaceful
resolution of the Iranian "nuclear problem." As one top US
official said recently, "The last thing the Israelis want to do
is go it alone."
The Israelis are also not looking for a reprise of their
inconclusive 2006 fight with Lebanon's Hezbollah militia. Now
armed with tens of thousands of various sized missiles, a war
with Hezbollah, it is believed, could find Tel Aviv under attack.
Hezbollah, under siege politically from an intentional tribunal
investigating the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister
Rafik Hairi, has lashed out at Israel, not to mention the current
Lebanese government led by his son, Saad. However, the
Administration, backed by France, has pressed Saad to accept
indictments handed down by the Intentional Tribunal investigating
the assassination. Part of the reason for this pressure on Saad
[who, according to some well-placed sources, would like nothing
better than for the entire issue to go away], is not only to
uphold the concept of these kind of tribunals {Which have
succeeded in trying and convicting war criminals such as Solbodan
Milosevic) but also to help end the era of assassinations in
Lebanon. Moreover, US officials would like to see Hezbollah get
a "black eye" to cite the words of one Administration official
[However, to help protect Israelis, should Hezbollah turns its
anger on them, Congress and the Administration has accelerated
production of the "Iron Dome" anti-missile defense system,
providing an additional $275 million for it in this years
Appropriations bill].
Imperial by Design
Mersheimer at his very best.
"... U.S. grand strategy has followed this basic prescription for the past twenty years, mainly because most policy makers inside the Beltway have agreed with the thrust of Fukuyama’s and Krauthammer’s early analyses.
The results, however, have been disastrous. The United States has been at war for a startling two out of every three years since 1989, and there is no end in sight. As anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of world events knows, countries that continuously fight wars invariably build powerful national-security bureaucracies that undermine civil liberties and make it difficult to hold leaders accountable for their behavior; and they invariably end up adopting ruthless policies normally associated with brutal dictators. The Founding Fathers understood this problem, as is clear from James Madison’s observation that “no nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Washington’s pursuit of policies like assassination, rendition and torture over the past decade, not to mention the weakening of the rule of law at home, shows that their fears were justified.
To make matters worse, the United States is now engaged in protracted wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have so far cost well over a trillion dollars and resulted in around forty-seven thousand American casualties. The pain and suffering inflicted on Iraq has been enormous. Since the war began in March 2003, more than one hundred thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed, roughly 2 million Iraqis have left the country and 1.7 million more have been internally displaced. Moreover, the American military is not going to win either one of these conflicts, despite all the phony talk about how the “surge” has worked in Iraq and how a similar strategy can produce another miracle in Afghanistan. We may well be stuck in both quagmires for years to come, in fruitless pursuit of victory...."
Al Diyar: "Hariri will halt Lebanon's backing of the 'Hariri Tribunal' ..."
"..Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri said on Tuesday that Lebanon will ask the United Nations to halt the probe of an international tribunal into the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the pro-Syrian Lebanese newspaper a-Diar reported on Wednesday.
According to the report, Hariri said on Tuesday that he intends on giving up on the findings of the tribunal "for the interests of the country." Hariri was quoted as saying that the Lebanese government will turn to the UN to "work to stop the activities of the tribunal and to cancel the work protocol between the government and the tribunal." Moreover, the newspaper quoted Hariri as saying that he will stand by Hezbollah if the group is found guilty by the tribunal, and that Lebanon will not support any of the tribunal's further activities.
"I have already sacrificed a lot, and I cannot sacrifice more," Hariri said...."
".. Why give justice for one man and deny it to thousands?.."
"...Unlike other international tribunals, like the ICTY in former Yugoslavia, the special court for Sierra Leone or the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda, all looking at mass atrocities, the special tribunal for Lebanon (STL) was set up to prosecute the killers of one person, Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister, and those who perished with him in a central Beirut explosion in February 2005.
But why give justice for one man and deny it to thousands?
Regardless of Hariri's controversial postwar reconstruction and corruption legacy, the tribunal owed its existence to two primary factors. First, the assassination's critical timing. Two years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, regime change was still on the table and the Bush administration's neocons were longing for revenge against Syria's backing of Iraq's brutal insurgency.
Hariri's international connections also played a significant role, especially his Saudi ties and his friendship with the French president at the time, Jacques Chirac. ......one of the special tribunal's leading and most persistent advocates is Samir Geagea, a militia leader turned politician. Geagea, the Lebanese Forces leader, who is explicitly a US ally, was indicted in the assassination of the acting prime minister Rashid Karami in 1987 and the murder of his political rival, Christian leader Dani Chamoun, along with his wife and two sons in 1990 .... In a shocking quirk of fate, Geagea secured for his party two ministries in the latest national unity government (2009), among them the justice ministry...."
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Netanyahu will "formally" call for release of spy Pollard
"... After consultations on Monday night and Tuesday morning (mostly with American lawmakers & Israel-firsters on the Hill), Netanyahu decided to send a formal letter to Obama on the matter."I intend to continue to act with determination for the release of Pollard, both because of the State of Israel's moral obligation to him and so that he can live with his family and restore his health after his prolonged incarceration," Netanyahu said in a statement on Tuesday...."
International Court 'Judges', Slavin & Yacoubian: "Only Mughniyeh could have killed Hariri!" (Case Closed!)
"... Imad Mughniyeh, Hezbollah's chief of operations until his own assassination in Damascus in 2008, likely played a role in the massive car bombing that claimed the lives of the former Lebanese prime minister and 22 others in Beirut. Experts on Lebanon and Hezbollah say it is difficult to envision a crime of such scale and consequence without Mughniyeh's involvement.
"My guess is no," said Mona Yacoubian, director of the Lebanon Working Group at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), asked if the Hariri assassination could have been pulled off without Mughniyeh's knowledge. She added, "It would be hard to know how it could have been done without the connivance of Syria given its role in Lebanon in 2005."..."
Merkava-penetrating Kornet missile fired from Gaza ...
"... Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi revealed "On December 6 a Kornet rocket was fired for the first time and hit an IDF tank and penetrated its outer shell," Ashkenazi told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, saying that the Kornet missile penetrated the tank exterior shell but failed to explode inside it.
"It is a heavy missile and one of the most dangerous in the region, which was also fired toward the IDF during the Lebanon War," Ashkenazi added..."
"Partitioning Afghanistan is Obama's best alternative to 'strategic defeat' ..."
"... De facto partition offers the Obama administration the best available alternative to strategic defeat. The administration should stop setting deadlines for withdrawal and instead commit the United States to a long-term combat role in Afghanistan of 35,000-50,000 troops for the next 7-10 years.
Concurrently, Washington should accept that the Taliban will inevitably control most of the Pashtun south and east and that the price of forestalling that outcome is far too high for Americans to continue paying. The United States and its partners should stop fighting and dying in the Pashtun homeland and let the local correlation of forces take its course - while deploying US air power and Special Forces to ensure that the north and west of Afghanistan do not succumb to the Taliban. The United States would make clear that it would strike al-Qaida targets anywhere, Taliban encroachments across the de facto partition line, and sanctuaries along the Pakistani border using weapons systems that were unavailable before 9/11.
Accepting a de facto partition of Afghanistan makes sense only if the other options available are worse. They are.
One alternative is to stay the current course in Afghanistan. The United States deploys about 1,00,000 troops in Afghanistan, yet there are now only 50-100 al-Qaida fighters there. That is 1,000-2,000 soldiers per al-Qaida terrorist at $100 billion a year - far beyond any reasonable expenditure of American resources given the stakes involved. And even if many of the roughly 300 al-Qaida fighters now in Pakistan did move a few score miles north across the border, it would not make much of a practical difference - surely not enough to justify an indefinite major ground war..."
Iran survives the 'subsidies reduction' ...and remains stable
"...with Iran’s economy in general teetering on the edge of collapse, a problem that has been compounded by severe economic sanctions levied against it by Western countries that believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and political unrest stemming from the contested elections last year, many thought the subsidy cuts could be the final straw for the Iranian public.
This time, however, the government was prepared. For days, security forces have been patrolling streets and major squares throughout Tehran, many of which were the site of clashes between protestors and police during post-election outrage last December.
Most analysts agree that the subsidies had to be cut to both relieve the significant drain they represented on the country’s budget and to reduce the culture of waste they created throughout the country..."
Erdogan survives the Wikileaks 'challenge'...
"... Other than various negative remarks about some government officials, perhaps, the most controversial part of the cables were the allegations about Erdogan. In particular, a report, dated December 30, 2004, sent by Eric Edelman (who served as US ambassador in Ankara between August 2003 and June 2005) referred to speculation that Erdogan might have up to eight secret accounts in Swiss banks and Erdogan’s explanations about the source of his wealth were dubious. Other cables also included speculation about the deputy head of the AKP, Abdulkadir Aksu, including his alleged involvement in heroin trafficking and corruption. Some cables contained very critical remarks about Arinc, which were interpreted as insults....
Obviously, such claims about Erdogan were based on hearsay or gossip among the political or media circles. Short of any concrete evidence the opposition could furnish, thus, Erdogan used the occasion to reiterate his criticism that the CHP and other opposition groups were employing dirty tactics to taint the successful track record of his government (Cihan, December 10). Moreover, by highlighting many of the cables which are based on unsubstantiated information, Erdogan gained a tactical advantage and deflected attention away from other cables that might have weakened his position. Erdogan, overall, managed to turn the tables and emerge from this crisis stronger in domestic politics...."
Assad to the German Bild: "I see the West moving away from Turkey ..."
Our friend Guthman Bey writes:
"... The fact that Bild's editor-in-chief, Diekmann, himself ventured out to Damascus to do the interview (accompanied by the former editor of Hurriyet, Özkök) is rather remarkable all
in itself. Whatever one may otherwise think of the Baathists in Syria, Assad is very sharp
in interviews. They don't have it up in English on their website, unfortunately.
Here are some excerpts (rather amazing how good Google translations have become; I had to change some stuff, but really not all that much):
BILD: You have been the president of Syria for ten years. How do you perceive the image of
your country in the world?
President Assad: Are you speaking of the West or of the world? I ask this because the problem
lies in the west, not in the entire world. The problem with the West is that imagines itself as the whole world and forgets the rest of the world easily. The West can not continue to pursue its ostrich policy, simply putting your head in the sand and not see what is going on in the rest of the world. Syria's image in the world is very good. We have very good
international relations and have never had problems with South America, East Asia, Africa.
But our relationship with the West has been troubled. It has become a bit better but not much better....
Bild: Mr. President, let's talk about a country between east and west - Turkey.
From our European perspective, we have the impression that Turkey is moving from the west,
NATO and the United States and towards the Islamic world. Would you agree?
President Assad: "I rather see the West as moving away from Turkey. However I believe that
the role that Turkey has been playing in the region for the last three years is vital.
It has created a degree of balance in this turbulent region. Especially after the events of September 11, after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, one could not possibly wish for bad relations between Turkey and Syria, and between Turkey and Iran. One wouldn't even want to think of the impact that that would have."
Bild: Should Turkey be allowed to join the EU?
President Assad: "You should literally beg Turkey to join the EU, because the EU needs a
Muslim country as a member, so that the EU is not merely a Christian club.
They talk always about openness, about the dialogue between different cultures.
How can you lead a dialogue, if you isolate yourself and limit yourself to one culture
and social order...."
Bild: It's pretty obvious that since September 11 there has been infinitely more distrust
between the West and the Islamic world. What do you think is the biggest misunderstanding between the West and the Islamic world? Is there something we do not understand that we need to learn?
President Assad: "This is precisely the problem: when we talk about "the West"
and "Islam". This is wrong, because this already constitutes the basic misinformation,
the misunderstanding. it meant that on one hand there is "the" West and its Christianity and Islam exists only in the East. But in my country we have Christians and Jews and then a majority of Muslims. We live here together. As Christians, you have to learn from Christians in the Middle East, because they have been living together for over 1400 years with the Muslims. Yes, you need to learn more about this religion. Otherwise you will forever have problems integrating Muslims into your society."
Bild: In Germany, people have been shocked by a case in Iran in which a woman was sentenced
to death by stoning because she is said to have cheated on her husband. This may not be the
image you want for the Islamic world.
President Assad: "We could also ask a different question: to kill half a million people in
Iraq - is this the image that the West wants for itself? I could ask the same question about Afghanistan. That is another way to look at the situation. Just because you do not agree with one thing that still doesn't represent a whole country or an entire culture. In Syria, there may be things that you do not agree with, but surely those do not form a complete picture of my country. You can not say that you care about one woman, while you miss a half a million people in Iraq."
Bild: Could you explain to us why the overwhelming majority of all victims of suicide attacks
are themselves Muslims? Muslims kill Muslims - many people in the West have trouble understanding that.
President Assad: "Again - let us talk about the realities. There are two opposing sides here.
One side has missiles and aircraft, which throw bombs. The other side has none of that,
but will fight anyway, so this fighter can only use his body. That is the reason why people blow themselves up. To some of them Islamist ideology doesn't even matter. There was a suicide bomber, three years ago, a girl from a secular family. She was not Islamist. She acted solely out of desperation. If we want to stop suicide bombings, we must put an end to this despair. And despair is completed, by giving people their rights or give them at least hope
that one day they will come to their right. That is the solution."..."
Monday, December 20, 2010
More Patriarch Sfeir innuendos ...
Often we say that 'we have had it' with Lebanese men of the cloth, but lately, we have not been saying it often enough, loud enough and perhaps with clenched fists. Our lot are a corrupt, lying-conniving bunch, ... and most are just a grade below criminals.
On today's menu, Sfeir's 'love-peace and unity' sermons are nothing but calls to sedition and sectarian strife. May Hell, in all its glory, save a special place for Sfeir and all of Lebanon's Muftis!
On today's menu, Sfeir's 'love-peace and unity' sermons are nothing but calls to sedition and sectarian strife. May Hell, in all its glory, save a special place for Sfeir and all of Lebanon's Muftis!
"...Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir has noted that "the way Hizbullah is acting gives the impression that if they pressed on with their plan, they might seize power (and he was quick to add) ...We hope no Lebanese were involved (in the Hariri murder), but if those involved are Lebanese, every criminal must face punishment."
"Every time we take a stance, some think it is against them, although we're not against anyone, we're only voicing our viewpoint regarding the current events," the patriarch said, noting that "Bkirki's gates are open to everyone." ..."
Wikileaks [37]: (repeat of Al Akhbar leak) Meir Dagan: "With Siniora, Israel is about to achieve something in Lebabon..."
-----------------------------
LEBANON: DAGAN URGES CAUTION
-----------------------------
¶17. (S) Dagan urged caution with respect to Lebanon, noting
that the results of efforts there to bolster the Siniora
government would impact Syria and Iraq. The U.S. and Israel,
he said, are on the edge of achieving something in Lebanon,
and so cannot afford to drop their guard. What is necessary
is finding the right way to support PM Siniora. "He is a
courageous man," Dagan said. Syria, Iran and Hizballah are
working hard against him. Dagan noted that much of what is
animating the leadership of Lebanon to take on Syria is
personal: "Hariri, Jumblat and others had their parents
executed by the Syrians." This anti-Syrian sentiment has
forged an alliance based on personal and national interests.
Siniora has worked well with the situation, but Dagan
suggested that the odds are against him. Under Secretary
Burns replied that the U.S. is trying to give PM Siniora as
much support as possible, and that we would continue to
consult closely with Israel on Lebanon. He noted that he
would return to Israel in October..."
Wikileaks [36]: "..Israel believes that LAF/Hezbollah cooperation is a matter of national policy .."
S E C R E T TEL AVIV 002482
SUBJECT: ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE VERSHBOW MEETS WITH
SENIOR ISRAELI DEFENSE OFFICIALS
, Assistant Secretary of
Defense (ASD) for International Security Affairs, Ambassador
Alexander Vershbow, met with a number of senior Israeli
defense officials in Israel including: Ministry of Defense
(MOD) Director General (DG) Pinchas Buchris; Head of MOD
Political Military Bureau Amos Gilad; Assistant Chief of
Defense Major General (MG) Benny Gantz; and Head of MOD
Intelligence Analysis Production Brigadier General Yossi
Baidatz....ASD Vershbow's trip to Israel came as a number of
high-level Israeli and American officials were meeting on key
issues. On October 31, Secretary of State Clinton arrived in
Jerusalem for talks on the peace process with Prime Minister
Netanyahu, Defense Minister Barak, and Foreign Minster
Lieberman. In addition, EUCOM Commander Admiral Stavridis
arrived in Israel on November 1 to observe the Juniper
Cobra-10 ballistic missile defense exercise. The ASD's visit
also came in the wake of recent high-level discussions on
Israel's QME in Washington, and the October 21 meeting of the
Joint Politico-Military Group in Tel Aviv.....
¶16. (S) Israeli officials remain pleased with the "quiet"
nature of its northern border -- something they attribute to
the deterrent effect Israel has built up following OPERATION
CAST LEAD and the 2006 war in Lebano. However, according to
Israeli officials, it i a foregone conclusion that strong
cooperation eists between the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF)
and ezbollah. The level of cooperation far exceeds wht
many assume is simply the day-to-day problem of corruption
within the ranks. On the contrary, Israel believes that
LAF/Hezbollah cooperation is a matter of national policy.
Amos Gilad attributed this dynamic to elements of
nationalism, stating that Lebanese government and military
officials choose not to confront Hezbollah out of patriotic
zeal. Moreover, according to Gilad, any information shared
with the United Nations Interim Force-Lebanon (UNIFIL) goes
directly to Hezbollah by way of the LAF.
¶17. (S) Israeli officials have major concerns over
developments within Hezbollah -- specifically, its
relationship with Syria and Iran. General Baidatz spoke of
this relationship and drew attention to the existing supply
of Fateh-110 long-range missile that Iran sent to Syria.
Israeli officials believe these missiles are destined for
Hezbollah. According to Baidatz and others, if the delivery
were to occur, this would significantly alter Israel's
calculus. Under such a scenario, the looming question for
Israeli policymakers then becomes: "to strike or not to
strike."
¶18. (S) General Baidatz offered an Israeli intelligence
assessment that if Syria were able to achieve peace with
security and obtain greater U.S. involvement, it may pull
away from Iran's orbit. He explained that President Assad
used his "negative assets," namely Hezbollah and HAMAS, to
make himself relevant and that ultimately Assad wants it all:
the Golan Heights; peace with Israel; better relations with
the U.S.; a strong relationship with Iran; and a continued
relationship with Hezbollah. Ultimately, Gen Baidatz
asserted that if Assad had to choose one thing, it would
likely be peace with Israel. ASD Vershbow asked if Hezbollah
could be sustained without Syrian support. Baidatz
acknowledged the difficulty in answering this question, but
stated his belief that it would be a gradual process before
Hezbollah could completely wean itself from the Syrian
support apparatus and that, ultimately, both Hezbollah's and
Iran's flexibility would be significantly reduced..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)