UAE not to deport man accused of misleading the Hariri UN probe ...

AFP/ here

"The UAE will not extradite a former Syrian spy accused of misleading a UN probe into the murder of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri, Gulf News reported on Friday, citing an official source. There is no case for extraditing Mohammed Zuheir al-Siddiq as he is not wanted by the court in Syria, the source said. Siddiq was initially seen as a leading witness in the UN probe but was discredited later for giving false testimony..."

"Unprecedentally helpful" Israel OKs more settlments expansions!

Haaretz, here

"Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday ordered the IDF to issue a temporary freeze order, but at the same time allowed the construction of 28 new public buildings in settlements.

Meanwhile, Haaretz has learned that the state is expected to ask the Supreme Court for more time to evacuate illegal outposts....[and] intends to ask the court for more time in order to prepare a suitable policy for razing the illegal outposts, in view of the developments related to the freeze in settlement construction.

For its part, efforts were underway Thursday to maximize the impact of the freeze on the international arena. .......... displeased by the fact that the freeze was not absolute - in other words does not include East Jerusalem...."

Al Qaeda thanks Lebanese 'facilitators' & threatens Hezbollah, the LAF & the UNIFIL ...

مّا جاء في نصّها: «تكالب الباغون على مختلف مشاربهم ومعتقداتهم لصدّ المجاهدين (...) لمنعهم من تحقيق غايتهم، وهي قتال اليهود (...) ونرى من جهة زعيم الرافضة بجنوب لبنان حسن نصر الله بقواته المجوسية الباغية يمضي يداً بيد مع قوات الحثالة، هذا الـ(...) جان قهوجي. الأدهى والأمرّ أنهما يلهثان لتنفيذ أوامر قوات الصليبيين الدولية اليونيفيل لحماية اليهود».

وتضيف الرسالة: «ونحن إذ نشكر كل من تعاون وسهّل تنفيذ عمليتنا الأخيرة بغضّ النظر عن نتائجها، فإننا نحذّر كل من يقف في طريقنا لمنعنا من المضي قدماً بالجهاد. نتعهد أن نذيق العدو لظى نيراننا ليحترق بها. ولن نوفر نيراننا بالمقابل ضد أولئك الذين يقفون حائلاً في طريقنا. لن نتحمل بقاء اليونيفيل على أراضينا لحماية ظهر العدو. عليهم الرحيل فوراً وسيكون لنا حساب عسير معهم ومع الخوارج والصعاليك والصليبيين. سنثبت أقوالنا عملاً مدوياً بالقريب العاجل إن شاء الله».

وبغض النظر عن رأي بعض الأجهزة في أنّ تنظيم القاعدة نفسه يتلاشى وأن ما بقي منه هو مجرد لافتة تعمل من خلفها تقاطعات أمنية دولية وإقليمية، إلا أن التهديد المرسل لا يزال يحمل الكثير من الجدية، ويمكن تأكيد أن المرسل للرسالة عمل بتقنية عالية، سواء أكان في لبنان، أم في إحدى عواصم أوروبا الشرقية كما تشير بيانات الإرسال المضمرة، وأن الرسالة هي عبارة عن إعادة تحويل لرسالة أصلية، وما أفادت به الرسالة من تهديد هو ما يجب أن يخشاه حالياً حزب الله، الذي قد يكون وقوات اليونيفيل، في موقع ما على الحدود، هدفاً لعملية للتنظيم القاعدي في لبنان.

لكن إذا أرادت القاعدة تهديد الجيش اللبناني، فلماذا تراسل فرع المعلومات؟

OxFan: "... Momentum from events & assumptions of the Bush era, will continue to restrict the Obama's choices ..."

[OXFAN: Excerpts:]

"... Strategic summary

• The administration has no 'grand theory' of how the Middle East works, unlike its predecessor. (I wonder what that previous 'theory' included)
• US policy in 2009 has often been hostage to events, such as the outcome of Israeli and Iranian elections, and Palestinian infighting.
• Washington will continue to offer Tehran an opportunity for a more positive relationship, but will also push for tighter sanctions.
• The administration will push hard to maintain its Iraq troop withdrawal timetable, but it could slip.
• The core of the immediate problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is political, rather than diplomatic.....

The war in Iraq and the push for democratisation in the Arab world (both of which were precipitated by the September 11, 2001 attacks) intimately tied the Bush administration's foreign policy legacy to the Middle East. In its later years, there was never any question where the administration's priorities lay. The Obama administration has not sought to link judgment of its political and policy success to the Middle East -- at least not to the same degree -- but will find itself tied to the region in this respect in 2010.

Policy preoccupations. Most frustrating for the White House is that dramatic regional policy reversals have not led to dramatically improved results, in terms of achieving US objectives:

1. Israel-Palestinians. Obama sought to signal early that the Bush approach of polite disengagement, combined with being tough on Palestinians and understanding toward Israelis, was over. In his first week in office, Obama called the major leaders in the region, pledged his involvement, and named former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell as his special envoy. However, Israeli elections in February, followed by month-long negotiations over forming a government, stalled the new White House initiative:

• Advantage Netanyahu. As 2009 closes, the Israeli government believes it has got the better of Obama. Determined not to make any significant agreements with a weak and splintered Palestinian National Authority (PNA) , Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has won broad public approval in Israel, while Obama's standing in the country has plummeted. Regardless of whether PNA President Mahmoud Abbas makes good on his threat to resign, Hamas appears entrenched in Gaza and Palestinian politics are melting down.
• Potential US initiatives. Obama has no good options in 2010. He could opt to become even more personally engaged, but this would be high risk given current political conditions. Another route would involve floating a US-backed proposal, forcing each side to react to it. Such a strategy has been mooted since the summer, but has not been executed. A third option would quietly de-emphasise the issue on the president's agenda, leaving negotiations to lower-level officials. In 2010, greater personal involvement seems unlikely, but abandoning the issue is unthinkable given Obama's keen desire to connect with Muslim audiences.
• Politics before diplomacy. Whatever the president does, his policy may need to focus on a pre-eminent truth: the core of the immediate problem is political, rather than diplomatic. There is no conceivable deal right now that either side could gain public support for signing up to, and neither leader is inclined to conclude an agreement with his opposite number. Altering these conditions, rather than constructing an 'ideal' agreement that meets the needs of each side, may need to be the first priority.

2. Iraq. Whereas Bush seemed to think about Iraq constantly, the issue appears to figure little on the agendas of most of the Obama administration's senior national security officials. With great uncertainty surrounding the elections scheduled for January, it is possible that a collapse in conditions in Iraq would prompt the United States to slow its troop withdrawal timetable. Yet, it seems unthinkable that the US military would contemplate a long-term presence in Iraq, and US goals for the country have been dramatically scaled back from the enthusiasms of the Bush era.

Many US government officials currently working on Iraq foresee a future not much different from the present, with a weak Shia-led government that incorporates some Sunnis but is wary of them, a Kurdish region that is ambivalent about its role in the future of the country, and outside powers supporting proxies there in an effort to advance their own interests. The oil industry is likely to expand, but such expansion will be hampered by sustained political uncertainty.

3. Iranian imponderables. The administration has made good on its pledge to engage the Iranian leadership. Working closely with the IAEA and European partners, it has sought actively to strike agreements with Iran on nuclear issues, most notably on the proposal to reprocess Iranian low-enriched uranium. However, the shift in US strategy has not been met with a shift in Iranian strategy:

• Limited leverage. Given the political unrest visible in Iran since the June 2009 elections, and the relatively poor insight that most foreign governments (including the United States) have into the inner workings of the regime, it is difficult for Washington and its allies to devise strategies to change Iranian behaviour.
• Medium-term approach. The most likely route forward is a new round of sanctions targeting the financial sector, a series of informal inter-governmental agreements that quietly make things harder for Iran, and a continued effort by the US government to provide the Iranians with the opportunity for a more positive relationship.
• Chinese interests. As 2010 mid-term elections draw closer in the United States, Congress is likely to pass additional sanctions legislation intended to block investment in the Iranian energy sector. Given increased Chinese interest in that sector, and the importance of China to any multilateral sanctions regime, the administration will find itself walking a difficult line.

Coordination problems. Unlike its predecessors, the Obama administration has no grand theory of how the Middle East works, but this has made prioritising among its various challenges more difficult. In addition, lines of authority seem muddled:

• With Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke as special envoys for the Arab-Israeli conflict and Afghanistan-Pakistan, respectively, and Dennis Ross as a special assistant to the president for an ill-defined 'Central Region', it is sometimes unclear who is reporting to whom.
• National Security Advisor James Jones has not identified a clear concept of the country's Middle East strategy, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to be seeking to make her imprint in the more promising environs of Asia.
• Secretary of Defense Robert Gates seems preoccupied with broad issues such as force structure and procurement reform, and dealing with immediate crises in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the military leadership is still adjusting to greater fiscal constraints.

.... The Bush-era US approach to the region has clearly ended, as the Obama administration has departed significantly from many of its policy approaches and assumptions -- but this has not yet produced better results from Washington's perspective. Momentum from events unleashed under Bush will continue to restrict the Obama administration's choices, and its possibilities, in 2010. "

"Assad has inherited a regime that is coup-proof domestically & enjoys on-and-off support externally ..."

[OXFAN: Excerpts]

".... Despite sustained efforts by the US administration under former President George W Bush to effect regime change in Damascus, and the emergence of a domestic civil rights movement, President Bashar al-Assad has survived the vicissitudes of Middle East politics and international pressures for democratisation. While Syria has implemented economic reforms and the restructuring of the once-socialist economy towards a market economy, this has not been followed by political liberalisation.

Assad owes his survival to the political system that his father, former President Hafez al-Assad, designed....
Regime control. That Assad succeeded his father is in itself evidence that Syria has become a republican monarchy. Like his father, he enjoys the support of a small power elite with a vested interest in preserving the existing distribution of power ...

Centralised power. The Syrian system concentrates power in the hands of the president.....

Political legitimacy. The legitimacy of the regime is derived from its endorsement by the Ba'ath Party, and from presidential elections that are supposed to express the will of the people. Assad is now in his second seven-year term.

The legacy of Syria as champion of Arab rights and challenger to Western intrusion also gives the regime strength at home and abroad. Given Syria's deeply held pan-Arab values and disposition, the regime very ably markets itself as the bastion of Arab nationalism. The indirect confrontation with Israel enables the regime to justify its excesses (under martial law) and most ills -- shortages, shortfalls, and failures -- by the need to focus efforts on confronting the "Zionist enemy"......

External support. Until the advent of the Bush administration, the first Assad regime enjoyed, for the most part, the support of Western powers for Syria's role in combating the Muslim Brotherhood, taming the Palestinians in Lebanon, and maintaining stability along the Syrian-Israeli ceasefire line.

Although US-Syrian relations plummeted during the second Assad regime as a result of Syria's opposition to the US war in Iraq, bilateral US-Syrian relations have improved since US President Barack Obama began a policy of engagement:

• .... US ambassador to Syria,
• Western governments still provide support to combat political Islam (through intelligence-sharing and, in some cases, rendition) and other threats, including illegal immigration.
• The Association Agreement that the EU and Syria are set to sign is a good example.....

CONCLUSION: Assad has inherited a power system in which the regime is coup-proof domestically and enjoys on-and-off support externally. In this case, no global trends and pressures for liberalisation are powerful enough to upset the status quo. Barring any unforeseen events, such as an assassination or a malignant illness, Assad can rest assured that he will survive his second and even a third seven-year term."

The Secret Details of Obama's Afghan Plan

L Gelb, a 'friend' of VP Biden, in the Daily Beast, here

"..... President Barack Obama’s long-awaited Tuesday speech on Afghanistan offers lots more troops to the military and some promising rhetoric for war skeptics. He will authorize between 30,000 and 36,000 new U.S. troops, depending on prospective NATO contributions, and an additional 10,000 more in a year if necessary, according to administration sources. Obama will stress that these and other moves to strengthen the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda should be seen as a boost to friendly Afghans and not as an open-ended American commitment. The boost will provide the time and the incentives for America’s Afghan allies to prepare themselves to assume primary responsibility for continuing the battle....

I would have preferred no more than about 15,000 troops, mainly trainers, a two- to three-year plan (not a fixed timetable) for Kabul to take the combat lead, and much more toughness toward our two-faced Pakistani “allies.” And the administration sources stress that the precise details and rhetoric of Obama’s plan won’t be set until the president gives his speech Tuesday night at West Point. But based on what they’ve told me, I believe that the Obama approach is reasonable, and about the most that can be expected, given the powerful conflicting pressures. The plan deserves the support of the American people......

...... there are two additional elements to the strategy. U.S. forces will expedite the long-neglected training of Afghan military and police forces. And the new 30,000-plus surge of U.S. troops will be used to beat up on the Taliban..."

(Continue, here)

Happy Adha & Thanksgiving you all...

Outsourcing the holidays! Seattle Times/ here

"So-called "third country nationals," or TCNs, right, serve Thanksgiving dessert at a U.S. military base in Tikrit. For some of the workers, this is the fifth year they've celebrated Thanksgiving with American soldiers in Iraq" (AP/ Seattle/times)

US confirms Saudi role in talks with Taliban

Dawn, here

" ... Separately, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that the United States is open to the prospect of Afghan government’s talks with elements of the Taliban, but she advised Kabul officials to proceed cautiously....

‘I have talked to the Saudis. I’ve been to Riyadh. I talked to King Abdullah about it myself. We would be supportive of anything that the kingdom chose to do in this regard,’ he added, while explaining how the United States viewed the Saudi-sponsored talks.... Meanwhile, Saudi newspaper Al Watan reported on Tuesday that the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Gen Karl Eikenberry, held talks with the former Taliban Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mulla Mutawakil, in Kabul....

The US ambassador offered to recognise the Taliban rule in several provinces, including Kandahar, Helmand, Arzakan, Kunar, and Nuristan.... Mulla Mutawakil is now expected to convey the US initiative to Taliban leader Mulla Omar..."

Lebanon: "Hezbollah has a right to use its weapons against Israel ..."

AFP/ here

"Lebanon's new cabinet has agreed on a policy statement that acknowledges Hezbollah's right to use its weapons against Israel, despite disagreement by some members of the ruling majority.... the new statement will retain the same clause approved by the previous cabinet as concerns the arsenal of Hezbollah... The clause states the right of "Lebanon, its government, its people, its army and its resistance" to liberate all Lebanese territory....

..... reservations concerning the clause by members of the Western-backed majority would be noted in the government programme..."

Israel proposes 'secret meeting' between Erdogan & Netanyahu, hoping for thaw

In Zaman, here

"A senior Israeli government official has proposed a secret meeting between the Turkish and Israeli prime ministers as part of a major drive to revive ailing relations between the two countries and get business back on track.... Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told a group of reporters on Tuesday that a breakthrough is needed in what he called the sometimes cloudy relations between the two countries. “If we are able to arrange a meeting between both prime ministers alone, without any interference, let them sit and discuss it, you will see that white smoke will come out very quickly,” he said, signaling that an understanding would be rapidly reached.

Ben-Eliezer, a well-known figure in Ankara and a veteran politician in Israel, described both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as “young and very emotional” leaders. He said a summit between the presidents of both countries may proceed on the success of the prime ministers’ meeting. “A breakthrough is must. We want people on the leadership level to come and visit Israel because time is not in our favor, nor is it in the Palestinians’ or the Middle East’s [favor],”...

“Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu would not want be seen shaking hands with his ultra-right wing Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, at this juncture out of concern that this may signal Ankara’s implicit approval of the Israeli government’s policy in Gaza and on the settlements issue,” the same source said, asking not to be named...."

Dana "IDIOT" Perino: "we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term"

I believe this IS President Bush!

Need we comment? Need we link to anything?

Out of Afghanistan by 2017 ... because "it's very, very, very expensive" ...

Reuters/ here

" ... It appears highly unlikely Obama will offer a specific troop withdrawal timetable, but White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president would stress that the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan was not open-ended. "We are in year nine of our efforts in Afghanistan. We are not going to be there another eight or nine years," Gibbs told reporters. "Our time there will be limited and that is important for people to understand," he said.

He said Obama would use his prime-time televised speech to stress the "sheer cost" of the war, .... "The American people are going to want to know why we are here, they are going to want to know what our interests are," Gibbs said.....

Gibbs said Obama would meet with key lawmakers to brief them about his plan ahead of his Tuesday speech. Key committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate will hold back-to-back hearings next Wednesday and Thursday with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen.

Gibbs said the financial cost of the conflict -- which reached $6.7 billion in June alone -- and the physical toll it had taken on the U.S. military made the war unsustainable in the long term. "It is very, very, very expensive," Gibbs said..."

ElBaradei: Intelligence pointing to nuclear arms research by Iran "not genuine"....

Reuters, here

"... ElBaradei also told Reuters on Wednesday that U.N. inspectors had no proof of more covert nuclear sites in Iran but a newly revealed enrichment site made little sense for civilian or military ends and mistrust in Tehran's behavior had grown.....

He said recourse to harsher sanctions against Iran, hinted at last week by Western powers angered by the fuel deal holdup, was likely to be counterproductive. U.N. resolutions against Iran were largely "expressions of frustration," he added......

"They are ready to put material under IAEA control on an (Iranian) island in the Persian Gulf. But the whole idea as I explained to them, to defuse this crisis, is to take the material out of Iran," said ElBaradei. "I do not think (Iran's counter-proposal) will work as far as the West is concerned, he said.....

ElBaradei welcomed U.S. President Barack Obama's readiness to wait until the end of the year for Iran to give ground before considering further sanctions, but Tehran should not waste time..."Unless Obama sees a (workable) response from Iran, he will not be able to sustain his initiative (for nuclear detente with Iran) ... But I'm not throwing in the towel."......

"But people should stop threatening the use of force because that simply ... creates a justification or pretext for countries to say well, we have to go underground because we are being threatened," ElBaradei said, alluding to Israeli and U.S. hawks.....

ElBaradei also denied reports, based on leaks of classified IAEA analyses, saying the agency had concluded Iran had developed technology needed to assemble a nuclear warhead. He said intelligence material pointing to nuclear arms research by Iran used by IAEA analysts was serious but had not been verified as genuine. Iran says the intelligence was forged."

"... Iran should be careful not to sell its independent nuclear fuel cycle, for a low price..."

The Leveretts, in full agreement with the author of the below Op-Ed believe that " acceptance of the Baradei proposal as originally advanced would put Iran on a “slippery slope” to zero enrichment in nuclear negotiations with the P-5+1...." In the Iran Review, via the RFI, here

"Explaining about a draft agreement on nuclear fuel for Tehran research reactor, the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Manouchehr Mottaki has noted, “The two sides decided to go through the draft. It has been done in Vienna and Iran will soon declare its viewpoint.” At the same time, some officials have already voiced their opposition to the recent nuclear agreement.

The main point evident in all those opposite remarks is lack of trust. Iran still distrusts the West and maintains that Western countries are trying to deprive it of its right to enrich uranium in the long run. Therefore, Tehran maintains that it should take a multilateral strategic approach to this issue.

In fact, they say, it is part of a US strategy to take all enriched uranium away from Iran and then raise expectations from Tehran in the next phase. It seems that their main concern is those expectations, which may finally bring the enrichment process, which has been a fixed policy of Iran, to a complete halt. This would cost dearly for those politicians who had insisted on enrichment in Iran, especially President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Therefore, if the negotiations fail to reach a clear result, it could be quite disconcerting.

The opposition heard in the Majlis (parliament) is in line with the general anxiety in Iran and the idea that negotiations with the United States are not beneficial to Iran because the United States will use its power to inflict losses on Iran in a step by step manner. Therefore, they are totally suspicious about the role of the United States in its power game with Iran and maintain that Iran would be the weaker side of the game.

In the time of Bush, the game followed totally clear rules. He tried to force other countries through bullying and unilateralism to give in to US policies and this built international consensus against him. Obama, however, has adopted a new strategy according to which he is planning to engage in direct talks with Iran. This does not mean that Washington sympathizes with Iran or pursues special relations with Tehran, but it means that the Americans have found out that negotiations constitute the sole means of convincing Iran to give up its nuclear program and this is done through a step-by-step strategy. Iranian politicians, who are wary of the US role in international interactions, regularly oppose negotiations......

Forecasting Iran’s answer

Although it is difficult under the current circumstances to predict Iran’s response to the agreement, but all signs point to a middle way, which if chosen carefully, could be positive and in line with Iran’s national interests. In fact, if Iran kept part of the enriched uranium in the country and sent the rest to another country, it would pave the way for the continuation of cooperation. Iran should manage its nuclear case. I am not agreed to the recent opposition to the latest nuclear agreement because in any game, both sides try to benefit. If Iran believes in a win-win game, it should take a step and manage the situation. In fact, the trust building measures asked by Western countries should be started in Tehran. On the other hand, Iran is distrustful toward the West and expects Western countries to do something.

Therefore, a middle way can lead to a deal and that deal, under the current circumstances, would be to the benefit of Iran and its national interests. In any case, negotiations between Iran and the United States have reached a critical point and the nuclear case is the sole issue enjoying necessary potential to goad on those negotiations because it gives Iran a bargaining chip which forces the United States to accept to talk to Tehran.

Therefore, Iran should be careful not to sell that bargaining chip, that is, independent nuclear fuel cycle, for a low price. Both sides are taking steps to reach the agreed point. Iran is on the path to positive negotiations and is trying to take a positive step to pave the way for a deal. In the meantime, however, a middle way would be the best option to protect Iran’s national interests."

Clinton praises Netanyahu's 'moratorium'... again

Politico, here

"Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell will brief the press today, as reports say Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to announce a 10-month freeze on new construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The freeze would not apply to Jerusalem.

(UPDATE: Hillary Clinton issued a statement praising the move: "Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict....")

The moratorium is the one that Hillary Clinton caused an uproar over by praising it as "unprecedented" at a Jerusalem news conference last month,....

Whether Mitchell can use it to push Palestinians back to the table remains to be seen. "We will try," one administration official said on condition of anonymity. "They won’t like it today, but we hope to build on it, so to speak."

WINEP worries about Lebanon voting against Iran "crippling sanctions"....

WINEP & David Schenker's Thanksgiving gift, who worries about Lebanon's vote on the Iran "crippling sanctions" and not those of China & Russia ... to the readers of the FLC, here

" ... The UNSC seat was the brainchild of president Michel Suleiman, who used his 2008 UN General Assembly address and his side meetings during the 2009 gathering to press Lebanon's candidacy. The notion of a seat on the council reportedly appealed to Suleiman, who prides himself on returning Lebanon to the "international political arena."

Washington quietly opposed Lebanon's candidacy. Senior administration officials were concerned about potential problems for the bilateral relationship that could arise from Lebanon's voting decisions. While the pro-West March 14 coalition won the June 2009 elections, it was clear -- even prior to the formation of the government in November -- that Hezbollah and its local and international allies Syria and Iran would exert preponderant influence within the new government and the state's foreign policy. Indeed, in the current government as with the previous one, Hezbollah -- via its subsidiary Shiite party, Amal -- controls the foreign ministry.

It's not difficult to envision the kind of problems that will ensue. In the coming year, for example, it is all but assured that a resolution to implement "crippling sanctions" against Iran will come before the Security Council. Given Hezbollah's influence -- and the ever present threat of violence -- the best Washington could hope for during a UNSC vote would be a Lebanese abstention. More likely, under pressure from Syria and Iran, Lebanon might vote against such a resolution.

Worse still, if history is any indication, Lebanon's ambassador to the UN, Nawaf Salam -- who himself is sympathetic to March 14 -- could be ordered to abstain or oppose Security Council resolutions in connection to UNSCRs 1701 and 1559, if not the Hariri tribunal, which Hezbollah and its allies do not support.

An article from the Lebanese opposition daily al-Akhbar published on November 17 hinted that a resurgent Damascus would try to take advantage of Lebanon's seat to promote its own interests in the Security Council. Here's a translation of the short article:

On the sidelines of the summit that brought together the Lebanese President Michel Suleiman and Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus, Assad's political and media advisor Buthaina Shaaban agreed with the delegation accompanying Suleiman to raise the level of coordination between Lebanon and Syria's mission to the United Nation in New York, and that Syria will increase the number of its representatives (at the UN mission) to coincide with the Lebanese increase that came after Lebanon was elected a non-permanent member of the Security Council.

So in addition to flexing its muscle in Beirut, according to al-Akhbar, Damascus is looking to control Lebanon's UN mission more closely.

Given the potential pitfalls, Washington discouraged the government of Lebanon from moving forward, and reportedly even asked Riyadh to forward Saudi Arabia's candidacy instead. Saudi Arabia wouldn't bite, and Lebanon wouldn't back down. So in January, Beirut will take its seat on the UNSC, a position that not only promises to annoy the administration and Congress -- which has to sign off on the significant aid packages to Beirut -- but also to be yet another source of increased tensions at home.

Despite the inherent problems associated with the Lebanese seat, Suleiman, not surprisingly, is exceedingly pleased. Some Lebanese scholars are, too. Carnegie's Paul Salem recently told the Daily Star: "I'm very, very happy about it. ... It boosts Lebanon's presence in the UN and the Security Council ... to push the items on its agenda." While Lebanon's international profile might be raised, it's hard to see how the benefits to Beirut outweigh the downsides."

"The obstetrician was Syria"

BBC/ here

"..... "Officially, I am supposed to tell you that this is a fresh start, a new era; that this government will work towards the national unity. But, believe me, everyone is very depressed," he added.....

After four months of political wrangling over the formation of a national unity government, the two sides finally agreed on the assignment of portfolios two weeks ago. The opposition got the seats and power it wanted.....

The distribution of portfolios seems fair, and all sides have their share of key portfolios, but some of Mr Hariri's supporters have accused him of giving Hezbollah the power he promised to take away from the group........The Sunni prime minister's star rose as dramatically as Syria's influence in Lebanon declined in the wake of his father's death, and he built his entire political career on promising to reduce the power of its allies. And in Lebanon, the man who used to be Syria's number one enemy is said to be preparing for his first trip to Damascus...."

Inside Mazrak refugee camp, Yemen

The UN-administered camp at Mazrak, north-west Yemen, seen on 12 November 2009 is now stretched beyond capacity after a Saudi military offensive against the Huthis starting early November uprooted newly displaced families

['Victorious'] Saudi troops cheer as they ride at the back of an army truck in the southwestern province of Jizan near the border with Yemen

'Evil' bloggers, ... beware!

Tayyar.org, here

"tayyar.org has learned that an American attorney of Lebanese descent, Edward T. Saadi of Youngstown, Ohio, recently won a groundbreaking Internet defamation lawsuit in a federal court in Tampa, Florida.

The case arose in 2007 after an anonymous “blog” appeared on the Internet containing vicious personal attacks against Saadi and numerous other individuals identified in the blog as associates of General Michel Aoun. Saadi filed suit and, using subpoenas issued to various Internet companies, traced the blog to a Lebanese immigrant and former Youngstown resident, Pierre A. Maroun of Tampa, Florida.

On being sued, Maroun posted more websites, using the name “American Lebanese Coordination Council,” which accused Saadi and his father (renowned cardiologist Dr. Elias T. Saadi) of having ties to, and even funding, terrorism. According to tayyar.org sources, Dr. Saadi and Atty. Saadi worked very hard to pass the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, an anti-terrorism law, in the U.S. Congress—which makes Maroun’s statements not only false, but a great irony. Dr. Saadi even testified before the U.S. Congress in favor of that Act, and is the recipient of the National Order of Cedar medal for his work on behalf of Lebanon. It appears that Maroun’s sole basis for his accusations is that Atty. Saadi was one of the four Americans invited by General Aoun to accompany him home from exile in May of 2005.

On October 1, 2009, an eight-member jury unanimously found that all of Maroun’s statements were false, defamatory, and fabricated by Maroun out of “ill will, hostility and an intent to harm” Atty. and Dr. Saadi. The jury returned a verdict of $90,000 with a punitive award of $60,000, which under American law is intended to punish egregious behavior. The verdict is believed to be the first in an Internet defamation case in a Federal Court in the U.S.A...."

To safeguard "Israel's existence", the Pentagon & Lockheed Martin are eager to wrap up an F-35 deal...

Reuters/ here

"... Lockheed Martin Corp, maker of the radar-evading F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, would tie in Israeli-built command, control, communications, computer and intelligence systems for a unique version of the jet for sale to Israel, Jon Schreiber, a senior Pentagon program official, told Reuters Monday. The United States also would integrate bombs that use an Israeli precision guidance kit called Spice along with Python 5 air-to-air missiles made by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., Schreiber said in an interview........

The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin are eager to wrap up an F-35 deal with Israel, which is tentatively planning to buy an initial 25 F-35s in fiscal 2012 with an option for 50 more.

The single-engine aircraft, designed to avoid detection by radar, could play a role in any Israeli effort to knock out what it regards as the threat to its existence posed by Iran's nuclear program....."