WELCOME TO ALCC
WELCOME TO ALCC BLOG, A FREE PLATFORM TO DISCUSS YOUR IDEAS AND TO POST YOUR COMMENTS AND YOUR CONCERNS...ENJOY!!!
As Delivered
Good morning everybody. I am going to deliver a statement on behalf of the U.S. Government.
The United States welcomes the Secretary General’s most recent report on resolution 1559, particularly its candid portrayal of the continuing threat to Lebanese sovereignty and security posed by the presence of Hizballah and other armed militias in Lebanon. We continue to have deep concerns about Hizballah’s destructive and destabilizing influence in the region, as well as the attempts by other foreign players, including Syria and Iran, to undermine Lebanon’s independence and endanger its stability.
We understand that certain actors within and outside Lebanon – including Syria, Hizballah, and Iran – may believe that escalating sectarian tensions will help them assert their own authority over Lebanon. However, these actors serve only to destabilize Lebanon and the region.
Syria, especially, has displayed flagrant disregard for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Lebanese government, as affirmed in resolution 1559. For example, Syria has issued 33 arrest warrants for senior Lebanese officials and foreign nationals, which directly undermines Lebanon’s sovereignty as well as Syria’s stated commitment to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence.
Additionally, Syria continues to provide increasingly sophisticated weapons to Lebanese militias, including Hizballah, despite Resolution 1680, which calls on Syria to undertake measures against the movement of arms into Lebanese territory. The Secretary General’s report again cites no progress in the disbanding or disarmament of militias since the last report. Hizballah remains the most significant and most heavily armed Lebanese militia. It could not have done so if not for Syria’s aid and facilitation of Syrian and Iranian arms, which also violates UN Security Council Resolution 1747. While Hizaballah appears to be attempting to exercise control over parts of Lebanon, Hizballah itself is not accountable to Lebanon’s democratic institutions.
The United States urges all friends and neighbors of Lebanon to play a constructive role in supporting the Lebanese government in good faith. We remain firmly committed to a sovereign, stable, and independent Lebanon, with strong Lebanese institutions. This is the only way to secure the best interests of the Lebanese people and the region as a whole.
###
Daily Press Briefing – October 28, 2010
Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:12:28 -0500
Philip J. Crowley
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 28, 2010
| LEBANON/SYRIA/IRAN | |
| Reinforce strong statement by Ambassador Susan Rice at UN, US welcomes the Secretary General’s most recent report on UNSCR 1559/Continuing threat to Lebanese sovereignty, security posed by presence of Hezbollah, other armed militias in Lebanon/Syria and Iran | |
| US hopes to place an ambassador in Damascus to serve US national interest | |
And finally, just to reinforce the strong statement by Ambassador Susan Rice this morning at the United Nations, as she said, the United States welcomes the Secretary General’s most recent report on UN Security Council Resolution 1559, particularly its candid portrayal of the continuing threat to Lebanese sovereignty and security posed by the presence of Hezbollah and other armed militias inLebanon. We continue to have deep concerns about Hezbollah’s destructive and destabilizing influence in the region, as well as attempts by other foreign players, including Syria and Iran, to undermine Lebanon’s independence and endanger its stability.
QUESTION: With these strong statements today and the other day, it looks like the meetings the Secretary had with the Syrian foreign minister and the visit by his deputy here to Washington didn’t lead to any improvements in relations with Syria. Do you agree on this?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, during the course of the Secretary’s meeting with Foreign Minister Mualem in New York, we spoke about a range of issues, but we were very clear about our expectation that Syria would play a more constructive role in the region. We expressed during that meeting our deep concern for Syrian interference with Lebanon’s sovereignty. We also expressed in that meeting hope that Syria would make progress in its thread of the Middle East peace process.
So we laid out for Syria our hopes for cooperation both regionally and bilaterally, but we did in that meeting, and we do not hesitate to express our concerns publicly and privately about Syria’s ongoing behavior.
QUESTION: Do you see any evidence that they have actually taken that message on board? I mean, I think, just to repeat Samir’s question, if you give them this message, it doesn’t seem like they’re listening if they’re still doing things that you have to complain about as publicly as Ambassador Rice did.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, but it’s one of the reasons why we have offered to engage Syria. We’ve had high-level meetings with Syrian officials. We do still hope to place an ambassador in Damascus so we have the opportunity both to continue to express our concerns, but at the same time, to offer the hope that Syria – we can improve our relationship bilaterally and Syria can play a more constructive role in the region.
QUESTION: So do you think that Syria and Iran are viewed equally as a destabilizing factor in Lebanon?
MR. CROWLEY: That’s – we are concerned about the behavior of both countries in the context of Lebanon. At last, I – obviously, we expressed our concerns about the attack on the staff of the tribunal of Lebanon as well. I mean, we – there’s a choice here for Syria. If it wants to have a better relationship with the United States, then it has to be a more constructive player in the region. And within the context of Lebanon, we remain very concerned about Syria’s activities – not only its ongoing support of Hezbollah, its attempted intimidation of a Lebanese Government, the ongoing provision of arms to Hezbollah in violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty.
So again, we will continue to engage Syria, but obviously, we all – we continue to have sanctions on Syria, and the choice is Syria’s.
QUESTION: But these signs that are coming out of Beirut and Damascus, both indicate that the Syrian president and the Lebanese prime minister have a very good and friendly relationship, that they are getting closer all the time, that there seems to be cooperation. So why this sudden kind of strong sentiment that Samir said?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, see, I’m not sure I would completely share that characterization, but obviously, Lebanon and Syria are neighbors. They have a history together. We would expect leaders of both countries to engage directly, but by the same token, Syria has to respect the sovereignty and security of Lebanon. And its ongoing support of a group like Hezbollah does – it undermines both Lebanon’s independence and Lebanon’s sovereignty. We will continue to support the Government of Lebanon and the people of Lebanon, and we would expect Syria to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty.
QUESTION: And lastly, Hezbollah is perceived as destabilizing or compromising the Lebanese sovereignty because of its relationship to Iran, for instance?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, as we’ve talked about many times, if you define sovereignty, one of the major elements of sovereignty is the monopoly on the use of force. The arms that Syria provides Hezbollah undermines the ability of the Lebanese Government to be the principal protector of the Lebanese people. And clearly, if you go look back in the history over the past few years, it was Syria’s and Iran’s provision of arms to Hezbollah that precipitated a regional conflict just four years ago.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: You’ve laid out the carrots that are offered to the Syrians, i.e., potential of better or improved U.S. relationships if they do these things you want them to do. What’s the consequences if they continue not, not to listen to you?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, there are sanctions against Syria. It still is listed on the terrorism list by the United States, and those have an impact. But if Syria wants the potential – a change in the relation with the United States, a change in opportunities that come with normal relations, then it has to improve its performance. Give you an example: Earlier this summer, technology leaders under the auspices of the State Department had a delegation that visited Damascus, and our message to the leaders (inaudible) Syria is very clear. You want leading technology companies from the United States and other areas of the world to invest in Damascus, then you’ve got to create the appropriate climate to encourage them to do that. You’ve got to have a climate where – change the relationship between the government and the people. So if this is, in fact, the ambition by the Syrian leadership, then it has to change its policies and its practices.
QUESTION: Why – just one last question. You mentioned that the U.S. still wants to send an ambassador to Damascus. I’m wondering why that is the case given that they’re not doing anything else you want them to do. Wouldn’t that be a concrete demonstration of U.S. displeasure about what could happen if they don’t stop what they’re doing, i.e., don’t send the ambassador?
MR. CROWLEY: I understand the question. We don’t send an ambassador to a country as a favor to that country. We send an ambassador to a country to serve the national interest of the United States. So our ambassador there would allow us to improve our ongoing dialogue and the ability to both inform Syria when we think there are clear opportunities, but also inform Syria very clearly where we think we have concerns about Syria’s policies and Syria’s behavior.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/10/150133.htm
Statement by Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman After Meeting with President Suleiman
| MBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEIRUT— LEBANON October 17, 2010 |
||
|
|
||
Media Notice
For Immediate Release
|
||
I have just come from meeting with President Suleiman where we had a very productive conversation about the current situation in Lebanon . I joined Ambassador Connelly to deliver a message from President Obama that reaffirmed the steadfast support of the United States to the development of a sovereign, independent Lebanon , with strong and effective state institutions. The United States is committed to helping Lebanon build strong state institutions through our security and economic assistance programs. A strong, sovereign, and stable Lebanon is in the vital interests of the Lebanese people, the region, the United States and the international community, and we are concerned by any act that would undermine this sovereignty and stability.
President Obama firmly supports the work of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon , as does the rest of the international community. The Tribunal is a non-political, independent organization that was formed by an agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Lebanon in order to end the era of impunity for political assassinations in Lebanon . We believe that the Tribunal should be allowed to complete its work on its own timeline and without outside interference until those responsible for the assassinations of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and others are brought to justice.
U.S. Congressman Charles Boustany to L’Orient Le Jour: For the United States, Lebanon is the most important country from a strategic standpoint.
Congressman Charles Boustany and Dr. Edgard el-Chaar.
As the November 2 U.S. elections approach, Dr. Edgard el-Chaar, who is active in numerous organizations to make Lebanon’s voice heard within the U.S. government, organized a dinner meeting in honor of Congressman Charles Boustany, a Republican of Lebanese origin, who has campaigned to defend the independence and sovereignty of Lebanon. Americans of Lebanese origin have formed a block around this Republican who “firmly believes that Lebanon is the most important country for the United States from a strategic standpoint.” The meeting, which took place in the presence of numerous personalities from the Lebanese diaspora gathered at the Core Club in Manhattan, afforded an opportunity for an exchange of views on U.S. policy in Lebanon and the Middle East.
What are the activities being carried out by this committed cardiologist and surgeon, originally from Deir el-Qamar, on behalf of Lebanon? During an exclusive interview granted to L’Orient Le Jour, Dr. Charles Boustany let it be known that he “strives to closely follow policy in Lebanon.” He recalled the two-day visit he made last November in Beirut, in the company of a delegation of U.S. senators, on the day when the formation of a government of national unity was announced. During that visit, in particular, he met with the President of the Republic, Michel Sleiman, the former Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, the Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, and the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Nabih Berry. He noted that “the atmosphere had become more tense since then, with the change of alliances and the concern surrounding the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, because its formal indictment might lead to a conflict and violence.” Dr. Charles Boustany admits that “he did not follow the issue of the tribunal every single day,” but he is concerned about the rising tension in the wake of the statements made by the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, about the “Israeli involvement in the assassination of Rafic Hariri.” “If the finger is pointed at the Party of God (Hezbollah) in this assassination, this could provoke violence in the streets. I am worried and I hope that there will be restraint,” he emphasized. “Lebanon and the Lebanese people suffered much during the years of the civil war. It is a country with enormous potential because of the commercial and entrepreneurial spirit of its people,” he stressed.
U.S. Military Assistance to Lebanon
“At this time, my greatest concern is that certain members of Congress are attempting to restrict the funds being allocated to the Lebanese army. Limiting these funds would be a mistake, the Congressman declared. This aid is of capital importance both for the development of the Lebanese army and for the protection of the national institutions and sovereignty of Lebanon … U.S. policy, in part, is aimed at strengthening Lebanon’s national institutions. At this time, the most important institution is the Lebanese army,” he insisted. Charles Boustany makes no secret of the fact that there is some resistance regarding this military aid to Lebanon, expressed in particular by two powerful members of Congress, Nita Lowey and Howard L. Berman.
Explaining the reasons for this reticence, Dr. Boustany indicated that Congressman Howard Berman is worried that certain weapons supplied by the United States to the Lebanese army will end up in the hands of Hezbollah.” He specified that he had a “detailed discussion” with Mr. Berman on this question and assured him that, “in accordance with his conversations with the Pentagon and with the members of the U.S. administration, there is accountability on this issue. This was also confirmed by the Minister of Defense, Elias Murr, and by the Prime Minister, Saad Hariri.”
As an optimist, Dr. Boustany is counting “on the time to win his case.” This is because “Howard Berman has clearly understood his point of view, but must take into account the internal pressures of the Jewish lobby. We hope that the Lebanese army will be able to expand its operational capacity,” he stated. However, “other subjects of concern have been raised by Congress, particularly the extent of the influence of Hezbollah over the Lebanese army.” Although some deny this influence, our best chance is to support the army and then the sovereignty of Lebanon will be preserved. If the United States fails and steps back from its commitment, this will open the door, in my opinion, to the influence of Syria and Iran. This would not be in the interest of the United States,” he declared.
The Rapprochement between Syria and Saudi Arabia and the Sovereignty of Lebanon
What about the rapprochement between Syria and Saudi Arabia, with a view toward bringing the Syrians to the bargaining table with Israel? Will Lebanon pay the price for this? Charles Boustany seemed to be “concerned by this rapprochement.” “I think that a country like the United States ought not to sacrifice the sovereignty of Lebanon, its sovereignty or its independence,” he underscored. “I am very worried by any development that would lead to more direct Syrian participation in Lebanese affairs. I believe that any policy that has the aim of attempting to separate Syria from its relations with Iran is probably doomed to failure, because there are historical ties between the two countries. I would like to see rapprochement between Syria and Israel; this will helpful, but not to the detriment of Lebanon,” he emphasized.
Is this feeling shared in the United States? “I am not sure that the U.S. administration will move in that direction. I have had some conversations with some in the State Department,” he said. “I hope that this is not the case. I will fight against it. I will use all my weight to call this into question again.” It would be his wish that the current administration would let him in on its strategy with respect to Lebanon, in a detailed and complete manner, in order to have a better understanding. “I think that the United States needs to do a lot more to strengthen its relationship with Lebanon,” he stressed. Insisting on the need to “continue to reinforce the armed forces,” Dr. Boustany assessed that it is important to “help the Lebanese government to develop its governance institutions, to work on behalf of all Lebanese and to continue to develop our trade relations.” He concluded: “We have a tradition of educational exchanges, which we should broaden. These are starting points for strengthening this relationship because Lebanon, thanks to our historical links, is the best window on the Middle East for the United States. This is also the opportunity for the peoples of the region to better understand how the United States acts and honors its commitments.”
Paul Coussan
Press Secretary
Rep. Charles Boustany, Jr. MD (LA-07)
www.boustany.house.gov
He asked: “In what right do some individuals allow themselves to enter the airport grounds with armed convoys?” “The unacceptable statements and actions on television make us doubt the state’s ability in imposing the law and constitution on all Lebanese,” he added. Furthermore, Gemayel rejected “the state’s lax approach in fully performing its duties, as well as its abandonment of its duties towards martyrs in light of statements issued against the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.” |
| Beirut, 23 Sep 10 |
Kataeb bloc MP Sami Gemayel called for setting criteria to define collaboration following the 1990 end to the Lebanese civil war.
Several March 8 figures – including Hezbollah MP Nawwaf Moussawi – criticized Gemayel, who reportedly said that “he is not ashamed that his party dealt with Israel against Syria at a certain stage.”
“The Lebanese resistance [during the civil war]… had no choice but to use the devil [Israel] in order to defend itself, [because] it was confronting the Syrian and Palestinian armies,” Gemayel said during a press conference on Wednesday.
He added that we were forced to carry weapons provided by “the devil” to protect ourselves. People should be held accountable for their actions after 1990 because during the war everyone was defending their existence, the MP said.
Gemayel also said that he is not ashamed that the Kataeb Party resorted to any means possible to defend itself during the civil war.
However, in response to accusations that the Kataeb Party is a collaborator, he said that anyone who worked with a foreign country or arrested Lebanese nationals and handed them over to Syria is then a collaborator.
Gemayel stated that anyone considering themselves to be soldiers in the Wali al-Faqih’s army—a reference to Iran and its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—are collaborators along with those who work with Israel to harm Lebanon’s interests.
“If you want to open the subject [of collaboration], let [it happen],” Gemayel said, adding, however, that such an issue cannot be discussed through the media but through dialogue.
Meanwhile, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said that the Change and Reform bloc no longer supports the goals spelt out in its name, according to a statement issued on Wednesday by Geagea’s press office.
The bloc is now politically bankrupt, he added. In a fiery speech on Sunday, Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun criticized the government – including ministers Ziad Baroud, Ibrahim Najjar, Tarek Mitri and Elias al-Murr – and President Michel Sleiman, asking if the president has done anything other than weeping.
“I agree with Aoun that if a minister does not [fix a mistake], then he becomes guilty,” Geagea said, adding that the education, interior and justice ministers have all pointed out defects in their ministries.
“Why was no one fired due to the water, electricity and telecommunications failures?” he asked, referring to Energy Minister Gebran Bassil and Telecommunications Minister Charbel Nahhas, who represent Aoun in the cabinet. “[Reform] yourself before criticizing others,” Geagea added.
Lebanon’s biggest threat is that the strategic military and security decisions are not in the government’s hands, the LF leader also said.
Also in the news, Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem said on Wednesday that the issue of witnesses who gave false testimonies to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is not tied to punishing one person but to identify the party behind it.
“We want the heads of the party who directed, supported and created the false witnesses,” Qassem said.
He also said that Hezbollah is waiting for the cabinet’s next step on the issue after Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar submits his report on it.
The cabinet delegated Najjar on August 18 to follow up on the issue of false witnesses who gave fake testimonies to the STL, probing the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
-NOW Lebanon
Aoun: Sunday, I Held Ministers Accountable for Shortcomings, Today I Say they’re Guilty of Avoiding Duties
| Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun stated Tuesday that he did not launch a campaign against President Michel Suleiman last Sunday, instead saying that “those who defended him are the ones who insulted him.” Addressing the criticism against ministers, he said after the FPM’s weekly meeting: “On Sunday, I held the ministers accountable for shortcomings, but today I say they are guilty of avoiding their responsibilities.”“A minister who is aware of a mistake and does not do anything against it becomes guilty,” he added. “I want to know who in the Lebanese state is responsible for controlling media leaks. Why has no one responded to the questions I asked on Sunday?” he asked. “Crying has never been wrong, and we are repeating today what we said on Sunday because we are not ashamed of it. What concerns us is always telling the truth,” the MP stressed. Turning to Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s recent apology to Syria over accusing it of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Aoun said: “We hope the rest of the officials will apologize for the wrongs they committed against us.” Regarding his participation in future national dialogue sessions, the MP stated: “I will announce whether I will participate in the national dialogue or not at the appropriate time.” |
| Beirut, 07 Sep 10 |
| Calm returned to Beirut Wednesday following overnight street battles between Hizbullah and the radical pro-Syrian Sunni group Al-Ahbash which left three people killed and several others wounded. News reports on Wednesday said at least 10 people were injured.An-Nahar newspaper on Wednesday also reported kidnapping.It quoted Ahbash sources as saying that unknown gunmen kidnapped a man from Kalash family and his son from their house in Sawwan building in Borj Abi Haidar where fighting was concentrated. But the Voice of Lebanon radio station on Wednesday said the abducted men were soon released. State-run National News Agency said four people were killed. There was no independent confirmation of the casualties, however. Local media said the fatalities were Mohammed Fawaz, Hizbullah official in the area, his bodyguard Ali Jawad and Ahbash partisan Fawaz Omeirat. Gunmen stood on the corners and peering down alleyways in Borj Abi Haidar while families ran for cover and ambulances rushed to the scene. NNA said fighting renewed shortly after midnight, spreading to the nearby neighborhoods of Basta and Nweiri just blocks from downtown Beirut — normally packed with tourists at this time of year. Al-Ahbash-affiliated Al-Diwan supermarket in Nweiri was set ablaze. Lebanese troops cordoned off the area. And despite a ceasefire agreement reached during a midnight meeting between army officers, Hizbullah security chief Haj Wafiq Safa and an Ahbash official, the crackle of sniper fire and exploding rocket-propelled grenades could be heard well into the night. Soldiers manning armored-personnel carriers were seen Wednesday morning positioned on key road intersections along the main Hamra thoroughfare and Corniche Mazraa in apparent effort to prevent clashes from spilling out to other parts of the city. An army spokesman said a “personal fight” between a supporter of Hizbullah and another of Al-Ahbash erupted just after 7:00 pm Tuesday in Borj Abi Haidar and escalated into a gunbattle. The army opened an investigation into the clashes. Some reports on Wednesday said fighting erupted over a parking space between Fawaz, the Hizbullah official, and supporters Al-Ahbash near a mosque frequented by the Sunni group. The Association of Islamic Charitable Projects, better known as Al-Ahbash, has a history of feuding with Hizbullah. The fighting took place as Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah addressed supporters, calling for increased military assistance for the Lebanese army from Iran and its Arab neighbors. It was the worst clash since May 2008, when Hizbullah gunmen swept through Sunni neighborhoods of Beirut after a government crack down on the group’s telecommunications network. The fighting at the time brought Lebanon to the brink of a new civil war. |
| Beirut, 25 Aug 10 |
Aoun: If They Increase the Pressure on Us, Then We Will Start Revealing of Scandals
| Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun criticized on Tuesday the government’s handling of the energy crisis in the country warning, “If they increase pressure on us, then we will start revealing scandals.” He said after the movement’s weekly meeting that Lebanon’s energy crisis started in 1992, noting: “I am not the one who bought four gas power plants, while Lebanon does not produce gas.”Furthermore, he pointed out that a misunderstanding took place over the campaign against the electricity, adding that the Hizbullah delegation’s visit to Energy Minister Jebran Bassil on Monday clarified this matter. Addressing the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Aoun stated: “We feel as if the judiciary or the government want to cover up the issue of the false witnesses. What’s wrong with starting an investigation that will determine their innocence?” “We hope the matter of false witnesses may be resolved quickly. It’s not the Justice Minister’s job to handle it because a lawsuit has been filed against them,” the MP continued. Regarding the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, he said: “In light of the conditions imposed on the negotiations, the Palestinian state will be more of a reserve rather than a country.” “There are attempts to halt the Palestinians’ right to return to their homeland,” he noted. “We reject any decision regarding Palestinian refugees except that of the right of return. I demand the government to clarify its position on this issue,” Aoun said. |
| Beirut, 24 Aug 10 |
US to Use All Options to Stop Nuclear Iran, Israel in Favor of Strikes to Weaken Hizbullah, Hamas
|
Pentagon and U.S. government officials have uncovered an understanding between Washington and Tel Aviv that commits Israel not to undertake any unilateral military action against Iran in return for a U.S. pledge to abandon the policy of accepting a nuclear Iran and deal with Tehran as a nuclear military power, pan-Arab Al-Hayat newspaper said in a report published Tuesday. It quoted a senior Pentagon official as saying that Washington “finds it very difficult to live with a regime such as that in Iran, equipped with the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.”The official’s remarks came during a closed-door security conference recently held in Washington. It was attended by military officials as well as U.S. and world experts. This reflects a radical change in the course of U.S. policy which has shown willingness to accept a nuclear Iran as part of a deal to prevent Tehran from using its nuclear capability to threaten or blackmail the West or its neighbors, wrote Riad Qahwaji, a researcher on strategic affairs. He said Israel had adamantly opposed this policy and stressed that Iran must not have any capacity to enrich or produce uranium “so as not to have the ability to transform its nuclear program for military purposes whenever it wants.” Therefore, the report said, Washington’s and the West’s fundamental conditions today to negotiate with Iran focus on stripping Tehran of the ability to produce or enrich uranium, a move strongly rejected by Iran. In the corridors of Washington and other European capitals and Israel, war scenarios are being discussed “as if war is inevitable,” Qahwaji noted, “despite opposition by quite a few military officials and politicians in the U.S. and the West due to the uncertainties of war, which could be catastrophic for the region and U.S. interests.” Despite disagreement on several points in the scenarios of war, the report goes on to say, many experts and officials still agree on other points, including the idea of provoking war by attempting to inspect a ship in the Gulf waters or provoke Hizbullah into a gunbattle in Lebanon. The main point of disagreement between U.S. and Israeli officials and experts in the scenarios of war relates to how to deal with Iran’s allies — namely Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. While Israeli leaders are in favor of preemptive strikes to weaken Hizbullah and Hamas and perhaps Syria before attacking Iran, U.S. officials and experts prefer crushing the top of the pyramid – Iran — and deal a heavy military blow to the Persian Gulf nation in the hope of shaking its ability to move and to sow fear among its allies who will recognize the fact that war is real and that the future of their presence is at stake if they choose to support Tehran. Many U.S. officials believe that the current policy of openness toward Syria will bear fruit through weakening the strategic alliance with Iran. Israel, however, considers such a policy is doomed to fail and continues to prepare for a possible future confrontation in the Golan Heights, the report said.. The rapid pace for arms program reflects fear in Arab Gulf states that an imminent war is on the doors, it concluded. |
| Beirut, 24 Aug 10 |
