Thomas E. Donilon, "Hezbollah Unmasked": Why Did Obama Nominate Hagel to Be Secretary of Defense?

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hezbollah Unmasked" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/opinion/hezbollah-unmasked.html?_r=0), Thomas E. Donilon, national security adviser to President Obama, writes:

"ON FEB. 5, after more than six months of investigations, the Bulgarian government announced that it believed Hezbollah was responsible for the attack last July that killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver and injured dozens more in the resort town of Burgas. This report is significant because a European Union member state, Bulgaria, explicitly pointed a finger at Hezbollah and lifted the veil on the group’s continued terrorist activities. Europe can no longer ignore the threat that this group poses to the Continent and to the world.

. . . .

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the group conducted kidnappings and airplane hijackings, two bombings in Buenos Aires, several in Paris and an attempted bombing in Bangkok. In 1996 it assisted in the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 Americans. Thanks to this bloody record, in 1997 Hezbollah was among the first groups added to the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Over the last decade, Hezbollah has worked assiduously to obscure its terrorist pedigree and convince the world that it is interested only in politics, providing social welfare services, and defending Lebanon. But it is an illusion to speak of Hezbollah as a responsible political actor. Hezbollah remains a terrorist organization and a destabilizing force across the Middle East."

Donilon fails to mention Hezbollah's assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the United States, in 2005.

So why does Obama want Chuck Hagel as his secretary of defense? As known to all, in 2006 Hagel refused to sign a letter from the US Senate calling on the EU to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hagel further declared, "The war against Hezbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battlefield."

As a consequence of Hagel's nomination by Obama, anti-Semitism is being freely voiced by America's "progressive" media. In case you missed it, Bill Maher declared several days ago, "Based on every statement I’ve heard out of any Republican over the past two years, the Israelis are controlling our government." The audience applauded. Democratic National Committee vice chair Donna Brazile didn't even lift an eyebrow.

Most American Jews refused to see this coming when they voted overwhelmingly for Obama's re-election. But then, Obama listened to 20 years of anti-Semitic sermons from the Reverend Wright, and this also didn't trouble them in 2008. As Ed Koch recently explained just before his death (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/07/ed-koch-on-chuck-hagel-nomination-obamas-reneging-on-his-conveyed-support-for-israel-has-come-earlier-than-i-thought/), American Jews "are always very solicitous of everybody else except their own needs and community." Sad.

Thomas Friedman, "Words of the Prophets": The Borat School of Journalism

Thomas Friedman begins his latest New York Times op-ed,"Words of the Prophets" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/friedman-words-of-the-prophets.html), by alluding to the lyrics of a 1964 hit single written by Simon & Garfunkel:

"AS I walk around the streets of Beirut, that verse from 'The Sounds of Silence' keeps rattling around in my head: 'The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls ...'"

Friedman is one of the Middle East "experts" upon whom Obama places his trust (see: http://www.tnr.com/article/tel-aviv-journal/88563/obama-middle-east-zakaria-friedman-israel)? Lord help us. Meaningful understanding of political currents does not derive from waltzing into and out of Beirut, or for that matter, Cairo, and conveying to one's readership a "stream of consciousness" gathered from graffiti, i.e. akin to the would-be style of journalism evidenced by Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat in his travels across the US.

Friedman writes:

"But what to do about Syria’s uprising? Let’s start by putting it in historical context. What is happening in Syria, and across the Arab world today, is the first popular movement since the late 19th and early 20th century that has not been animated by foreign policy or anticolonialism or Israel or Britain."

Wrong. Friedman ignores Lebanon's 2005 Cedar Revolution, which occurred following the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri by Hezbollah at the direction of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and which resulted in the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

Friedman also forgets the 1982 Hama Massacre perpetrated by Syrian President, Hafez al-Assad, Bashar's father, to quell a revolt by Sunni Muslims. The estimated number of civilians who died in this bloodbath ranges from 10,000 to 40,000.

Friedman continues:

"Syrian opposition activists here in Beirut make clear that Assad opened fire on unarmed demonstrators, hoping to provoke a violent backlash. Then he could argue that this was not a peaceful democratic revolt but a sectarian revolt by Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority, aimed at ousting Assad’s ruling Alawite/Shiite minority and its allies. To some degree, it worked: Now we have a democratic struggle intertwined with a sectarian one."

A "democratic struggle intertwined with a sectarian one"? Oh, please! Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in Syria. Syria's Muslim Brotherhood is the spiritual force behind the rebellion of Syria's Sunnis, comprising some 70% of the population, and Western-style democratic values are not part and parcel of the Islamic fundamentalist underpinnings of the Brotherhood's political philosophy. Also, the chaos in Syria was precipitated by unemployment caused by a multi-year drought that has wrecked havoc with Syria's agriculture, combined with the depletion of Syria's oil resources. Again, democracy has nothing to do with this revolt.

Friedman goes on to say that if U.N. envoy Kofi Annan’s plan to place 300 Arab observers inside Syria fails, "then the West, the United Nations and the Arab League need to move swiftly to set up a no-fly zone or humanitarian corridor," and concludes:

"So let’s help in an intelligent, humane way, but with no illusions that this transition will be easy or a happy ending assured."

No mention by Friedman that Assad still has the backing of Syria's Alawite minority, which expects savage revenge from the Sunni Muslim majority, if their leader, Bashar al-Assad, falls, i.e. the Alawites are not going to lay down their arms anytime soon. In addition, Assad has the backing of Russia's Putin, who was promised cooperation by Obama after November as overheard in his open microphone gaffe (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/03/obamas-open-mike-chat-with-medvedev-yes.html). And Assad has the support of Iran's Khamenei, also being appeased by Obama (see, most recently, Obama's readiness to concede to Iranian enrichment of uranium up to 5% : http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20120428,0,353079.story), who is not about to withdraw support for a regime through which his support of Iran's proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, flows.

"So let’s help in an intelligent, humane way"? Sorry, but Obama has chosen to ignore this hot potato, which can only interfere with his reelection bid, particularly given his complicity and ongoing refusal to intervene in this tragedy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-york-times-editorial-assads-lies-no.html).

John Kerry, "Romney’s wrong-headed assertions about Iran": The Friend of the Butcher of Damascus Knows No Shame

In the spring of 2009, the cornerstone of the newly inaugurated president's foreign policy had been to demonstrate that Bush's "Axis of Evil" had been a figment of the Republicans' imagination: With a Coke and a smile and Obama's silver tongue, Iran and Syria, both "misunderstood," could be brought back into the bosom of the civilized world. As part of this gameplan, Obama disgracefully remained silent during Iran's failed Green Revolution. Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had repeated meetings with Syria's President Assad, nothwithstanding Assad's involvement in the 2005 murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West.

As reported by The Wall Street Journal as late as March 2011 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703576204576227131356932482.html):

"A key supporter of Mr. Assad in Washington has been Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The former presidential candidate has held nearly a half-dozen meetings with Mr. Assad in recent years, according to this staff. The two men have sought to map out the terms of a renewed Syrian-Israel peace track.

Even this month, as protests starting gripping Syria, Mr. Kerry said he thought Syria's president was an agent for change.

'President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had,' Mr. Kerry said during a March speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'I think it's incumbent on us to try to move that relationship forward in the same way.'"

Yes, Kerry, who might succeed Hillary as Secretary of State, is dangerously naive.

Today, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Romney’s wrong-headed assertions about Iran" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romneys-wrong-headed-assertions-about-iran/2012/03/07/gIQAcKCvxR_story.html), Kerry, who knows no shame, criticizes Romney for attacking Obama's policy on Iran:

"What exactly does [Romney] think we’ve been doing for the past three years? When Obama took office, Iran was in the ascendancy. Its reach through proxies such as Hezbollah threatened the United States, its allies and the region. The international community was divided; diplomacy was stalled.

But in June 2010, with a decisive push from Obama, the United Nations put in place the most comprehensive sanctions the Iranian government has ever faced — with restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities, banks and financial transactions, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

. . . .

Obama also worked closely with Congress to pass legislation that strengthened existing unilateral sanctions, and he signed an executive order enforcing tough new sanctions on Iran and its central bank."

Excuse me, John, but throughout most of 2009 Obama and you were busy with your charm campaign aimed at Iran and Syria, which allowed Iran to progress with its nuclear weapons development program largely unimpeded. Consider that the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, has just informed a closed-door meeting of the IAEA's governing board that since late last year, Iran has tripled monthly output of higher-grade enriched uranium (see: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=260522).

Obama has worked closely with Congress to pass legislation to strengthen existing sanctions? Yeah, right. In fact, in recent months Obama bitterly opposed the US Senate amendment enabling the president to sanction foreign banks carrying out a "significant financial transaction with the Central Bank of Iran" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/iran-obamas-secret-agenda.html).

Bottom line: Kerry, who made a fool of himself in Damascus, should have long ago resigned as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has no business criticizing Romney on this issue.

Thomas Friedman, "Freedom at 4 Below": Tom's Brain Is Frozen

Thomas Friedman has a vivid imagination.

Writing from Moscow and observing an anti-Putin demonstration, Friedman, in his latest New York Times opus entitled "Freedom at 4 Below" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/friedman-freedom-at-4-below.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), muses on the uprising in distant Syria, which has already claimed some 7,000 lives:

"I have no doubt that many of the Syrians mounting the uprising against the Assad regime — which is dominated by a Shiite offshoot known as the Alawites, who make up about 10 percent of the country — are propelled by a quest for a free and pluralistic Syria. But have no illusions: Some are also Sunni Muslims — who are the majority there — seeing this as their chance to overthrow four decades of Alawite minority rule. Where win-win democratic aspirations stop in Syria and rule-or-die sectarian fears begin is very hard to untangle."

Sojourning in Moscow and inextricably wedded to the nonsensical notion that the so-called "Arab Spring" had its roots in a desire for democracy, I can well understand why Friedman finds it difficult to "untangle" the rationale underlying events in Syria.

Friedman would have us believe, "Many of the Syrians mounting the uprising . . . are propelled by a quest for a free and pluralistic Syria." Yeah, right. Remarkably, Friedman not even once mentions Syria's Muslim Brotherhood, which is the spiritual force behind the rebellion of Syria's Sunnis, comprising some 70% of the population. Western-style democratic values have absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic fundamentalist underpinnings of the Muslim Brotherhood's political philosophy.

Also no mention by Friedman of the multi-year drought in Syria that has wrecked havoc with Syria's agriculture, or its oil resources, which are rapidly being depleted. It never occurred to Friedman that the turmoil in Syria might also be influenced by a failing economy and unemployment.

Whom does Friedman blame for Assad's oppressive rule? Israel, of course:

"While the Assad clan may have been a convenient enforcer at times for Israel and the West, it has also been a huge agent of mayhem — killing Lebanese journalists and politicians who dared to cross Syria, arming Hezbollah, funneling insurgents into Iraq, serving as a launching pad for Iranian mischief, murdering its own people seeking freedom and spurning any real political and economic reform."

Yes, Tom, by providing Hezbollah with Scud missiles, Assad was serving Israel's interests. And when Assad ordered the 2005 murder of pro-West Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, this was also -- as claimed by Hezbollah, which undertook the assassination at Assad's behest -- part of an Israeli plot.

Friedman, completely detached from Middle Eastern reality, would have us believe that Iraq serves as an example of how a multisectarian Arab country can overcome sectarian mistrust:

"Iraq shows how hard it is to do that — the Sunni-Shiite divide still cuts very deep — but Iraq also shows that it is not impossible."

No mention by Friedman of recent bombings in Baghdad that have claimed hundreds of lives. No mention of the fact that in light of the evolving chaos in Iraq, the US has decided to evacuate half of its diplomatic and civilian advisors (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/07/failure-in-iraq/). No mention that following the issuance of a warrant for his arrest, Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi has fled to Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region in the north, from where he recently observed that the stability of Iraq is “really deteriorating” and now "supports a move by three Sunni provinces to seek independence from Baghdad’s central government" (see: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/fugitive-iraq-sunni-v-p-tariq-al-hashimi-criticizes-u-s.html).

Friedman pontificates:

"You can’t have a democracy without citizens, and you can’t have citizens without trust — without trust that everyone will be treated with equality under the law, no matter who is in power, and without trust in a shared vision of what kind of society people are trying to build."

Moreover, after asking whether Syria's "multisectarian population" can "democratically rule itself, or does it crack apart," Friedman would have us "bet on" those in Syria and the rest of the Muslim Middle East who "deeply long to be citizens." Sorry, Tom, but in a region where women are being stoned to death for alleged adultery, homosexuals are being hanged, persons are being beheaded for engaging in "witchcraft," the hands of thieves are severed from their bodies, and anyone abandoning the Muslim faith is sentenced to death, I wouldn't make any such wager.

Barbara Walters Interviews Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: A "Disconnect"

Earlier this month, Barbara Walters of ABC News returned from an interview with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which began with a warm handshake, to a heroine's welcome on a special edition of "Nightline" (http://abcnews.go.com/International/defiant-syrian-president-bashar-al-assad-denies-ordering/story?id=15098612). Observing that "Barbara is the first American television journalist allowed access to the country since a nine-month old revolution began," Bill Weir asked 82-year-old Walters how Assad compares with Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi and Mubarak. Walters's response:

"He is not a grim, strong man the way Mubarak was. He is not a wild crazy person -- at least that's the way Qaddafi seemed to us. He is calm, he is soft spoken, he is articulate, he speaks very good English, there were no ground rules, he answered every question, but there is this disconnect, Bill, between what we hear about this country -- the reports that we have seen -- and what he says, and it's hard to put the two things together."

This is not Walters's first encounter with Assad. In 2008, Walters vacationed in Syria and had a "very long lunch" with Assad and his wife, some three years after Assad ordered the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut. Following her meal, Walters reported back on her impressions of the Assads at that time (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/07/07/barbara-walters-syrian-dicator-charming-intelligent):

"From my experience, he was a very intelligent, a well informed, thoughtful, we spoke perfect English, wants very much to have relations with this country, has some solutions for ending the war in Iraq. She was educated in England, worked in this country, speaks English the way I’m talking to you, lovely, intelligent. I don’t want people to say 'oh you’re brainwashed.' But that was not it. They just were very charming, intelligent. She has a cooperative, a group teaching children to be entrepreneurs with Harvard University, was raised in England, worked in this country. So this is not what we expected in terms of the leaders."

Do Walters's thoughts sound familiar to you? They should. They echo the sentiments of former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, after meeting with Assad in Damascus in 2007, labeled Assad a "model Arab leader" (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html).

Now consider Nicholas Kristof's most recent New York Times op-ed, entitled "Joining a Dinner in a Muslim Brotherhood Home" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/opinion/kristof-joining-a-dinner-in-a-muslim-brotherhood-home.html?hp#comments), in which Kristof describes his chatter over dinner with an educated, 24-year-old hostess, who seeks to allay Western anxiety over the Muslim Brotherhood's goals in Egypt, leading Kristof to conclude:

"So a bit of nervousness is fine, but let’s not overdo the hand-wringing — or lose perspective. What’s historic in Egypt today is not so much the rise of any one party as the apparent slow emergence of democracy in the heart of the Arab world."

On the basis of his dinner banter, Kristof would have his readership ignore the Brotherhood's long history of hostility to Western values, women's rights and religious freedom (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/nicholas-kristof-joining-dinner-in.html).

Meanwhile, in an article published in Asharq al-Awsat yesterday, Mahmoud Hussein, the Brotherhood's secretary-general, suggested that the Brotherhood would annul Egypt's peace treaty with Israel (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/muslim-brotherhood-egypt-israel-peace-treaty-needs-to-be-reviewed-1.400541).

Barbara Walters on "Nightline" is now claiming that there is a "disconnect" between the current ruthlessness in Syria and the manner in which Assad perceives this barbarism. In fact, there is no such disconnect. Assad is a cold-blooded murderer and an accomplished liar. The only "disconnect" is to be found in gullible liberal media personalities, such as Walters and Kristof, and left-leaning politicians, such as Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Jimmy Carter, who, after being wined and dined by well-mannered persons with Western academic degrees and near perfect English in the Muslim Middle East, cannot comprehend how these people are capable of such boundless savagery.

The Disintegration of Obama's Foreign Policy: Iran and Syria

With unemployment over 9% in the US and trillions of dollars wasted on failed stimulus, Americans are naturally focused on jobs as we approach the 2012 presidential election. However, Obama's foreign policy, currently not under scrutiny given US economic travails, has proven even more of a catastrophe.

Obama rode into the Oval Office determined to demonstrate that the countries comprising the Bush administration's "axis of evil" were merely misunderstood and could be won over with tolerance and a kindly outreach program. More specifically, he believed that Israel was the fount of all tensions in the Middle East, and if a peace agreement could be imposed upon a purportedly intransigent Israel, tranquility would prevail throughout the region.

In keeping with this sea change in foreign policy, Obama promptly sent new year's ("Nowruz") greetings to Iran's tyrannical theocratic leadership in March 2009, referring to the "true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization" and making clear that the US did not seek regime change. Moreover, Obama sat on the sidelines as Iran's population rose in revolt and was slaughtered in the streets following the country's fraudulent June 2009 presidential election.

What has this restraint earned Obama? Iran has continued undeterred with its program to manufacture nuclear weapons. This week, we have also learned that Iran sought to murder the Saudi ambassador to the US and bomb the Israeli Embassy in Washington and the Saudi and Israeli Embassies in Argentina.

Regarding Syria, after repeated visits by Senator John Kerry with Assad, Obama appointed a new ambassador, Robert Ford, to Damascus, without Senate confirmation, for the first time since 2005, when Lebanese Prime Minister Rafi Hariri, a friend of the West, was murdered by Hezbollah at the behest of Assad. Obama barely said a word when earlier this year Assad mowed down protesters, but grew uneasy when the number of dead spiraled over 2,000 (now closer to 3,000) and the number of missing also moved into the thousands.

What has this restraint earned Obama? As reported by The Washington Post on October 10 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/syrian-rights-group-clashes-between-soldiers-and-defectors-leave-dozens-dead/2011/10/10/gIQAZPDbZL_story.html?hpid=z4):

"In a speech late Sunday, Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddine Hassoun, a state-appointed cleric and Assad loyalist, issued a clear warning to the West.

'I say to all of Europe, I say to America, we will set up suicide bombers who are now in your countries, if you bomb Syria or Lebanon,' Hassoun said in a speech late Sunday. 'From now on an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'”

Keep up the good work, Barack, and compliments to the chef, Samantha Power.

Syria: Obama Again Leads From Behind

As reported by the Los Angeles Times in an article, written by Paul Richter, entitled "U.S. softens its criticism of Syria" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-syria-20110720,0,5436104.story), the US is now backtracking from its demands for Syrian President Assad to step down. As stated in the article:

"After sharply escalating its criticism of Syria's bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, the Obama administration has abruptly scaled back its condemnations, showing fresh uncertainty about its willingness to confront President Bashar Assad's regime.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared last week that Assad's government had 'lost legitimacy,' diplomatic language that implied a break with the government in Damascus. Analysts said they expected the White House to demand Assad's ouster, as it did earlier this year with Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi and former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

But Clinton backed off on Saturday, saying the administration still hopes that Assad's regime will stop the violence and work with protesters to carry out political reforms. On Monday, European Union ministers also called on Assad to implement reforms and made it clear they still hoped he would do so.

. . . .

The change in tone reflects the continuing debate over whether Syria's ruler is likely to survive the current turmoil, and how best to use the limited diplomatic tools available to pressure him."

Given that the number of Syrian civilians butchered by Assad over recent months exceeds 1,400, and with more dead every day, is this the time for Obama to backtrack?

Hezbollah is also now threatening to bombard all Israeli cities, including Eilat, with Scud missiles supplied by Assad (see: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=230286). Does Obama continue to believe that by "making nice" to misunderstood despots, such as Ahmadinejad and Assad, he can somehow influence their behavior and that of their stooges, e.g., Hezbollah's Nasrallah?

Indictments and warrants for the arrest of four members of Hezbollah were recently issued by the UN tribunal investigating the 2005 murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the US (see: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/02/hezbollah-hariri-nasrallah.html). Among those indicted is Mustafa Badreddine, who also participated in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, which killed 241 Americans. Both bombings were instigated and approved by Syria, but why should this matter to Obama, who continues to procrastinate?

As observed by Max Boot, writing for Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/20/u-s-sitting-on-sidelines-about-syria/):

"There might be circumstances where it would be appropriate to risk charges of hypocrisy so as not to undermine a valued ally such as Bahrain. But c’mon, guys, this is Syria we’re talking about–Iran’s ally, Hezbollah’s sponsor. That the administration can’t make up its mind about whether to push for Assad’s removal is beyond appalling. It’s puzzling. This is about as big an opportunity as we have faced in the region in decades–and the administration is sitting on the sidelines, mulling its options."

Actually, it's not puzzling at all. Obama can never decide.

Maybe the brutal events which will occur throughout Syria tomorrow will succeed in penetrating Obama's psyche.

U.S. Approves U.N. Tribunal's Indictments: When Will Ambassador to Damascus Be Recalled?

As reported by Yahoo News (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/u-urges-lebanon-act-hariri-indictments-193934338.html):

"The United States on Thursday welcomed a U.N.-backed tribunal's indictments in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese statesman Rafik al-Hariri and urged Lebanon's government to act on them.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the indictments and four arrest warrants marked 'an important step towards justice and ending impunity for political assassinations in Lebanon.'

. . . .

'It's important that the indictments now handed over to the special prosecutor now be acted upon. Obviously we want to see this chapter in Lebanon's history closed, and that closure involves taking the next steps,' Toner said.

'The sealed indictments have been handed over. We're now going to look to see what the Lebanese government does next. We're looking for it to take action,' he said."

The U.S. is looking for the Lebanese government "to take action"? When does the U.S. recall its ambassador to Damascus, Robert Ford, given Assad's involvement in the murder?

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010 (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html).

There had been no ambassador to Syria following the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West, which was carried out at the behest of Damascus.

Sheer hypocrisy on the part of the Obama administration.

Recall the U.S. Ambassador to Syria Now! Shame on Obama and Hillary!

Yesterday, at least 88 more protesters were murdered in Damascus, Latakia, Homs, Hama and Izra'a by Syrian security forces at the behest of President Bashar al-Assad. In response, President Obama issued a written statement (see: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/04/obama-condemns-violence-in-syria/1):

"The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the use of force by the Syrian government against demonstrators. This outrageous use of violence to quell protests must come to an end now.

. . . .

Instead of listening to their own people, President Assad is blaming outsiders while seeking Iranian assistance in repressing Syria's citizens through the same brutal tactics that have been used by his Iranian allies. We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people."

A well-drafted declaration by Obama, but the American president is not:

1. recalling the U.S. ambassador to Syria;

2. seeking economic sanctions against the Assad regime;

3. condemning Assad at the United Nations.

All of the above measures are being demanded by former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (see: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110422/ap_on_el_ge/us_syria_pawlenty_1), but the Obama administration is ignoring these requests.

Why doesn't Obama bring the U.S. ambassador to Damascus home? Answer: The recall of the U.S. ambassador would amount to tacit acknowledgment of the failure of Obama's foreign policy.

In 2005, Assad explicitly approved the murder by Hezbollah of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West, and the U.S. ambassador to Syria was recalled by President Bush. Obama, however, made it the cornerstone of his foreign policy (the "Obama Doctrine") to reach out in friendship to heretofore "misunderstood" tyrannies, e.g., Iran and Syria. In furtherance of this revolutionary foreign policy, Obama repeatedly sent Senator John Kerry, who aspires to be the next U.S. secretary of state, to court Assad in Damascus.

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010 (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html). Three months later, this move had backfired on Obama, leaving him in a quandary how to clean up the mess.

By way of explanation for Obama's inaction in the face of Assad's coldblooded murder of civilians, Hillary Clinton sought to shift the blame for the gaff by declaring in late March (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml):

"There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer."

A "reformer"? How about a butcher? Meanwhile, Obama hopes that his display of naiveté and duplicity will have been forgotten by November 2012.

Homework: Go the website of the U.S. embassy in Damascus (http://damascus.usembassy.gov/). See if you can find a single mention of the current unrest in Syria. Next, go to the "interesting articles" listed by by embassy (http://damascus.usembassy.gov/media/pdf/press-releases-pdf/intersting-articles.pdf): At the top of the list is the inane New York Times op-ed, "Hoping for Arab Mandelas", written by -- you guessed it -- Thomas Friedman.

Does the U.S. embassy in Damascus still harbor any illusion that Assad is a "reformer" or could become an "Arab Mandela"? Sickening.

Taqiyya: When Lying Is Ordained from Above

The West is blissfully ignorant of a concept, taqiyya, prevalent in the Muslim Middle East, which permits lying to non-believers in order to defeat them in battle. I observed in a January blog entry how the Egyptian governor of south Sinai alleged that a series of shark attacks against tourists visiting the Red Sea were the result of a plot by the Israeli Mossad (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/shark%20attacks). Inane? Just a one-time contrivance? Consider more recent instances of prevarication from the Palestinian territories:

Last week, Italian national and pro-Palestinian activist, Vittorio Arrigoni, was abducted and strangled to death in Gaza. Tawhid wal-Jihad, an al-Qaeda-linked group, acknowledged that it was holding Arrigoni, whom they said would only be released if their own leader was freed by Hamas, but this did not prevent Hamas from subsequently accusing Israel of the murder (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/italian-national-vittorio-arrigoni.html).

On April 7, Hamas terrorists fired an advanced laser-guided anti-tank missile from Gaza at a yellow school bus in southern Israel. Hamas had already learned in early March that Israel's Trophy anti-tank missile defense system, now protecting Israel's frontline Merkava tanks, is effective, so instead, they took aim at defenseless children. An Israeli 16-year-old boy died yesterday as the result of wounds sustained in the attack. Hamas claimed it didn't know the yellow bus was transporting school children (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-says-didn-t-mean-to-target-israeli-school-bus-1.354967).

In March, five members of an Israeli family were stabbed to death in their sleep by two Palestinians in the Israeli settlement of Itamar. Yesterday Israeli announced that they had apprehended the murderers, who had confessed to their crime. The Palestinian Authority had sought to blame a disgruntled Thai worker for the grisly killings (see: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212177).

Although much of the West still does not grasp taqiyya,
there should be no excusing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent declaration (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml):

"There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer."

John Kerry, principally responsible for convincing Hillary of Assad's moderation, wants to be the next Secretary of State. Kerry has repeatedly visited Damascus on behalf of Obama and favored sending a U.S. ambassador to Damascus for the first time in five years following the murder by Assad of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. I suggest that Kerry find something else to do in life that is more in keeping with his limited ken.

[Assad's security forces shot to death 12 more protesters in Homs last night. It is only a matter of time before the Syrian Ba'athist regime collapses.]

You Think You Know When Someone Is Lying? John Kerry Couldn't Read Assad

So you think you know when someone is lying?

Watch Bashar al-Assad's one-hour interview with Charlie Rose, albeit five years old (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/484). Pay particular attention when Assad claims that he had no part in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Do you see any body language suggesting that Assad is prevaricating? The truth is that Assad is a "professional liar", or stated otherwise, a psychopath, and it should have come as no surprise that the Syrian tyrant is willing to arrest, torture and murder those who in recent weeks have taken to the streets in opposition to his regime.

Assad has managed to fool many Westerners into believing that he is a paragon of decency, which in turn prompted Hillary's recent inane declaration: "There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml).

As observed by Peggy Shapiro in an American Thinker article entitled "Assad: Fooled us twice, shame on us" (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html), among those noteworthy persons who have come away from meetings with Assad thinking he's a great guy are:

• Zbigniew Brzezinski: "The U.S. and Syria have a shared interest in stability in the region."

• Nancy Pelosi: Assad is a "model Arab leader."

• Jimmy Carter: "In all my conversations with President Assad, whom I've known since he was a college student, I was impressed with [his] eagerness to complete the agreement on the Golan Heights."

• John Kerry: "I remain absolutely convinced there is an opportunity to have a different relationship with Syria."

It is reported that John Kerry is seeking to become Secretary of State when Hillary abandons ship (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/02/04/kerrys_sharp_eye_on_the_secretary_spot/), and, needless to say, Kerry is now backing away from his congenial relationship with the Syrian tyrant. As stated by Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/john_kerrys_message_to_syria/2011/03/04/AFZm9rwB_blog.html?wprss=rss_homepage):

"In an interview Tuesday, Kerry told me that he had contacted senior Syrian officials to demand an end to the killing. 'I delivered as strong a message as I can that they have to avoid violence and listen to their people and respond,' he said. 'Obviously the way the government has behaved is unacceptable. Sixty-one people killed is terrible, its abhorrant behavior.'”

In my opinion, notwithstanding this belated attempt to make amends, Kerry displayed a horrifying lack of good judgment when cuddling up to Assad in Damascus five times over the past two years, and Kerry should be disqualified from any position involving the future negotiation of U.S. overseas interests.

Hezbollah Threatens Coup in Lebanon

On Monday, the U.N. tribunal investigating the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri provided pre-trial Judge Daniel Fransen with a draft indictment, which is said to implicate Hezbollah and Iran in the murder. Yesterday morning, Hezbollah responded by wreaking havoc in Beirut, when it sent its membership, dressed in black throughout Lebanon's capital. As reported by Lebanon's The Daily Star:

"Groups of Hizbullah members, clad in black uniforms, fanned out in several neighborhoods in West Beirut early Tuesday, creating panic among the residents and leading parents to pick up their children from schools, security sources and witnesses said. The unarmed men, carrying wireless sets and handy phones, were seen in areas from the southern suburb of Hadath to Beirut’s Downtown district.

The men appeared to be well-organized and trained for fighting, the sources said. The groups, which began fanning out at 3.00 a.m. Tuesday, disbanded at 7.00 a.m. after troops and security forces deployed in the areas, the sources said. No trouble was reported during the street gatherings which were apparently linked to mounting tension over the S.T.L.’s indictment.

Hizbullah has made no comment on Tuesday’s incident or on Monday’s indictment handover to Fransen. But a source close to Hizbullah described Tuesday’s public gatherings as 'a small message to say that the time for talk is over.'”

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=123855#axzz1BSoVDHrt

Following his op-ed in yesterday's New York Times entitled "The Arab Gdansk" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/opinion/18iht-edcohen18.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), I recommend that Roger Cohen inform Hezbollah that "Islamist parties must commit to democracy rather than exploit democracy for despotic ends." I am confident Hezbollah will be all ears.

Robert Ford, First U.S. Ambassador to Syria Since Murder of Rafik Hariri, Arrives in Damascus: Thanks, Obama!

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting during the Christmas holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria. Ford arrived today in Damascus.

Talk about bad timing: Tomorrow the U.N. tribunal could be releasing its recommendations, which are said to hold Hezbollah, as well as Syria and Iran, responsible for the assassination of pro-Western Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut in 2005.

So, given the timing of Ford's arrival in Damascus, just what is Obama's message? Go ahead, continue to murder our allies, and all will be forgiven?

Yeah, I know. Obama is trying to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran. Sorry, it's not going to happen. Assad can smell Obama's timidity and weakness from thousands of miles away, which is why Jordan is also now gravitating toward Iran (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/12/war-in-middle-east-obama-losing-jordan.html)

Yet another Obama administration foreign policy fiasco.

Lebanon, the U.N. Hariri Tribunal and the Crisis within Hezbollah

Lebanon’s national unity government fell last week owing to a crisis precipitated by the expected indictment by a U.N. tribunal of members of Hezbollah for the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in 2005. Western news analysis of developments leading up to and subsequent to this crisis have, in my opinion, strayed completely off the mark.

Regarding news analysis (forget intelligence assessments - this is not WikiLeaks), over the past week there were two items appearing in The New York Times, which attempted to summarize and make sense of events in Lebanon. In an op-ed entitled "Hezbollah's Latest Suicide Mission" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinion/13cambanis.html?ref=opinion) published on January 12, 2011, guest op-ed contributor Thanassis Cambanis wrote:

"THE collapse of Lebanon’s government on Tuesday signaled the final stage in Hezbollah’s rise from resistance group to ruling power. While Hezbollah technically remains the head of the political opposition in Beirut, make no mistake: the Party of God has fully consolidated its control in Lebanon, and will stop at nothing — including civil war — to protect its position.

. . . .

Hezbollah, re-armed and resurgent after the war with Israel in the summer of 2006, has had a string of political and popular victories. The influence of its sponsors, Syria and Iran, has only grown. And talks between Syria and Saudi Arabia that might have stabilized the government fell apart this week.

Why, then, would Hezbollah change the political dynamic now?

Simply put, Hezbollah cannot afford the blow to its popular legitimacy that would occur if it is pinned with the Hariri killing. The group’s power depends on the unconditional backing of its roughly 1 million supporters. Its constituents are the only audience that matters to Hezbollah, which styles itself as sole protector of Arab dignity from humiliation by Israel and the United States."

Has the influence of Hezbollah's sponsor, Iran, indeed only grown, as claimed by Cambanis? As of last week, no.

In an article entitled "For Hezbollah, Claiming Victory Could Be Costly" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/world/middleeast/14lebanon.html?_r=2&hp), published by The New York Times on January 13, 2011, Anthony Shadid wrote from Beirut:

"Hezbollah has evolved from a shadowy organization blamed for two attacks on the American Embassy and the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks here, killing 240 soldiers, into an expansive movement with an armed militia more powerful than the Lebanese Army and a sprawling infrastructure that delivers welfare to its Shiite constituency, Lebanon’s largest community. Over those decades, its political role has grown, as well, particularly when it has felt vulnerable, as was the case with the Syrian withdrawal.

Even its supporters acknowledge its vulnerability now. Not that it fears that the tribunal would try its members — the prospect of their arrest is almost impossible to fathom, given Hezbollah’s discipline. Rather, it is concerned about the impact of the indictments on its standing in the Arab world. Both it and its allies worry about the reach, too, of the tribunal, a body whose foreign backers (France and the United States) and supporters here (Mr. Hariri’s allies) have seen as serving their interests."

This news analysis only mentioned Iran once:

"Hezbollah, analysts say, had hoped for an agreement mediated by Syria — with Iran, Hezbollah’s ally — and Saudi Arabia, the patron of Mr. Hariri."

Although this analysis correctly observes that Hezbollah supports "a sprawling infrastructure that delivers welfare to its Shiite constituency", it fails to note where the funds for this infrastructure derive, i.e. Iran.

Neither of these two items from The New York Times relate to the recent antagonism which has developed between Hezbollah and Iran.

In an excellent article entitled "Iran said to have cut Hizbullah aid by 40%" (http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=199611), published by The Jerusalem Post on December 16, 2010, Yaakov Katz writes:

"Iran has cut the annual budget it provides Hizbullah by over 40 percent, stirring an unprecedented crisis within the Lebanese Shi’ite guerrilla organization.

. . . .

Iran has in recent years provided Hizbullah with close to $1 billion in direct military aid, but due to the impact of the recent round of international sanctions, the Islamic Republic has been forced to cut back on the funding. The money is used by Hizbullah to buy advanced weaponry, train and pay its operatives and establish military positions and sustain them throughout Lebanon.

The cuts in the budget has stirred tension between Hizbullah and its Iranian patrons, further fueled by disagreements between the top Hizbullah leadership and the Revolutionary Guard Corps officer who was appointed earlier this year to oversee Hizbullah operations on behalf of the Islamic Republic.

That officer is Hossein Mahadavi, and his official title is 'commander of Iran’s overseas division,' which in this case is Hizbullah.

Mahadavi is believed to maintain an office in Beirut and is a senior member of the Guard’s Al-Quds Force, which is responsible for Iran’s overseas operations.

. . . .

According to information that has reached Israel, Mahadavi has clashed with senior Hizbullah officials, including its Secretary-General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, on critical issues pertaining to the group, which is refusing to accept the Iranian’s authority."

Bottom line: It's all about the money. Not only has the money provided by Iran to Hezbollah been used for weaponry, to train and pay operatives and to establish military positions, as observed by Katz, it has also been used by Hezbollah to support its social welfare infrastructure, as noted by Shadid.

In a nutshell: Without the funds to support this social welfare infrastructure, Hezbollah is on the verge of collapse, and hence the tension with Mahadavi.

Query: How does Hezbollah respond to this financial crisis that threatens it with bankruptcy? In desperation, does it stage a coup and fund itself from Lebanese government sources? Does it start a war with Israel and demand additional funding from Iran for its "heroism"? There is a good reason why the IDF is on alert in the north (see: http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=197405).

Additional query: Why has the U.S. delayed sanctioning the Lebanese banks through which Iranian funding has passed to Hezbollah? It would be simple to implement this strategy, inexpensive and bloodless, but sometimes common sense solutions go ignored.

Like a Thief in the Night, Obama Appoints Robert Ford Ambassador to Syria

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many are on holiday, Obama has appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html). There has been no ambassador to Syria following the involvement of Damascus in the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West, in 2005.

The appointment comes at a time when the U.N. tribunal investigating the Hariri murder is preparing to announce its determination that Hezbollah, which doesn't dare act without Syrian approval, perpetrated the assassination. For the avoidance of doubt, Syria is deemed a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the U.S. State Department.

The message being conveyed by Obama: You can murder friends of the U.S., yet give it a few years, and all will be forgiven. Provide advanced Scud missiles to Hezbollah (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/syria-is-shipping-scud-missiles-to-hezbollah-1.284141)? It doesn't bother Obama in the least. Begin building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=200858)? No need to fret.

Revolting? You bet!

In this manner, can Obama possibly wean Syria away from Iran? Not a chance. Obama is acting out of weakness, and all the Arab states are now wondering whether they should begin hedging their bets and mending fences with Tehran. Note the recent warming of Jordan, a long-time ally of the U.S., to Iran (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/12/war-in-middle-east-obama-losing-jordan.html).

Has Obama been influenced by John Kerry's budding friendship with Syrian tyrant Assad, or, is this another display of Obama's closet radicalism? Either way, it portends no good in the volatile Middle East.

Roger Cohen's Deluded "U.S. Illusions in Lebanon"

In his op-ed of today's date entitled "U.S. Illusions in Lebanon" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/opinion/14iht-edcohen14.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Roger Cohen writes:

"For the United States to shun any contact with Hezbollah amounts to trying to play the Middle Eastern chess game without several pieces.

. . . .

My sense is the passage of time — as well as bungling and inconsistencies — has rendered justice impossible in the Hariri murder. Lebanese stability is precious and tenuous: It trumps justice delayed, flawed and foreign.

. . . .

Is anyone listening in D.C.? It’s time to drop either-or diplomacy to address a many-shaded reality."

In essence, Cohen is telling us that if Saad Hariri is willing to forgive the 2005 murder of his father, Rafik, by Hezbollah, the U.S. should also let bygones be bygones. Cohen, however, has a habit of forgetting to mention inconvenient facts.

In 1983, long before Cohen became a U.S. citizen, Hezbollah blew up the Beirut barracks housing the U.S. members of the multinational peacekeeping force in Lebanon, killing 220 Marines, 18 Navy sailors, and three Army soldiers. Attempts at rescuing survivors from the rubble were subsequently hindered by Hezbollah sniper fire.

Cohen also fails to mention the 1984 kidnap and murder of William Francis Buckley by Hezbollah. Buckley, buried in Arlington National Cemetery, was tortured to death by Hezbollah.

Also, no reference by Cohen to Hezbollah's bombing of the Jewish community center building in Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed 85 people and injured hundreds. Why should Roger sully his argument with such trivial details?

Cohen spent the better part of 2009 attempting to convince us that Iran is "not totalitarian", while ignoring Iran's brutal oppression of Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis, women, homosexuals, dissidents and journalists, and never broaching Iran's support of genocide in Darfur. Now, in 2010, he would have the U.S. seek rapprochement with Tehran's hired Hezbollah thugs for the sake of a "many-shaded reality".

Forgive and forget? Sorry, Roger, not in this lifetime. I spent much of 1983 in Lebanon and will never forget the gruesome sight of Hezbollah's victims. Never!

The War in the Middle East: Obama Losing Jordan

There is an ongoing war in the Middle East between Iran and the U.S., which, as yet, has not involved guns and bullets. An ambitious Iran intent on regional hegemony, incessantly snorts in bellicose fashion as it attempts to intimidate its Arab neighbors into submission. Moreover, as was revealed by WikiLeaks and has been stated often in this blog, America's Arab allies - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates - are all running scared, attempting to determine in whose favor the confrontation is trending, while occasionally suggesting that they are prepared to implement atomic development programs of their own.

Hesitant to confront Iran and belatedly limiting his opposition to sanctions that have been largely ignored by countries with their own agendas such as China and Turkey, Obama may soon watch as Jordan defects from the West. As reported by Jamal Halaby of the Associated Press:

"Jordan's King Abdullah II said Sunday he was seeking 'practical steps' to improve his frosty relations with Iran, a contrast to his regime's frequent criticism of Iran's policies.

The call came in a closed-door meeting with Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, director of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's office, Abdullah's Royal Court said in a statement.

Abdullah has been one of Iran's harshest critics in recent years, warning that its growing influence in the region could undermine him and other pro-American moderates.

The Royal Court statement said Abdullah accepted Ahmadinejad's invitation to visit Tehran soon, but no date was set.

. . . .

In U.S. cables released by WikiLeaks, U.S. Ambassador to Jordan Stephen Beecroft quoted Jordanian officials describing Iran as an 'octopus' whose tentacles 'reach out insidiously to manipulate, foment, and undermine the best laid plans of the West and regional moderates.'"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101212/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_jordan_iran

Obama is perceived by Jordan as a weakling prepared to sell out America's friends, and notwithstanding its hatred of the Iranian "Octopus", Jordan is now hedging its bets.

A real war with guns and bullets involving an Iranian proxy? Hezbollah is demanding that Lebanon ignore the forthcoming conclusions of the U.N. tribunal investigating the murder by Hezbollah of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri (see: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/mess-report/hezbollah-threatens-new-era-for-resistance-unless-lebanon-shuns-hariri-tribunal-1.330110), and whether publication of the U.N.'s determinations leads to a coup d'état or civil war in Lebanon, or possibly a confrontation with Israel intended to distract the Arab street, is anyone's bet.

Saad Hariri Travels to Tehran to Save Lebanon from Hezbollah

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri arrived in Iran on Saturday (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AP1BR20101126). The reason for his visit? The U.N. tribunal investigating the 2005 car bomb murder of his father, then Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, is soon to announce that Hezbollah stood behind the execution. Saad Hariri is concerned that the announcement might cause Hezbollah to attempt a coup d'état or alternatively provoke a war with Israel in order to distract public opinion. Given that Hezbollah is Iran's proxy in Lebanon and doesn't act without instructions from Tehran, Saad Hariri is hoping to convince Ahmadinejad ("the chimp" as he is known in Iran) to prevail upon Hezbollah not to act rashly.

Does this bring to mind a movie? It reminds me of a scene in "Goodfellas", when restaurant owner Sonny goes to mob boss Paulie to ask that Tommy, one of Paulie's underlings, stop terrorizing him. As an incentive, Sonny suggests to Paulie that he partner with him in the restaurant, and the following dialogue ensues:

Paulie: You know anything about this fucking restaurant business?
[Talking to Henry, the movie's protagonist and also an underling of Paulie]

Sonny: He knows everything about it. I mean he's in the joint 24 hours a day. I mean another fucking few minutes he could be a stool that's how often he's in there.

Henry: [narrating] Now the guy's got Paulie as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Paulie. Trouble with the bill? He can go to Paulie. Trouble with the cops, deliveries, Tommy, he can call Paulie. But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week, no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you, pay me.

In fact, the scene being played out in Tehran is far more tragic than that in "Goodfellas". Saad Hariri feels compelled to plead with those who ordered the murder of his father to control their hitmen. Now let's see the price Saad Hariri will have to pay (only disavowal of the U.N. indictment against Hezbollah?) and whether the deal will nevertheless cause Lebanon, like Sonny's restaurant in "Goodfellas", to go up in flames.

In retrospect, the decision this month of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee to release $100 million in military aid for the Lebanese army (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-releases-100-million-aid-for-lebanon-army-1.324411) in the hope that this might facilitate resistance to Hezbollah on the part of Saad Hariri is also proving futile. Unfortunately, Hariri has seen how "tough" Obama has gotten with the Islamic Republic of Iran and has made a calculated decision with whom he stands the best chance of survival.

Finally, Some US Leadership in the Middle East from . . . Hillary

With the approaching announcement of the findings of the U.N. tribunal concerning the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and concurrent threats of violence from Hezbollah leader Nasrallah against anyone seeking to arrest members of his organization ("We will cut the hand that reaches out for any one of them"), Hillary Clinton did not mince words in an interview with the Lebanon's An-Nahar:

"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said 'no one knows when and who the Special Tribunal for Lebanon will charge.'

'We must reiterate that no one knows what the Special Tribunal for Lebanon will do or who it will charge and when will it choose to act,' Clinton said in an interview published Friday by An-Nahar newspaper.

'Violence will not stop the work of the STL,' she said, adding that the U.S. will not bargain away its support for Lebanon.

'Hizbullah should realize that resorting to violence is incompatible with the interests of the whole of Lebanon, the interests of the Lebanese people, the interests of the region and the interests of the United States,' Clinton said.

She believed that 'Syrian behavior has not lived up to the level of our hopes and our expectations during the past twenty months.'

'Syria's performance has not lived up to its international obligations,' Clinton added.

She believed Syria 'is still able to choose another route and we hope it will do so,' stressing that U.S. dialogue with Damascus 'will not be at Lebanon's expense.'"

http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&6B70C59155B887D7C22577D9001C8323

"No one knows who the Special Tribunal for Lebanon will charge"? Apparently Nasrallah knows, given the security breach which led to the discovery by the U.N. investigation team of Hezbollah's responsibility for the murder. See: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/game-of-death-syria-orders-ship.html

How refreshing that Hillary, unlike Obama, is willing to stand up to Damascus and Hezbollah. Also interesting are the pictures from her successful six-hour meeting on Thursday with Netanyahu. Once again, examine the body language (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-claims-progress-in-effort-to-restart-mideast-peace-talks-1.324236). These are two people who like one another.

And yes, I repeat, Hillary will be running against Obama in the 2012 primaries.

Will U.N. Indictment of Hezbollah for Hariri Murder Set the Middle East Ablaze?

According to a Wall Street Journal article entitled "U.N. Indictments Near in Lebanon Killing", written by Jay Solomon and Margaret Coker, the U.N. tribunal investigating the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri will soon be indicting various members of Hezbollah, and it is feared that the findings could result in renewed fighting among Lebanese Shiites, Sunnis, Christians and Druze:

"The United Nations-backed court investigating the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is moving to indict between two and six members of the militant group Hezbollah by year-end, according to people briefed on the tribunal's work, stoking fears of renewed sectarian strife in the Middle East country.

The U.S. has scrambled to bolster support for the tribunal and the pro-Western government of Lebanon in the face of threats of violence from Hezbollah if the indictments are handed down.

Among those being looked at in the U.N. probe, according to the people briefed on it, is Mustafa Badreddine, a senior Hezbollah military commander and brother-in-law of Imad Mugniyah, who was among the Federal Bureau of Investigation's most-wanted men before his death nearly three years ago.

Mr. Mugniyah is alleged by U.S. officials to have overseen a string of terrorist attacks against American interests in the 1980s, including the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut that killed 241 servicemen. Mr. Mugniyah, who was killed in a 2008 car bombing in Damascus, Syria, is also believed by U.N. investigators to have played a role, along with his brother-in-law, in the car bombing in downtown Beirut that killed Mr. Hariri and 22 others, according to the people briefed on the probe.

The rising tensions inside Lebanon have significantly undercut the Obama administration's efforts to mend relations with Syria, among the suspects in Mr. Hariri's murder. The U.S. has coveted better ties with Damascus, both to stabilize Lebanon and underpin the broader Arab-Israeli peace process. Washington has also hoped to weaken Syria's military alliance with Iran.

In recent months, however, Syrian officials have called for the ending of the U.N. tribunal. And U.S. officials have publicly charged Damascus with transferring increasingly sophisticated missiles to Hezbollah."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703665904575600374005892944.html

However, renewing sectarian fighting within Lebanon is only one possible scenario. In order to divert the attention of the Arab street from the murder, Hezbollah might well seek to inflame the Israeli-Lebanese border. Thus, it is no accident that Israel is attempting to eliminate any excuse for renewed violence by announcing this weekend its plans for the unilateral evacuation of the northern part of Ghajar village, population 2,200, which is bisected by the Israeli-Lebanese border. See: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=194301

Also prepared, however, for any contingency, Israel has now decided that its new "Iron Dome" anti-rocket system will be kept in the center of the country and shipped to the south or the north in accordance with developments. See: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=194423

Obama's courting of Damascus by way of John Kerry as his special emissary? Demonstrably bootless, impotent and embarrassing.