Analysts Say Israel Bombed Legal Nuclear Project Inside Syria

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.

The description of the target addresses one of the central mysteries surrounding the Sept. 6 attack, and suggests that Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state. The Bush administration was divided at the time about the wisdom of Israel’s strike, American officials said, and some senior policy makers still regard the attack as premature.

The attack on the reactor project has echoes of an Israeli raid more than a quarter century ago, in 1981, when Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq shortly before it was to have begun operating. That attack was officially condemned by the Reagan administration, though Israelis consider it among their military’s finest moments. In the weeks before the Iraq war, Bush administration officials said they believed that the attack set back Iraq’s nuclear ambitions by many years.

By contrast, the facility that the Israelis struck in Syria appears to have been much further from completion, the American and foreign officials said. They said it would have been years before the Syrians could have used the reactor to produce the spent nuclear fuel that could, through a series of additional steps, be reprocessed into bomb-grade plutonium.

Many details remain unclear, most notably how much progress the Syrians had made in construction before the Israelis struck, the role of any assistance provided by North Korea, and whether the Syrians could make a plausible case that the reactor was intended to produce electricity. In Washington and Israel, information about the raid has been wrapped in extraordinary secrecy and restricted to just a handful of officials, while the Israeli press has been prohibited from publishing information about the attack.

The New York Times reported this week that a debate had begun within the Bush administration about whether the information secretly cited by Israel to justify its attack should be interpreted by the United States as reason to toughen its approach to Syria and North Korea. In later interviews, officials made clear that the disagreements within the administration began this summer, as a debate about whether an Israeli attack on the incomplete reactor was warranted then.

The officials did not say that the administration had ultimately opposed the Israeli strike, but that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates were particularly concerned about the ramifications of a pre-emptive strike in the absence of an urgent threat.

“There wasn’t a lot of debate about the evidence,” said one American official familiar with the intense discussions over the summer between Washington and the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. “There was a lot of debate about how to respond to it.”

Even though it has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Syria would not have been obligated to declare the existence of a reactor during the early phases of construction. It would have also had the legal right to complete construction of the reactor, as long as its purpose was to generate electricity.

In his only public comment on the raid, Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, acknowledged this month that Israeli jets dropped bombs on a building that he said was “related to the military” but which he insisted was “not used.”

A senior Israeli official, while declining to speak about the specific nature of the target, said the strike was intended to “re-establish the credibility of our deterrent power,” signaling that Israel meant to send a message to the Syrians that even the potential for a nuclear weapons program would not be permitted. But several American officials said the strike may also have been intended by Israel as a signal to Iran and its nuclear aspirations. Neither Iran nor any Arab government except for Syria has criticized the Israeli raid, suggesting that Israel is not the only country that would be disturbed by a nuclear Syria. North Korea did issue a protest.

The target of the Israeli raid and the American debate about the Syrian project were described by government officials and nongovernment experts interviewed in recent weeks in the United States and the Middle East. All insisted on anonymity because of rules that prohibit discussing classified information. The officials who described the target of the attack included some on each side of the debate about whether a partly constructed Syrian nuclear reactor should be seen as an urgent concern, as well as some who described themselves as neutral on the question.

The White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said Saturday that the administration would have no comment on the intelligence issues surrounding the Israeli strike. Israel has also refused to comment.

Nuclear reactors can be used for both peaceful and non-peaceful purposes. A reactor’s spent fuel can be reprocessed to extract plutonium, one of two paths to building a nuclear weapon. The other path — enriching uranium in centrifuges — is the method that Iran is accused of pursuing with an intent to build a weapon of its own.

Syria is known to have only one nuclear reactor, a small one built for research purposes. But in the past decade, Syria has several times sought unsuccessfully to buy one, first from Argentina, then from Russia. On those occasions, Israel reacted strongly but did not threaten military action. Earlier this year, Mr. Assad spoke publicly in general terms about Syria’s desire to develop nuclear power, but his government did not announce a plan to build a new reactor.

The Gulf Cooperation Council, a group of Persian Gulf states, has also called for an expansion of nuclear power in the Middle East for energy purposes, but many experts have interpreted that statement as a response to Iran’s nuclear program. They have warned that the region may be poised for a wave of proliferation. Israel is believed to be the only nuclear-armed nation in the region.

The partly constructed Syrian reactor was detected earlier this year by satellite photographs, according to American officials. They suggested that the facility had been brought to American attention by the Israelis, but would not discuss why American spy agencies seemed to have missed the early phases of construction.

North Korea has long provided assistance to Syria on a ballistic missile program, but any assistance toward the construction of the reactor would have been the first clear evidence of ties between the two countries on a nuclear program. North Korea has successfully used its five-megawatt reactor at the Yongbyon nuclear complex to reprocess nuclear fuel into bomb-grade material, a model that some American and Israeli officials believe Syria may have been trying to replicate.

The North conducted a partly successful test of a nuclear device a year ago, prompting renewed fears that the desperately poor country might seek to sell its nuclear technology. President Bush issued a specific warning to the North on Oct. 9, 2006, just hours after the test, noting that it was “leading proliferator of missile technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria.” He went on to warn that “the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable.”

While Bush administration officials have made clear in recent weeks that the target of the Israeli raid was linked to North Korea in some way, Mr. Bush has not repeated his warning since the attack. In fact, the administration has said very little about the country’s suspected role in the Syria case, apparently for fear of upending negotiations now under way in which North Korea has pledged to begin disabling its nuclear facilities.

While the partly constructed Syrian reactor appears to be based on North Korea’s design, the American and foreign officials would not say whether they believed the North Koreans sold or gave the plans to the Syrians, or whether the North’s own experts were there at the time of the attack. It is possible, some officials said, that the transfer of the technology occurred several years ago.

According to two senior administration officials, the subject was raised when the United States, North Korea and four other nations met in Beijing earlier this month.

Behind closed doors, however, Vice President Dick Cheney and other hawkish members of the administration have made the case that the same intelligence that prompted Israel to attack should lead the United States to reconsider delicate negotiations with North Korea over ending its nuclear program, as well as America’s diplomatic strategy toward Syria, which has been invited to join Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., next month.

Mr. Cheney in particular, officials say, has also cited the indications that North Korea aided Syria to question the Bush administration’s agreement to supply the North with large amounts of fuel oil. During Mr. Bush’s first term, Mr. Cheney was among the advocates of a strategy to squeeze the North Korean government in hopes that it would collapse, and the administration cut off oil shipments set up under an agreement between North Korea and the Clinton administration, saying the North had cheated on that accord.

The new shipments, agreed to last February, are linked to North Korea’s carrying through on its pledge to disable its nuclear facilities by the end of the year. Nonetheless, Mr. Bush has approved going ahead with that agreement, even after he was aware of the Syrian program.

Nuclear experts say that North Korea’s main reactor, while small by international standards, is big enough to produce roughly one bomb’s worth of plutonium a year.

In an interview, Dr. Siegfried S. Hecker of Stanford University, a former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, said building a reactor based on North Korea’s design might take from three to six years.

Reporting was contributed by William J. Broad in New York, Helene Cooper in Washington and Steven Erlanger in Jerusalem.

Money in New York:  The Sy Empire
By ZEV CHAFETS, NYTimes Sunday MAGAZINE   | October 14, 2007

The Syrian Jews of Gravesend, Brooklyn, rear their children to marry other Syrian Jews and make a fortune (the boys, anyway).

World's oldest wall painting unearthed in Syria
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Thu Oct 11, 2007

DAMASCUS (Reuters) – French archaeologists have discovered an 11,000-year-old wall painting underground in northern Syria which they believe is the oldest in the world.

The 2 square-meter painting, in red, black and white, was found at the Neolithic settlement of Djade al-Mughara on the Euphrates, northeast of the city of Aleppo, team leader Eric Coqueugniot told Reuters.

"It looks like a modernist painting. Some of those who saw it have likened it to work by (Paul) Klee. Through carbon dating we established it is from around 9,000 B.C.," Coqueugniot said.

 

Jimmy Carter and Joschka Fischer on talking to Syria

Jimmy Carter calls Cheney a "disaster" for U.S and on "wrong side of debate on Syria."

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney as a "disaster" for the country and a "militant" who has had an excessive influence in setting foreign policy.

Cheney has been on the wrong side of the debate on many issues, including an internal White House discussion over Syria in which the vice president is thought to be pushing a tough approach, Carter said.

"He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world," Carter told the BBC World News America in an interview to air later on Wednesday.

"You know he's been a disaster for our country," Carter said. "I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed."

In a newspaper interview in May, Carter called the Bush administration the "worst in history" in international relations.

Carter did have kind words in the BBC interview for U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "I'm filled with admiration for Condoleezza Rice in standing up to (Cheney) which she did even when she was in the White House under President George W. Bush," Carter said, referring to Rice's former role as White House national security adviser.

"Now secretary of state, her influence is obviously greater than it was then and I hope she prevails," Carter added. © Copyright 2007 Reuters.

Forget victory in Iraq, go for stability  "of all the parties involved, Syria is uniquely positioned to help bring it about"
By Joschka Fischer

The only way out of this dilemma is to set a reachable and realistic goal. Instead of victory, the goal must be a minimum of stability – and this still seems achievable. Indeed, a US military withdrawal from Iraq can be accomplished without causing a major regional catastrophe only if America manages to establish such minimal regional stability. What this requires is a sustainable consensus that includes all the parties involved.

… now the largest and most important power in the world is facing only bad options….

Iraq's future, if it still has any, will depend first and foremost on Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, and, secondly, on Iraq's neighbors and their interests and risk calculations. But even if Iraq does fall apart after US withdrawal, it will be of vital importance to contain the consequences of its disintegration within Iraq's own borders. This will require a regional consensus that only the US can bring about.

It is hard to understand why the US does so little to advance the goal of regional stabilization, especially since it still retains considerable leverage in this respect. As no regional power is strong enough to win a war of succession outright, all of these powers could only lose if a conflict ensues. Indeed, all will be threatened by internal destabilization as a consequence of such a confrontation.

Certainly, talks and conferences make little sense without a coherent policy. But with appropriate preparation, a regional solution is possible, and, of all the parties involved, Syria is uniquely positioned to help bring it about. Syria is the only Arab country allied with Iran, and, as Iraq's direct neighbor, it is crucial for Iraq's stabilization. Moreover, Lebanon's security and independence hinges on Syria, and Syria is one of the main actors in the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Finally, economically and politically, Syria is in a weak position and its interests are by no means congruent with those of Iran.

It's incomprehensible, then, why the US, having succeeded in striking a deal with Libya, vehemently rejects any initiative toward Syria. If Syria changed sides, the situation in the region would be fundamentally transformed. This would be true for Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq and, above all, Iran.

For Iran, this development would be tantamount to a strategic worst-case scenario, bringing about its definitive isolation. Should it become a realistic prospect, a decisive approach to Iran would make sense. The ensuing "grand bargain" should concern the stabilization of Iraq, Iran's nuclear program, and its role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If successful, the bargain should also aim at a total normalization of relations between Iran and the US.

To be sure, even a decisive regional strategy by the US and its Western partners will not stop terrorism and violence in Iraq or, indeed, in the Middle East overnight. But it would be a decisive first step toward changing the regional balance of power that would enable the stabilization of Iraq and the region as a whole. Only this can make a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq realistic in the foreseeable future.  Continue…

Joschka Fischer, Germany's foreign minister and vice chancellor from 1998 to 2005, led

Open Democracy highlights these two articles:

  • Ankara ready to act: With fifteen of its soldiers killed in the last two days by Kurdish rebel fighters – the worst loss of military life since 1995 in Ankara's struggle against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) – Turkey is more seriously considering an attack on PKK positions in northern Iraq.  A bomb exploded at a ferry station in the outskirts of Istanbul, injuring several people. Similar blasts last week struck the port town of Izmir. 
  • Azerbaijan on board: Political analysts in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, suspect that a recent visit by a top CIA official was part of a wider White House strategy targeting Iran, the country's neighbour to the south.

Saudi king prays with Rif’at al-Asad in Mecca

Posted by Alex

12 October 2007

BBC Monitoring Middle East

Source: Quds Press news agency, London, in Arabic 12 Oct 07

Images broadcast by Saudi and Arab satellite channels showing King Abdallah Bin-Abd-al-Aziz performing Id al-Fitr prayers in the holy mosque in Mecca today, Friday, with former Syrian Vice-President Rif'at al-Asad near him have angered the Syrians, elite and ordinary people. Writers and human right activists viewed this as a political use of a losing card against the Syrian regime "but with total disregard for all principles, norms, and values".

rifaat-saudis.jpg

(old photo of Rifaat Assad/ Source unofficial Rifaat Assad's site)

In Damascus, ranking political circles that spoke to Quds Press and requested that their identities remain undisclosed described this as "a bad and ill-timed message" and viewed it as interference in Syria's domestic affairs. "The Saudi monarch's appearance next to Rif'at al-Asad in the holy mosque in Mecca is a bad and ill-timed message from King Abdallah. It tries to torpedo what is left of Arab solidarity through a bad message and interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state," the circles said. The political circles warned the Saudi leaders against playing such cards. "This is not the first time the Saudis receive Syrian opposition figures. They know very well that if Syria opens its doors to the Saudi opposition, the gates of hell will open on the Saudis."

rifaat.jpg

The circles said the political message that the Saudi monarch's audience with Rif'at al-Asad in Mecca sends is very clear; namely, that "the Saudi policy lost its sensibility and associated itself with the plan of the neoconservatives, specifically (US Vice-President) Dick Cheney through (Saudi Crown Prince) Prince Sultan (Bin-Abd-al-Aziz)."

For his part, Haytham al-Malih, a Syrian lawyer and human rights activist, said he was very surprised at the reception that the Saudi leadership accorded Rif'at al-Asad.

In an exclusive statement to Quds Press, Al-Malih said: "Rif'at al-Asad is a criminal politician who must be brought to trial for perpetrating a massacre in Tadmur in which 913 prisoners were killed. He was the one who forcibly removed the veils of Muslim women in Damascus streets, stole Hamah antiquities, and violated the honour of the city's women. How could the custodian of the two holy mosques receive him and perform prayers next to him?"

Al-Malih said the political dimension of the reception is clear to everyone, but it is just a political dimension with no religious association. "I am really surprised at this matter, which proves that politics has no religion. But we, as Muslims, believe that politics has religion. This is why I strongly denounce this. I do not think Rif'at al-Asad should be received anywhere, certainly not in a place like Mecca."

In Paris, Haytham Manna, spokesman for the Arab Human Rights Committee, criticized the official Saudi reception of Rif'at al-Asad and said the Saudi leadership cannot stoop to the level of receiving "those who committed crimes against humanity."

He added: "As acknowledged by two courts in Europe, Rif'at al-Asad committed crimes against humanity, crimes that neither time nor pilgrimage can drop. One must pay the price of his sins so that he can meet his God while clean."

Manna said the hosting of Rif'at al-Asad is one of the sides of the Saudi-Syrian differences. "If there are Syrian-Saudi differences, this does not justify Saudi Arabia's attempt to use all means, including some criminals, and employ the media to harm others," he said.

He added: "I don't think that the wisdom of a person like King Abdallah allows him to use losing cards in political conflicts." He said the reception reflects Saudi Arabia's position towards a number of issues. This position, he added, "has become personalized. It is no longer a wise political position befitting the weight of the kingdom. Rif'at al-Asad does not represent Islam, and in Mecca specifically, the end does not justify the means."

Source: Quds Press news agency, London, in Arabic 12 Oct 07

Changing Course with Syria

By Dr. Alon Ben-Meir |  Visit his site

Dr. Ben-Meir is the Middle East Director of the World Policy Institute at The New School, and a professor of international relations and Middle Eastern studies at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University and at The New School. Born in Baghdad and currently residing in New York City, he holds a masters degree in philosophy and a doctorate in international relations from Oxford University

The notion that the focus of the Middle-East conference is to reach an agreement in principle between Israel and the Palestinians, and so other conflicting parties, such as Syria, are marginal to the deliberation, is fundamentally flawed. The Bush administration must quickly reassess its position regarding Syria if it wishes to achieve even a modicum of success at the conference. There are several reasons that support this argument:

First, any agreement achieved between Fatah and Israel is only half an agreement even pursued fully, which is in itself extremely doubtful. No agreement can be fully implemented without Gaza an area populated by 1.5 million Palestinians over which Hamas is in full control. There is very little that Israel or the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas can do to bring Hamas to heed. Since Syria's direct and indirect support of Hamas is critical to the organization, Damascus can exercise substantial influence over whether Hamas recants or mounts even greater resistance to any agreement between Israel and the Fatah-led government.

Second, although there is no time for Israel and Syria to reach an agreement prior to the conference, the Syrian presence at the conference offers a golden opportunity to reach a mutual declaration of intent with Israel to achieve peace through negotiations. Both Israel and Syria have openly declared their willingness to enter into unconditional negotiations. The Bush administration has, therefore, an obligation to embrace what both nations seek and not allow its obsession with regime change in Damascus to torpedo a momentous opportunity to bring about quantum change in the Middle East. It is ironic that while both Israel and Syria want and need peace, it is the administration that is preventing Israel from entering into any substantive negotiations with Syria.Third, it is a given that for the conference to achieve even modest success, the participation of other Arab states and mustering the collective Arab will behind any emerging agreement is absolutely essential. Although the administration is fully cognizant of this fact, it has hardly deigned to pay lip service to the Arab initiative, which is the only document that expresses the Arab states' collective political will to establish a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, which must include Syria. Only a united Arab position can modify the direction of Hamas and other extremist groups. And only the full-fledged participation of Saudi Arabia (as the original author of the Arab initiative) and Syria (as the most critical conflicting party, besides the Israelis and the Palestinians) will improve dramatically prospects for the conference's success, so necessary to building future progress.Fourth, Syria, as a major Arab state and a critical antagonist of Israel, cannot be treated as an adjunct to the conference where the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict is being discussed. Although Syria was invited as part of the Arab League delegation, it is not likely to unless it is invited to attend on its own and given the opportunity to express its own grievances. From the Syrian perspective the current invitation is nothing more than a continuation of the administration's efforts to marginalize Damascus by portraying it as inconsequential to the region's future. The administration may wish this to be the case, but it is not. Syria has been, and continues to be, a major player for good or evil, depending on the prevailing geopolitical conditions and Damascus's threat perception to the present regime. There is no doubt that the administration can influence Damascus's future course of action but not to the detriment of the regime itself. America's conflict with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, the turmoil in Lebanon, the level of instability in Iraq, Palestinian extremism, and Hezbollah's fortunes are all affected by what Syria does or does not do. This brings us to the fundamental question: Since the policy of regime change in Damascus, so vigorously pursued by the administration over the past six years, has by all accounts failed, is it not time to change such a counterproductive policy? All that the administration has been able to achieve is to push the regime in Damascus further and further into Iran's belly and to also force it to tighten control domestically. Syria is hardly foolish enough not to take American threats seriously, and thus has been compelled to take extraordinary measures, however unsavory some of these measures may be, to protect itself.
Regardless of the reality or the merits of American grievances against Syria, none can be settled by public recriminations and accusations. The agreement with North Korea regarding its nuclear weapons program should be a telling lesson to the administration. Only when it conceded to the North Korean demand for face-to-face negotiations was an agreement finally hammered out with Pyongyang, an agreement which could have been achieved five years ago and certainly before North Korea got to the point of conducting an actual nuclear test.

Inviting Syria to the peace conference is not a reward to Damascus for its alleged mischievous behavior; it is a matter of real necessity dictated by the prevailing turmoil in the Middle East to which the Bush administration has contributed so largely. The Middle- East conference offers the Bush administration an opportunity to change course toward Syria without loosing face not to speak of preventing a colossal failure.

The New York Times: An Israeli Strike on Syria Kindles Debate in the U.S.

Posted by Alex. 

By MARK MAZZETTI and HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — A sharp debate is under way in the Bush administration about the significance of the Israeli intelligence that led to last month’s Israeli strike inside Syria, according to current and former American government officials.

At issue is whether intelligence that Israel presented months ago to the White House — to support claims that Syria had begun early work on what could become a nuclear weapons program with help from North Korea — was conclusive enough to justify military action by Israel and a possible rethinking of American policy toward the two nations.

The debate has fractured along now-familiar fault lines, with Vice President Dick Cheney and conservative hawks in the administration portraying the Israeli intelligence as credible and arguing that it should cause the United States to reconsider its diplomatic overtures to Syria and North Korea.

By contrast, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her allies within the administration have said they do not believe that the intelligence presented so far merits any change in the American diplomatic approach.

debate.jpg

“Some people think that it means that the sky is falling,” a senior administration official said. “Others say that they’re not convinced that the real intelligence poses a threat.”

Several current and former officials, as well as outside experts, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the intelligence surrounding the Israeli strike remains highly classified.

Besides Ms. Rice, officials said that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was cautious about fully endorsing Israeli warnings that Syria was on a path that could lead to a nuclear weapon. Others in the Bush administration remain unconvinced that a nascent Syrian nuclear program could pose an immediate threat.

It has long been known that North Korean scientists have aided Damascus in developing sophisticated ballistic missile technology, and there appears to be little debate that North Koreans frequently visited a site in the Syrian desert that Israeli jets attacked Sept. 6. Where officials disagree is whether the accumulated evidence points to a Syrian nuclear program that poses a significant threat to the Middle East.

Mr. Cheney and his allies have expressed unease at the decision last week by President Bush and Ms. Rice to proceed with an agreement to supply North Korea with economic aid in return for the North’s disabling its nuclear reactor. Those officials argued that the Israeli intelligence demonstrates that North Korea cannot be trusted. They also argue that the United States should be prepared to scuttle the agreement unless North Korea admits to its dealing with the Syrians.

During a breakfast meeting on Oct. 2 at the White House, Ms. Rice and her chief North Korea negotiator, Christopher R. Hill, made the case to President Bush that the United States faced a choice: to continue with the nuclear pact with North Korea as a way to bring the secretive country back into the diplomatic fold and give it the incentive to stop proliferating nuclear material; or to return to the administration’s previous strategy of isolation, which detractors say left North Korea to its own devices and led it to test a nuclear device last October.

Mr. Cheney and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, also attended the meeting, administration officials said.

The Israeli strike occurred at a particularly delicate time for American diplomatic efforts. In addition to the North Korean nuclear negotiations, the White House is also trying to engineer a regional Middle East peace conference that would work toward a comprehensive peace accord between Arabs and Israelis.

The current and former American officials said Israel presented the United States with intelligence over the summer about what it described as nuclear activity in Syria. Officials have said Israel told the White House shortly in advance of the September raid that it was prepared to carry it out, but it is not clear whether the White House took a position then about whether the attack was justified.

One former top Bush administration official said Israeli officials were so concerned about the threat posed by a potential Syrian nuclear program that they told the White House they could not wait past the end of the summer to strike the facility.

Last week, Turkish officials traveled to Damascus to present the Syrian government with the Israeli dossier on what was believed to be a Syrian nuclear program, according to a Middle East security analyst in Washington. The analyst said that Syrian officials vigorously denied the intelligence and said that what the Israelis hit was a storage depot for strategic missiles.

That denial followed a similar denial from North Korea. Mr. Hill, the State Department’s assistant secretary for East Asia and Pacific affairs, raised the Syria issue with his North Korean counterparts in talks in Beijing in late September. The North Koreans denied providing any nuclear material to Syria.

Publicly, Syrian officials have said Israeli jets hit an empty warehouse.

Bruce Riedel, a veteran of the C.I.A. and the National Security Council and now a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, said that American intelligence agencies remained cautious in drawing hard conclusions about the significance of the suspicious activity at the Syrian site.

Still, Mr. Riedel said Israel would not have launched the strike in Syria if it believed Damascus was merely developing more sophisticated ballistic missiles or chemical weapons.

“Those red lines were crossed 20 years ago,” he said. “You don’t risk general war in the Middle East over an extra 100 kilometers’ range on a missile system.”

Another former intelligence official said Syria was attempting to develop so-called airburst capability for its ballistic missiles. Such technology would allow Syria to detonate warheads in the air to disperse the warhead’s material more widely.

Since North Korea detonated its nuclear device, Ms. Rice has prodded Mr. Bush toward a more diplomatic approach with North Korea, through talks that also include Japan, Russia, South Korea and China. Those talks led to the initial agreement last February for North Korea to shut down its nuclear reactor in exchange for fuel and food aid.

That deal angered conservatives who believed that the Bush administration had made diplomacy toward North Korea too high a priority, at the expense of efforts to combat the spread of illicit weapons in the Middle East.

“Opposing the Israeli strike to protect the six-party talks would be a breathtaking repudiation of the administration’s own national security strategy,” said John R. Bolton, former United States ambassador to the United Nations.

But other current and former officials argue that the diplomatic approach is America’s best option for dealing with the question of North Korean proliferation.

“You can’t just make these decisions using the top of your spinal cord, you have to use the whole brain,” said Philip D. Zelikow, the former counselor at the State Department. “What other policy are we going to pursue that we think would be better?” Read

“Ticking Clocks and ‘Accidental’ War,” BY Alastair Crooke

"Policy Brief" by Alistair Crooke, circulated by the U.S./Middle East Project, of which Henry Siegman is the Director

TICKING CLOCKS AND ‘ACCIDENTAL’ WAR
BY ALASTAIR CROOKE *
9 October  2007
Editor: Robert Malley

In an article in Salon.com on 19 September, Steven Clemons describes a debate at a recent Washington dinner party attended by eighteen persons at which “Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft squared off across the table over whether President Bush will bomb Iran.”

Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter, Clemons writes, said he believed Bush’s team had laid a track leading to a single course of action: a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Scowcroft, who was national security advisor to President Ford and the first President Bush, held out hope that the current President Bush would hold fire, and not make an already disastrous situation for the U.S. in the Middle East even worse.

The 18 people at the party, including former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, then voted with a show of hands for either Brzezinski’s or Snowcroft’s position. Snowcroft got only two votes, including his own. Everyone else at the table shared Brzezinski’s fear that a U.S. strike against Iran is around the corner.

Clemons, who moderated the debate, argues that the case presented in terms of a ‘binary decision’ – to bomb or not to bomb – is unlikely to lead to the decision to bomb Iran, for various reasons, resting mainly on the U.S. military’s known opposition to conflict with Iran. In his final paragraph, Clemons suggests that “we should also worry about the kind of scenario David Wurmser has floated, meaning an engineered provocation. An ‘accidental war’ would escalate quickly and ‘end run,’ as Wurmser put it, the president’s diplomatic, intelligence and military decision-making apparatus.”
 
The view from those most likely to be affected by an “accidental” war, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, all share the conclusion both that war is imminent and that any one of a number of “ticking clocks” may be “engineered” as a provocation that would by-pass the Pentagon chiefs of staff arguments against expanded conflict and trigger war. All of these actors have been preparing flat-out for the coming conflict.
 
They see the circumstances of the Middle East as one of hair-trigger instability and escalating tensions. Equally significantly, there is a heightened inter-linkage between events that suggests that, as in 1912-14 in Europe, some unexpected and relatively insignificant event – a Sarajevo moment – could ignite currents and dynamics over which major states and movements would have little influence.

Iran (from where I have just returned) as well as leaders such as Hassan Nasrallah and Khaled Mesha’al see the signs of preparations for conflict taking place in Israel. These are the signs they see: Israel conducting low level overflights in Lebanon to create sonic booms; Israel, whose prime minister had been volubly warning of the risks of some misunderstanding leading to war between Israel and Syria, then launching an aerial incursion into Syria. And all of this as the international community remained silent.

The Syrians saw on their radars the four fighters that penetrated into Northern Syria from the Mediterranean; but they also saw the much larger numbers of Israeli aircraft that were flying in a holding position close to Cyprus. The Syrians were not about to disclose their anti-aircraft missile capacities to Israel; and the intruders dropped the munitions and their long-range fuel tanks without pressing any attack, but returned to join the larger group still flying a holding pattern off Cyprus before all returned to Israel as a single formation.

The Israeli objective remains a matter of speculation, but the general conclusion is that Israel was only ready to run such a risk against unknown air defenses either as a proving run or, given the size of the numbers of aircraft off Cyprus, to destroy some target that for whatever reason they were unable to engage. Either way, the mission seems related to future conflict……

This is only one among a series of ticking clocks:
(i) Lebanon: ……

(ii) Syria ….

News Round Up (6 Sept 2007)

Uri Avnery reviewing the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by Mearsheimer and Walt. Two Knights and a Dragon, 06/10/07

THERE ARE books that change people's consciousness and change history. Some tell a story, like Harriet Beech Stowe's 1851 "Uncle Tom's Cabin", which gave a huge impetus to the campaign for the abolition of slavery. Others take the form of a political treatise, like Theodor Herzl's "Der Judenstaat", which gave birth to the Zionist movement. Or they can be scientific in nature, like Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species", which changed the way humanity sees itself. And perhaps political satire, too, can shake the world, like "1984" by George Orwell.

Suicide bombers head to Iraq, Articulate, middle-class men are leaving Damascus and preparing to die for Bin Laden. London Times. (Interesting interviews with three bombers in Damascus, who are on their way to Iraq.)
. 
Oct. 6 — Syria is encouraging Sunni Arab insurgent groups and former Iraqi Baathists with ties to the leaders of Saddam Hussein’s government to organize here, diplomats and Syrian political analysts say. By building strong ties to those groups, they say, Syria hopes to gain influence in Iraq before what it sees as the inevitable waning of the American presence there.

“The Syrians feel American power is much weaker in Iraq than in the past,” said Ibrahim Hamidi, the Damascus bureau chief of the pan-Arab daily newspaper Al Hayat. “Now they can take a bold public initiative like helping Iraq’s opposition organize without much fear, especially since President Bush has become a lame duck.”…

“Syria looks to the resistance as freedom fighters, like George Washington fighting the British,” said Mahdi Dahlala, a former Syrian minister of information. “We understand that the rising up against occupation is a natural phenomenon.”

“Syria is not going hand over any Iraqis to the Iraqi government unless they produce evidence of wrongdoing,” Mr. Dahlala said.

Officials in the Bush administration say that Syria has had a mixed record recently, taking some steps that American officials see as helpful in Iraq and others that show that Damascus is seeking to build its own influence there.

In an interview, a senior Defense Department official praised Damascus for canceling the opposition conference and noted that the Syrians had cracked down to a degree on Islamic militants operating near the border with Iraq, a move long sought by Washington.

An intelligence assessment released in August in Washington said that the Syrian government had gone after Islamic smuggling networks. But it did so not out of a desire to help the United States, the report said, but because it feared that the groups presented a threat to the Syrian government.

The report also criticized the Syrians for funneling money to Sunni insurgent groups inside Iraq “in a bid to increase Syrian influence.”…

Thabet Salem, a Syrian political commentator, said Syria was also exploiting a rift between two former Iraqi Baath Party leaders, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former vice president under Mr. Hussein, and Muhammad Younis al-Ahmed, who is believed to be living in Syria. The two men, accused by Washington and Baghdad of leading and financing terrorist operations in Iraq, have multimillion-dollar bounties on their heads.

“Younis al-Ahmed is trying to go under the umbrella of the Syrians as a way to unite the Baathists,” Mr. Salem said. “And the Syrians quietly support him, because they could have more control over their actions.”

In January, Mr. Ahmed held a conference in the northern Syrian city of Homs to try to revive the Iraqi Baath Party. Some Syrians speculated that he wanted to take a more conciliatory stance with the Iraqi government and the United States. His rival, Mr. Douri, who is suspected of having stronger ties with insurgent groups, rejected the conference.

“Douri deeply distrusts working with the Syrians because he distrusts the Iranians, who are strong allies with Syria,” Mr. Salem said.

Mr. Ahmed is believed to be garnering increasing support in Syria from former Iraqi Baathists, at the expense of Mr. Douri and other rivals, by offering cash incentives and Syrian residency permits. Loyalty to his leadership is said to be particularly strong among the poorer, Sunni Arab, segments of Syria’s two million Iraqi refugees.

“Syria could gain tremendous influence in Iraq if it could get control over the Iraqi Baathists,” Mr. Salem said. “It has much more in common, ideologically speaking, with them than it does with the Islamists in Hamas.”

A spokesman for Mr. Douri’s wing of former Baathists living in Syria, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Muhammad, condemned Mr. Ahmed and denied suggestions that former Baathists were turning away from Mr. Douri or considering negotiating with Washington.

“We want every American soldier out of Iraq, and we won’t stop fighting until that happens,” Mr. Muhammad said.

Condoleezza Rice opposed Israel’s attack on Syrian nuclear site. US Secretary of state persuaded the Israelis to delay military strike on Syria last month. London Times

Regrets Only? By DEXTER FILKINS in NY Times Sunday Magazine (This is a brilliant article. Read all)

Kanan Makiya spent years in exile advocating the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The war he supported brought about an Iraq he never imagined…..

Then came Fouad Ajami, a Johns Hopkins professor of Middle East history, a Lebanese-American intimately identified with the Iraqi project. The American invasion of Iraq, Ajami said between bites of fish, would yet prove to be a transforming moment in the region. “Persuading the Americans to take down Saddam was Chalabi’s finest hour,” Ajami said, referring to the Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi. The conversation drifted along on a cloud of agreement until Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi intellectual and professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at Brandeis University near Boston, leaned forward to pose a question.

“How many Iraqis have died since 2003?” Makiya asked his friends.

There was silence at the table. Makiya was asking the others, but he also seemed to be asking himself.

“Five hundred thousand?” Makiya mused. “Two hundred thousand? What are the estimates?”

Someone said something about a study.

“It’s getting closer to Saddam,” Makiya said. Then he sat back in his chair, and the conversation continued on its way…..

Where did it go wrong? Makiya asks himself. Or, more precisely, where did he go wrong? It’s the second question that Makiya is finding the most troubling, for it concerns a lifetime of believing, as he puts it, that hope can triumph over experience. “I want to look into myself, look at myself, delve into the assumptions I had before the war,” he told me.

Makiya’s life is no longer what it was. In 2003, on returning to Iraq, he reunited with his sweetheart from high-school days, married and took her back to Cambridge. He also found out he has chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the same disease that killed Edward Said, the Palestinian-born Columbia University professor and Makiya’s intellectual nemesis….

Strike on Syria or Iran – Lebanon torn in the Middle

High Level Debate Stalled Syria Air Strike 

The September Israeli airstrike on a suspected nuclear site in Syria had been in the works for months, ABC News has learned, and was delayed only at the strong urging of the United States.

In early July the Israelis presented the United States with satellite imagery that they said showed a nuclear facility in Syria. They had additional evidence that they said showed that some of the technology was supplied by North Korea.

One U.S. official told ABC's Martha Raddatz the material was "jaw dropping" because it raised questions as to why U.S. intelligence had not previously picked up on the facility.

Officials said that the facility had likely been there for months if not years.

"Israel tends to be very thorough about its intelligence coverage, particularly when it takes a major military step, so they would not have acted without data from several sources," said ABC military consultant Tony Cordesman.

U.S. Cautious After Flawed Iraq Intelligence

A senior U.S. official said the Israelis planned to strike during the week of July 14 and in secret high-level meetings American officials argued over how to respond to the intelligence.

Some in the administration supported the Israeli action, but others, notably Sect. of State Condoleeza Rice did not. One senior official said the U.S. convinced the Israelis to "confront Syria before attacking."

Officials said they were concerned about the impact an attack on Syria would have on the region. And given the profound consequences of the flawed intelligence in Iraq, the U.S. wanted to be absolutely certain the intelligence was accurate.

Initially, administration officials convinced the Israelis to call off the July strike. But in September the Israelis feared that news of the site was about to leak and went ahead with the strike despite U.S. concerns.

The airstrike was so highly classified, President Bush refused to acknowledge it publicly even after the bombs fell. ..ABC's Martha Raddatz filed this report for "World News With Charles Gibson."

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has issued an angry rebuke to those in the United States who favour military action against Syria or Iran.

"When people talk about further destabilising of the region, when you read about some American political advisers speaking about action against Syria and Iran, I can only say that I regard that as criminal, ignorant and potentially murderous folly," he said.

Dr Williams has just returned from a visit to Syria where he met hundreds of Christian Iraqi refugees.

Christian Split in Lebanon Raises Specter of War, Oct. 5 — With the Islamist group Hezbollah having brought Lebanese politics to a standstill, the country’s once-dominant Christian community feels under siege and has begun re-establishing militias, training in the hills and stockpiling weapons.

Skip to next paragraph

Multimedia

Christian LebanonSlide Show
Many Lebanese say another civil war — like the 15-year one that started in 1975 — is imminent and that the most dangerous flash points are within the divided Christian community.

Christian youth are signing up for militant factions in the greatest numbers since the end of the civil war, spray painting nationalist symbols on walls and tattooing them on their skin, and proclaiming their willingness to fight in a new civil war — in particular, against fellow Christians.

"…When I asked Hersh who wants to bomb Iran, he said, "Ironically there is a lot of pressure coming from Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all said we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran. Clearly the pressure from Democrats is a reflection of – we might as well say it – Israeli and Jewish input." He added the obvious: "a lot of money comes to the Democratic campaigns" from Jewish contributors…"
Hersh said. "When it comes to choice between bombing Iran and taking some political heat, the president will do what he wants. Look, no decision has been made, no order has been given, I've never said it's going to happen. But I had breakfast this morning in Washington with somebody who's close to a lot of military people, and there's a sense among them that the president is essentially messianic about this. He sees this as his mission. It could be because God is telling him to do it. It could be because his daddy didn't do it. It could be because it's step 13 in a 12-step program he was in. I just don't know."

Nasrallah calls on Saudi Arabia to boycott the upcoming Middle East conference

Posted by Alex. Written by Idaf with commentary at the end by Alex

IDAF sent this summary of today's speech by Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

nspeech.jpg

On the Presidential Elections (Written by Idaf)
 
In short, Nasrallah gave the March 14 group 3 options:
  1. Accept the Berri initiative where the opposition would accept a consensus president in return for dropping its demand for a unity government.
  2. Amending the constitution one time only for a direct "one man one vote" for the president and drop the debate of "half+1" vs. "two thirds" (of votes in the parliament). This would sideline all the sectarian Zaiims and give power to the people.
  3. Hire 5 scientific polling companies to survey the Lebanese public on all presidential nominees and accept the findings in the parliament as the next president of Lebanon.
It'll be interesting to watch the debate in the next few weeks on these options.
 
On the Assassinations in Lebanon

But the most important part of Nasrallah's speech is his counter-offensive on the "who is behind killing politicians in Lebanon". He said that it is his "view and belief" and "not a hypothesis anymore" that it is Israel that is behind the killings in Lebanon.
 
He argued that Israel is "no ally of March 14" therefore they are potential Israeli targets whenever there's a political gains from killing some of them. He reminded us of how most of the assassinations took place in the areas where Israel historically had influence and security presence in Lebanon (implying to areas under control by the Lebanese Forces militia).
 
He said that these assassinations are carried out by Israel and "might or might not be in coordination with the US administration". He reminded everyone of a very interesting trend in the assassinations I mentioned few weeks ago. He said that these assassinations are designed to put the opposition on the defensive whenever it is gaining power or there's an initiative to solve a political problem. His argument is that Syria can't be putting its allies in Lebanon in this position repeatedly and shoot itself in the foot time and again. He listed "a sample" of 3 assassinations: Jubran Tuaini was assassinated less than 24 hours before the Security Council meeting on Syria to discuss the Mehlis report (a couple of days after returning to Lebanon). Pierre Gemayel was assassinated on the same day that there was a Security Council meeting for the international tribunal (days before the launch of the mass opposition movement in Beirut). Ghanem was killed on the day of another Security Council meeting on the proceedings of launching the tribunal (7 days before the parliament presidential elections meeting and 2 days after coming back from self imposed exile).
 
Here's the part of the transcript with Nasrallah's case and argument regarding Israel's motives for the assassinations:
 

?? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? 14 ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ????????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????. ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ???????? ????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?? 14 ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??? 14 ???? ???? ??????. ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? 14 ???? ???? ??????…
 
?????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?????????? ???? ???? 14 ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ????????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????.
 
??? ?? ???? ??? ??? 14 ???? ???? ?????? ?????????? ????? ???? ??? ???????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? 14 ????? ??? ???? ?? 14 ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?????! ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ????????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ???????? ????? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ???????????? ??? ?????? ??? ????.
 
????? ????? ???????? ???????????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????. ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????????. ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? 14 ???? ?????. ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? 8 ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ????????. ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ???????????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??????.

???? ???? ???? ???? ???????????? ?? ???? ???? ?????????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????????. ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? : ?????? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????. ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ? ?? ???? ???? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ???????

?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ! ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???????. ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??? ??????? ???????…
 
??? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ???. ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ????????? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ??????????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ????????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ???????. ????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ??????????.
 
??????? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????. ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ??????????? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ?????.
 ..

???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????. ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????.
 
(…) ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ????????????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ?????. ??? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????????. 
?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ????????? (..)

??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????! ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ???. ???? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????  ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??????. ??????? ??? ????? ??????  ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????  ???????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??????.
???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????.

 
On the Peace Conference
 
Other points worth mentioning in his speech was a direct appeal to Saudi NOT to attend the "peace conference". As he put it, it'll be a "free normalization" gift that would boost the "weak Olmert government" without anything in return.
 

" ??? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ?????. ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????????? "

 
He noted the irony of speaking about peace while Israel is actually stacking its army in the Golan Heights as an apparent preparation for war. He also said that in the last 3 weeks, Israel has expanded its violations of Lebanese skies up to Bikaa in an unprecedented scale in no-war times.
 
On the Strike on Syria
 
On the Israeli strike on Syria, he gave his analysis that this was to achieve 2 goals: "Shake Syria" before Bush's peace conference so that it would bring down its "resistance" OR it was a move to pull Syria into a regional war in coordination with the Americans (that could pull Iran in).
 

????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ????? ?? ?????????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????

????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ????? ?? ?????????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????

 

My (Alex's) reading of the speech:

Nasrallah's speech gave us one more reason to believe that events are more likely to be leading towards a confrontation in Lebanon, and perhaps throughout the Middle East. By announcing his preference for asking the Lebanese people to directly elect Lebanon's new president, he is preparing his moral arguments in case there is a breakout of hostilities in Lebanon in the near future. I can already imagine his speech three months from now in which he says "I offered those who call themselves "the majority" to let the people pick their own president, but they rejected my proposal and all other reasonable and generous offers"

Nasrallah felt for the first time confident enough to publicly declare his belief that Syria is innocent in all of Lebanon's political assassinations. In the past, he was always cautious whenever he commented on this sensitive issue. There was always some ambiguity in his position. But by clearly siding with the Syrians today, he is siding against some of the Lebanese who feel very strongly that "Syria did it". This could be an indication that Nasrallah considers the damaged relations between him and the March 14 group to be beyond repair at this point.

Finally, his call on Saudi Arabia to boycott the upcoming Middle East peace conference is also not the way the Saudis want him to communicate with them. The fact Nasrallah decided to convey that public message to the Saudis also reflects a change in his previously sensitive approach to dealing with the Saudis.

In case the Lebanese March 14 group fail to accept Nasralla's compromise solution (through direct elections), his speech suggests that he wants everyone to know that it is now fair if he seeks Syria's backing and support against Israel's attempts to destabilize his country.

In a day or two we will probably hear something from the March 14 group's leaders. I doubt they will accept a democratically elected president.

Alex.

Israel Hit Main Arms Depot Sept. 6, Killing Military Police

Intelligence Online reports from Damascus on the Israeli raid on Syria last month: (Via Laura Rosen, War and Piece thanks to FLC)

In attacking Dair el Zor in Syria on Sept. 6, the Israeli air force wasn't targeting a nuclear site but rather one of the main arms depots in the country.

Dair el Zor houses a huge underground base where the Syrian army stores the long and medium-range missiles it mostly buys from Iran and North Korea. The attack by the Israeli air force coincided with the arrival of a stock of parts for Syria's 200 Scud B and 60 Scud C weapons.

The parts were shipped from North Korea aboard a container ship flying the Panamanian flag. The U.S. Navy wanted to board the ship in Morocco's territorial waters but Rabat vetoed the operation. The parts were loaded aboard six trucks in the Syrian port of Tartus on Sept. 3 and took three days to reach Dair el Zor. The trucks and their loads were destroyed the moment they arrived at the underground base. A unit of military police that escorted the convoy was also wiped out in the attack.

Damascus immediately appealed to several Palestinian groups with strong ties to Syria to retaliate. But Hamas, whose strategy chief Khaled Meshal lives in exile in Syria, refused to act. That was also the case of Hezbollah, which sent its political adviser, Hussein Khalil, to Damascus to signify the movement's reluctance to strike back at Israel.

Khalil, who met with the head of Syrian military intelligence, gen. Assef Chawkat, as well as the official in charge of Lebanese affairs in the president's office, gen. Mohamed Nassif, claimed that Israel would launch a new invasion of southern Lebanon if Hezbollah began firing at Israeli targets.

Comment by JL: This sounds a lot more likely than earlier reports, but still fishy because it has too much intelligence, with no indication of where it came from.

Addendum: Here is why Alex skeptical:

It sounded more likely … until they started to talk about Mashal and Nasrallah refusing to hit Israel … that destroys the credibility of the story, or at least its source, since the second half of the story is nonsense.

Syria will not ask Hizbollah to hit Israel before the Lebanese elections … and probably not even after the elections. Last year Nasrallah had to explain his decision to attack the Israeli soldiers that led to Israel’s war on Lebanon. He said that he would not have done it had he known that Israel would react that way.

Hizbollah’s legitimacy in Lebanon is much more valuable to Syria than sending a few useless missiles over Israel.

Also … when those military police members (20? 50?) died in this big operation … how come no one heard of the news in Syria? … their parents? their friends? … no one got the news?

The story is false.

If Israel hit anything, it was not that dramatic.