The White House Friday took the unusual step of dismissing what it called a "rumor and urban legend" that the United States was gearing up for military action against Iran or Syria. 

Well it should. President Bush's speech announcing his new Iraq strategy and troop surge caused not only bloggers to sound the alarm, but also Democratic Senator Biden and Republican Senator Hagel. Bush's statement that "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Anniversary of the Madrid conference for peace in the Mid East, 1991

Many are anxious that the real message tucked into President Bush's announcement of a troop surge was the threat to attack both Iran and Syria for supporting anti-American militias in Iraq. The reason for this suspicion is twofold. First the small surge in troops does not signify a new strategy; rather, it is a continuation of the "hold the course" policy Bush has been pursuing in Iraq from the beginning. The small increase in troops will hardly counterbalance the surge in violence Iraq has been witnessing. This leads us to conclude that the "surge" proposal's real intent was to kill the Baker-Hamilton recommendation of pursuing an orderly retreat from Iraq. Bush dressed the surge up as a new policy – one that recognized America was failing. The problem is that the surge cannot possible change the momentum of deterioration in Iraq by itself. This is why skeptics look elsewhere for some real meat in Bush's victory plan. We cannot believe that administration planners are any more convinced than we are that the surge will reverse the steady deterioration of government authority in Iraq.

The second reason to believe the "newness" in Bush's plan is not to be found within Iraq's troubled boarders, but outside them is his troubling support for proxies in the broader Middle East. The White House has been broadening the war's scope by building up proxies elsewhere. As Patrick Seale writes in al-Hayat:

Bush is still intent on pursuing his bankrupt 'victory strategy' – a doomed enterprise in which more lives and much treasure will be thrown away.

But that is not the end of Bush's mischief. Driven by such neo-conservative hawks as Eliott Abrams at the National Security Council, the U.S. is seeking to destabilize Hizballah in Lebanon – in effect, to complete the job Israel failed to do last summer. To achieve this goal, the U.S. has been arming the Internal Security Forces of the Seniora government and has put great pressure on General Michel Aoun, the Christian leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, to break with Hizballah.

The U.S. seems equally determined to destroy the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas by supplying arms, training and tens of millions of dollars to its Fatah rival. Egypt and Jordan have also been roped in to supply thousands of rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition to Fatah forces loyal to the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmud Abbas. This appears to be another covert program conceived by Eliott Abrams and implemented on the ground by David Welsh, a senior State Department official.

We also witnessed the support for an Ethiopian proxy to bring down the Islamic Court regime in Somalia under the presumption that it was al-Qaida. Sacrificing political stability in Somalia for three al-Qaida operatives is terrible math. Even more troubling is the continued escalation toward Iran. Beefing up Gulf defenses by sending additional battle ships to the region, leaked Israeli plans to use nuclear bunker busters against Iran's facilities, and promises to provide Patriot missiles to the Arab Gulf states all suggest that Bush is expanding the battle field in the hope that US fortunes in Iraq will be reversed if Washington can claim victory elsewhere. The problem with this strategy is that it builds on the erroneous presumption that the US is in a war against "evil." Rather than disaggregating struggles in Palestine, the Horn of Africa, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq in order to deal with each separately, Washington is stubbornly gluing them together in one super war on radical Islam. We are pretending they are all directed by al-Qaida and a nebulous enemy of freedom and liberty. This is not the enemy that exists. There is no command central. Moreover, we cannot destroy an idea with firepower. By pursuing this false war with greater determination, the US is ensuring failure with greater determination.

To make matters worse, the Iraqi government gives few signs that it views the region in the same light that Washington does or that it is not pursuing policies completely contradictory to those of Washington.

Rather than snubbing Syria, Iraq's president Talabani is in Syria today with a delegation that includes Interior Minister Jawad Bolani, Trade Minister Abdel Falah Al Sudani, Water Resources Minister Abdel Latif Rashid and national security advisor Muwaffaq Al Rubaie. Talabani said: "The aim of the visit is to evaluate and strengthen mutual relations for the benefit of both the countries."

Rather than supporting the US attack on the Iranian consulate in Irbil, Iraqi government officials condemned it. Nouri Talabani, a member of the parliament in Kurdistan, said the arrests of the Iranians "is an illegal act and if such an act took place in another country there would have been grave consequences." Cheney and Hadley have been defending the raid vigorously.

Most importantly, PM Maliki has given no sign that he will attack Sadr's army. No clear commitment from Prime Minister Maliki has been given that he will approve and support a joint effort by the Iraqi and American armed forces to disband and neutralize all the sectarian/ethnic militias.  When asked bluntly if such a campaign would include joint action against Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army (including a house-by-house cleansing of Sadr City, for example), the answers from both US and Iraqi spokespersons in the past 48 hours has been confusing and often contradictory. 

A number of commentators on this site insist that Bush does not intend further confrontation but is looking for dialogue. The tough talk they say is only posturing to improve the US's bargaining position. Bush recognizes that he must retreat and compromise, they say. I wish I could buy this interpretation. I am not so sanguine.

Neither is Tony Karon of Rootless Cosmopolitan, who writes:

I wouldn’t bet on the collective strategic wisdom of Cheney-Rice and Khamenei-Larijani-Ahmedinajad combining to avoid a confrontation. And if the U.S. is raising the stakes, you can reliably expect Iran to do the same, probably starting in Iraq.

Critics are right to label President Bush’s new Iraq plan an “escalation,” but what was most clear from his speech announcing it is that the object of this escalation is not Iraq, but Iran.

Others see the indications of negotiations as posturing in order improve America's ability to strike Iran.

Clayton E. Swisher, in his article, "Neutralizing Palestine, to better focus on Iran" argues convincingly that Rice's stated efforts at peace in Palestine are directed with an eye toward Iran and are not genuine. 

Perhaps the best article along these lines is by Rosa Brooks in the LA Times,

"Bush and the GOP are shifting tactics just like Nixon did with Vietnam — to win the next election, not the war…. It's clear that Bush knows perfectly well there's no possibility of "winning" anymore, so apparently he's seeking in Iraq exactly what Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger sought in Vietnam before the 1972 election: a face-saving "decent interval" before the virtually inevitable collapse of the U.S.-backed government."

Steve Clemons of Washington Note has been very good on laying out the new aggressiveness of the Bush policy. Read his, A "SECRET WAR" AGAINST SYRIA AND IRAN?: Friday, January 12, 2007.

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran. The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country. …

UPDATE: This exchange today in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee between Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden and Senator Chuck Hagel with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

SEN. BIDEN: Secretary Rice, do you believe the president has the constitutional authority to pursue across the border into Iraq (sic/Iran) or Syria, the networks in those countries?

SEC. RICE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I would not like to speculate on the president's constitutional authority or to try and say anything that certainly would abridge his constitutional authority, which is broad as commander in chief.

I do think that everyone will understand that — the American people and I assume the Congress expect the president to do what is necessary to protect our forces.

SEN. BIDEN: Madame Secretary, I just want to make it clear, speaking for myself, that if the preident concluded he had to invade Iran or Iraq in pursuit of these — or Syria — in pursuit of these networks, I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that. I just want to set that marker. -The Washington Note

Here are additional articles of interest:

Bush is Fueling a New Cold War By: Jonathan Freedland | The Guardian
A fortnight ago the Ethiopians entered Somalia to topple the Islamist forces who had just taken Mogadishu. Americans dislike that Islamist movement, fearing it has the makings of an African Taliban, so they backed the Ethiopians to take it out. According to Patrick Smith, the editor of Africa Confidential, the war on terror is fast becoming a cold war for the 21st century, with the US finding proxy allies to fight proxy enemies in faraway places.

Bush plan rejects dialogue with Syria 

There is a widespread feeling in the region that no concessions should be made to Syria," said al-Ani. "Many Arab states see Syria's ties with Iran to be harmful to their interests."

Still, Syrians believe the day will come when their country is called upon to assume what they see as its legitimate role as a regional heavyweight.

"We will just wait and wait," said Shueibi. "They will eventually come back to Syria."

Officials publicly say the sole aim is to see a unified and stable Iraq. But Syria's offer of help in Iraq is not without its price.

Syria in particular wants Washington to persuade Israel to resume negotiations on the return of the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau captured by Israel from Syria in 1967. The two nations held their last round of talks in 2000.

Syria has made clear that it believes Washington can press Israel to return to negotiations. "There will never be any peace talks with Israel without Washington's green light and unequivocal blessing," al-Sharaa said this week.

Sharon Warned Bush
The Strategic Interest
Yossi Alpher | Fri. Jan 12, 2007 – the Forward

…. Sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharon’s words — revealed here for the first time — constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq. According to another source — Danny Ayalon, who was Israel’s ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings — Sharon told Bush that Israel would not “push one way or another” regarding the Iraq scheme.

According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world. “In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization,” Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.

Be sure, Sharon added, not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy. And ready a counter-insurgency strategy if you expect to rule Iraq, which will eventually have to be partitioned into its component parts. Finally, Sharon told Bush, please remember that you will conquer, occupy and leave, but we have to remain in this part of the world. Israel, he reminded the American president, does not wish to see its vital interests hurt by regional radicalization and the spillover of violence beyond Iraq’s borders.

Sharon’s advice — reflecting a wealth of experience with Middle East issues that Bush lacked — was prescient. (Read more…)

Yedioth quoted Amin Gemayel, the ex-President of Lebanon, as saying that he hoped a peace deal between Israel and Lebanon would be possible in the future.  "Peace with Israel? I wish. I hope. But this is not the time from our point of view or from your point of view," he said.

US: Some countries fear revealing intelligence secrets to Hariri probe

Second thoughts about the Promised Land: Jan 11th 2007 | The Economist

Jews all around the world are gradually ceasing to regard Israel as a focal point. As a result, many are re-examining what it means to be Jewish. Jews all around the world are gradually ceasing to regard Israel as a focal point. As a result, many are re-examining what it means to be Jewish

Carter Center advisers resign in protest over former president's book: IHT

Fourteen members of the 200-member Carter Center advisory board, who worked to build support for the human rights organization started by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and his wife, have resigned in protest over Carter's latest book.

The resignations, announced Thursday, are the latest in a backlash against Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," which has drawn fire from Jewish groups, been attacked by fellow Democrats and led to the resignation last month of Kenneth Stein, a Carter Center fellow and a longtime Carter adviser.

In their letter of resignation, the members of the Center's Board of Councilors wrote of Carter, "you have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side."

Berman said the religious affiliation of the resigning members, which include some prominent Jewish leaders in the Atlanta area, did not influence their decision.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said in a statement Thursday that "President Carter has only himself to blame" over the resignations because the book was "blatantly one-sided and unbecoming of a former President."

Also Thursday, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, which represents nearly 2,000 Reform rabbis, said it would cancel its visit to the Carter Center in protest over the book when the group holds its convention in Atlanta in March.

Here are additional articles of interest:

Bush is Fueling a New Cold War By: Jonathan Freedland | The Guardian
A fortnight ago the Ethiopians entered Somalia to topple the Islamist forces who had just taken Mogadishu. Americans dislike that Islamist movement, fearing it has the makings of an African Taliban, so they backed the Ethiopians to take it out. According to Patrick Smith, the editor of Africa Confidential, the war on terror is fast becoming a cold war for the 21st century, with the US finding proxy allies to fight proxy enemies in faraway places.

Bush plan rejects dialogue with Syria 

There is a widespread feeling in the region that no concessions should be made to Syria," said al-Ani. "Many Arab states see Syria's ties with Iran to be harmful to their interests."

Still, Syrians believe the day will come when their country is called upon to assume what they see as its legitimate role as a regional heavyweight.

"We will just wait and wait," said Shueibi. "They will eventually come back to Syria."

Officials publicly say the sole aim is to see a unified and stable Iraq. But Syria's offer of help in Iraq is not without its price.

Syria in particular wants Washington to persuade Israel to resume negotiations on the return of the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau captured by Israel from Syria in 1967. The two nations held their last round of talks in 2000.

Syria has made clear that it believes Washington can press Israel to return to negotiations. "There will never be any peace talks with Israel without Washington's green light and unequivocal blessing," al-Sharaa said this week.

Sharon Warned Bush
The Strategic Interest
Yossi Alpher | Fri. Jan 12, 2007 – the Forward

…. Sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharon’s words — revealed here for the first time — constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq. According to another source — Danny Ayalon, who was Israel’s ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings — Sharon told Bush that Israel would not “push one way or another” regarding the Iraq scheme.

According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world. “In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization,” Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.

Be sure, Sharon added, not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy. And ready a counter-insurgency strategy if you expect to rule Iraq, which will eventually have to be partitioned into its component parts. Finally, Sharon told Bush, please remember that you will conquer, occupy and leave, but we have to remain in this part of the world. Israel, he reminded the American president, does not wish to see its vital interests hurt by regional radicalization and the spillover of violence beyond Iraq’s borders.

Sharon’s advice — reflecting a wealth of experience with Middle East issues that Bush lacked — was prescient. (Read more…)

Yedioth quoted Amin Gemayel, the ex-President of Lebanon, as saying that he hoped a peace deal between Israel and Lebanon would be possible in the future.  "Peace with Israel? I wish. I hope. But this is not the time from our point of view or from your point of view," he said.

US: Some countries fear revealing intelligence secrets to Hariri probe

Second thoughts about the Promised Land: Jan 11th 2007 | The Economist

Jews all around the world are gradually ceasing to regard Israel as a focal point. As a result, many are re-examining what it means to be Jewish. Jews all around the world are gradually ceasing to regard Israel as a focal point. As a result, many are re-examining what it means to be Jewish

Carter Center advisers resign in protest over former president's book: IHT

Fourteen members of the 200-member Carter Center advisory board, who worked to build support for the human rights organization started by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and his wife, have resigned in protest over Carter's latest book.

The resignations, announced Thursday, are the latest in a backlash against Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," which has drawn fire from Jewish groups, been attacked by fellow Democrats and led to the resignation last month of Kenneth Stein, a Carter Center fellow and a longtime Carter adviser.

In their letter of resignation, the members of the Center's Board of Councilors wrote of Carter, "you have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side."

Berman said the religious affiliation of the resigning members, which include some prominent Jewish leaders in the Atlanta area, did not influence their decision.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said in a statement Thursday that "President Carter has only himself to blame" over the resignations because the book was "blatantly one-sided and unbecoming of a former President. Also Thursday, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, which represents nearly 2,000 Reform rabbis, said it would cancel its visit to the Carter Center in protest over the book when the group holds its convention in Atlanta in March.

A Madrid Peace Conference, bringing together "unofficial" representatives of most Middle Eastern countries has been assembled over the last two days. Coverage of this "second track" effort to gin up momentum for dialogue has not been promising. The two Syrian unofficial representatives were Daoud Riyadi, who was deeply involved in past Israeli-Syrian negotiations, and Bushra Kanafani, a spokeswoman for the foreign ministry. None of the regime heavy-weights were there. I had dinner with Imad Mustapha at his residence in Washington the day before yesterday and asked him whether he thought the Madrid exercise would lead to much. He knit his brows and hesitated, looking for the proper diplomatic turn of phrase to let me know that the Syrian government was not expecting much from the meeting. None of the major countries sent high level representatives. Moreover, President Bush's address on the troop surge and new Iraq policy completely upstaging Madrid. The president's message was more war not less, taking the wind out of whatever hopes one might have held out for Madrid. Here is the coverage of the Madrid Conference:

National Public Radio had a downbeat report on the Syrian representation. The Syria part goes as follows:

In the lobby of a fancy hotel in Madrid, Arabs and Israelis who took part in the talks 15 years ago greeted each other warmly, with smiles and laughs and even hugs and kisses.

Their personal relationships have survived, even flourished, despite the flaring hatreds between their peoples.

But two Syrians sitting at a table in the corner wanted nothing of the camaraderie. One was Syrian President Bashar Assad's legal adviser, Riad Daoudi. The other, Bushra Kanafani, is a foreign ministry spokeswoman.

"We are not here to hug the Israelis," Kanafani said. "Thanking them for the occupation of my own territories? Why should I do that?"

Syria demands return of the Golan Heights, which Israel captured in the 1967 war.

None of the participants here — including two former Israeli intelligence chiefs — are officially representing their governments.

Still, Kanafani said Syria wants to renew peace talks.

"When the Israeli government decides that looking for peace is the best policy for Israel and the region, then we are going to welcome that and sit again together to talk peace," he said.

The Israeli government hasn't shown much interest in talking to Damascus after last summer's war against Syrian-backed Hezbollah. Some analysts wonder whether Assad is trying to distract attention from his government's alleged involvement in the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

UPI adds:  But while the 1991 event was sponsored by the Spanish government and involved all governments, the current conference is being staged by private peace foundations and none of the major players in the region have sent senior representatives.

At the opening session, there were repeated calls for an end to violence on all sides and for a greater involvement from the United Nations and the European Union but there were few concrete proposals.

The two-day conference opened with messages of support from former U.S. President Bill Clinton and other leaders involved in past efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"The convening of this conference 15 years later could not be more timely," wrote ex-U.S. Secretary of State James Baker III in a message read to delegates. He said the current Madrid meeting "offers an opportunity to assist the possibility of moving forward toward Arab-Israeli conflict resolution."

Clinton's message stressed the new meeting showed that there was still hope for the future.

Later delegates broke away for closed-door meetings on bilateral issues such as Israel's relations with the Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria. They were to a have closed door plenary session later in the day before attending an audience with King Juan Carlos at the Pardo Palace on Madrid's outskirts.

Spain sees the event as part of its efforts to restart what it sees as a seriously ailing peace process.

Haaretz: Syria diplomat: No preconditions to negotiations with Israel

JPost: Syria diplomat: No preconditions to negotiations with Israel

General articles on Syrian-Israeli Dialogue

In an article in Haaretz ("Markers on the road to Damascus," Dec. 29, 2006), Itamar Rabinovich states that the Israeli government has two political options – progress along the Syrian track or progress along the Palestinian one – and that a discreet clarification with Syria would enable it to decide which option is preferable. In my view, progress along the Syrian track is in any case preferable to progress along the Palestinian one at this time, for several reasons.

First, the way things look today, the prospects for solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are not promising. The Palestinian political scene is in crisis. The Hamas government cannot control Palestinian society because of its struggle with Fatah, which is challenging its authority. The dispute between Hamas and Fatah is not just political; it is also ideological, touching on fundamental issues such as recognition of Israel and the willingness to negotiate openly with it. As long as Hamas – which represents at least 40 percent of the Palestinian electorate – refuses to negotiate with Israel, the chances of Israel conducting serious talks with the Palestinians are slim. Although Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is trying his best to convey a willingness to enter into a dialogue with Israel, apparently his ability to control and influence Palestinian society and politics is limited. Thus, it must be concluded that any political initiatives regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict might fail because of internal rivalries and rifts within the Palestinian camp – irrespective of the Israeli government's readiness to make concessions.

The second reason for preferring the Syrian track is the fact that a peace treaty with Damascus would help Israel deal more effectively with the heart of the problem: the conflict with the Palestinians. A treaty with Syria, which would likely lead to a major breakthrough in Israeli-Lebanese relations, would close the circle of Israel's conflict with its neighbors and help improve its relations with Arab states, in the outer circle. If that happens, the Palestinians would be isolated and, naturally, weaker, vis-a-vis Israel.

The third reason for preferring the Syrian track is that it would affect, directly or indirectly, Syria's relations with Iran and Hezbollah. Since Syria is a major player in the axis of radical states in the region, its removal or increased distance from it would necessarily weaken the axis. Some experts estimate that talks with Syria would not necessarily distance it from Iran or Hezbollah; however, practically speaking, it seems reasonable to assume that Syria's participation in diplomatic talks with Israel, European countries and perhaps even the United States would affect its relationship with Iran and Hezbollah.

The fourth reason for preferring the Syrian track is that a political solution vis-a-vis Syria appears less complicated than a political solution in the Palestinian track. Most of the components of a peace settlement were discussed in secret talks in the 1990s and only a few issues (the final boundaries of the Israeli withdrawal, the Sea of Galilee issue and the early-warning installations) have not yet been worked out. However, they can be solved with some creative thinking. A solution in the Palestinian track is more complex because of the refugee question, the Jerusalem problem and the need to contend with a tough ideological core of settlers.

To what extent is Syria prepared to dialogue with Israel? The signals Damascus is sending out apparently indicate a willingness to initiate dialogue. The motive behind this readiness might not be the "right one" – that is, a willingness to recognize Israel – and may rather be the need to deal with various challenges in the regional and international spheres. Nevertheless, the reasons that would bring Syria to the negotiating table are of interest to historians, not to decision-makers. The late Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, launched his peace initiative not because he recognized Zionist claims, but rather because of his domestic political and economic difficulties.

Like the talks with the Palestinians in the previous decade, the negotiations with Syria could collapse. However, if the Israeli government embarks on this dialogue with sufficient determination, and on the assumption that there really is a partner on the other side, the prospects of success exceed the risk.

The writer heads the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies.

Washington is taking revenge on Russia for its energetic efforts to fill in the vacuum created by the U.S. sanctions, notably in Venezuela. Rosoboronexport is supplying Kalashnikov guns, Su-30MK Flanker-C fighters and other arms and military equipment worth $3 billion to Venezuela. It has military contracts worth $9.7 billion with Syria stipulating the supplies of antitank and anti-air systems, and is supplying Tor-M1 and mobile army air defense missile systems to Iran.

The State Department's sanctions cannot force the Kremlin to terminate these lucrative deals. Ivanov is right in that the Kremlin, Rosoboronexport and its partners have not violated any international laws or rules. They are not supplying arms to conflict zones or selling arms to warring sides. Moreover, they are trading only with U.N.-recognized states and their legitimate governments, rather than with individual firms and organizations.

Russia is now ready to approve the export of the Iskander-E (SS-26 Stone in NATO nomenclature) medium-range rocket to Syria. It has a range of 280 kilometers and multiple warheads. This is a not-so-friendly warning to both EU and the United States that Russia is back in the Middle Eastern game of nations — opposed to Western interests.

Russia Backs Syria in Probe Request: By: Nicholas Kralev | The Washington Times

A rift has developed between Russia and the Western members of the U.N. Security Council over the probe into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri nearly two years after he died in a car blast.

Iranian and Syrian Government Papers on Renewed Superpower Role for Russia to Counter U.S. in Middle East: January 12, 2007, MEMRI

In a December 20, 2006 op-ed in the Syrian government daily Teshreen, columnist Issam Dari wrote that the uni-polar world order that the U.S. has sought to impose upon the world is a thing of the past, and that today Russia is playing a role no less important than that of the U.S. in promoting world peace and security.

T-desco has written an excellent much of summation of the news in the last comment section. I have copied it below. (Thank you TD!)

CIA gets the go–ahead to take on Hizbollah – Telegraph

The Central Intelligence Agency has been authorised to take covert action against Hizbollah as part of a secret plan by President George W. Bush to help the Lebanese government prevent the spread of Iranian influence. Senators and congressmen have been briefed on the classified “non-lethal presidential finding” that allows the CIA to provide financial and logistical support to the prime minister, Fouad Siniora.

The finding was signed by Mr Bush before Christmas after discussions between his aides and Saudi Arabian officials. Details of its existence, known only to a small circle of White House officials, intelligence officials and members of Congress, have been passed to The Daily Telegraph.

It authorises the CIA and other US intelligence agencies to fund anti-Hizbollah groups in Lebanon and pay for activists who support the Siniora government. The secrecy of the finding means that US involvement in the activities is officially deniable.

The finding was signed by Mr Bush before Christmas after discussions between his aides and Saudi Arabian officials. Details of its existence, known only to a small circle of White House officials, intelligence officials and members of Congress, have been passed to The Daily Telegraph. advertisement

It authorises the CIA and other US intelligence agencies to fund anti-Hizbollah groups in Lebanon and pay for activists who support the Siniora government. The secrecy of the finding means that US involvement in the activities is officially deniable.

The Bush administration hopes Mr Siniora’s government, severely weakened after its war with Israel last year, will become a bulwark against the growing power of the Shia sect of Islam, championed by Iran and Syria, since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Mr Bush’s move is at the centre of a fresh drive by America, supported by the Sunni states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt as well as Israel, to stop Iranian hegemony in the Middle East emerging from the collapse of Iraq.

…

Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, the former Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington, is understood to have been closely involved in the decision to prop up Mr Siniora’s administration and the Israeli government, which views Iran as its chief enemy, has also been supportive.

Daily Telegraph

Bandar is rumored to become the next Saudi FM:

“Saudis who have intimate knowledge of the discussions regarding the possible reshuffle said Al Faisal, who has had health problems, might be replaced by Crown Prince Sultan’s son Prince Bandar, a former ambassador to Washington and current secretary of the National Security Council.”

AP

Asia Times: Neo-cons are still calling the shots. Jim Lobe on deputy national security adviser J D Crouch II: The superhawk behind the surge

Is Palestinian Chaos a Road to Peace? Time Magazine, Karon

The U.S. strategy appears to have missed what many Middle East analysts long ago concluded: that Hamas is now an intractable part of the Palestinian body politic that represents close to half of the population, and cannot simply be wished or blown away. For any U.S. peace plans that are predicated on giving it a knockout blow, the group's mass support — to borrow a phrase from Al Gore — is an inconvenient truth.

Russia, US differ on states impeding Lebanon probe:

Reuters: Russia wants the U.N. Security Council to find out which nations are not cooperating fully with an investigation into political murders in Lebanon, Moscow’s U.N. ambassador said on Tuesday.But France and the United States, among other Western council members, disagree with putting such a request to Serge Brammertz … .

In Lebanon, the opposition has claimed it will begin phase II of its attack on the Siniora government, meant to bring it down. Saad Hariri is picking up the batton from Jumblat in defending the government and attacking what he calls Hizbullah's "political terrorism."

Hariri says Lebanon is Facing ‘Political-Intellectual Terrorism’

Parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri on Sunday accused Hizbullah of being the “spear head” of an alleged Syrian-Iranian assault on the Paris III conference and pledged to confront what he described as political-intellectual terrorism. Naharnet

Egypt frets dire consequences if Lebanese deadlock intensifies

BEIRUT: On the eve of the preparatory meeting for the Paris III donor conference, Egypt issued a harshly worded statement warning the Lebanese of "dire consequences" if the political deadlock intensifies with the escalation of anti-government protests. 

US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman also made his rounds Tuesday by visiting a representative from the March 14 Forces camp, Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamadeh, and Omar Karami from the March 8 camp.

"The US expressed its support for Lebanon and will be one of the main donors at the Paris III conference and will help Lebanon in the preparations and its success," said Hamadeh after the meeting with Feltman.

For our tea leaf collection: 

UPI: “There is no doubt that Israel`s fighter-bombers have been training for a long-distance mission; NATO sources say they have for weeks been watching Israeli warplanes running flights the length of the Mediterranean to Gibraltar — and nobody expects an Israeli strike on Gibraltar.”

Are Bush’s Wars Winding Down or Heating Up? by Paul Craig Roberts

Most Americans believe that Bush’s Iraqi misadventure is over. The occupation has lost the support of the electorate, the Congress, the generals and the troops. The Democrats are sitting back waiting for Bush to come to terms with reality. They don’t want to be accused of losing the war by forcing Bush out of Iraq. There are no more troops to commit, and when the “surge” fails, Bush will have no recourse but to withdraw. A little longer, everyone figures, and the senseless killing will be over.

Recent news reports indicate that this conclusion could be an even bigger miscalculation than the original invasion.

On January 7 the London Times reported that it has learned from “several Israeli military sources” that “Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.” The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied the report.

The Times reports that “Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.”

In other news reports Israeli General Oded Tira is quoted as follows: “President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure.”

Former EU External Affairs Commissioner Calls for Dialogue with Syria, Iran on Iraq

Conflicts Forum's editor, Paul Woodward, who also manages the excellent "War in Context" just sent me CF's excellent report of the Abrams' plan for promoting civil war in Palestine. It ties in with Syria Comment's tea-reading exercise in which we argued the Bush administration would finance and arm surrogates to fight their wars in the region. Evidently, MEPI money is being funneled toward this democracy promotion project. Perhaps this helps explain why the MEPI Syria report was leaked to Adam Zagorin of Time magazine.

Elliot Abrams’ uncivil war

Treasury Steps Up Pressure on Syria
Thursday January 4, 2007 4:16 PM
By JEANNINE AVERSA
AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -The Bush administration, intensifying pressure on Damascus, moved Thursday to financially clamp down on three Syrian institutions suspected of helping spread weapons of mass destruction.

The Treasury Department's action means that any bank accounts or financial assets belonging to the three entities found in the United States would be frozen. Americans also are prohibited from doing business with them.

The three entities targeted are the Higher Institute of Applied Science and Technology, the Electronics Institute and the National Standards and Calibration Laboratory.

“Syria is using official government organizations to develop nonconventional weapons and the missiles to deliver them,'' Stuart Levey, Treasury's under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said in explaining the United States' action.

The department has the power to take the financial-blocking action under an executive order issued by President Bush in June 2005.

U.S. sanctions arms suppliers to Iran, Syria 1/5/2007 The Bush administration imposed sanctions on Chinese, Russian and North Korean companies for selling weapons to Iran and Syria, The Washington Times reported, quoting U.S. officials.

Earlier this week, a top Russian defense ministry official said that Moscow’s contracts to sell anti-aircraft weapons to Syria and Iran are being fulfilled as scheduled.

The sanctions prohibit the companies from doing business with the U.S. government or acquiring American high-technology items.

Russia has consistently defended its weapons trade with Iran and Syria, saying that the arms sales are legitimate because they would be delivered in accordance with Moscow's international commitments in the nonproliferation sphere and under control by the appropriate bodies. 

Moscow slams US sanctions on its military firms

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Moscow said the latest U.S. sanctions against its arms firms were again "groundless" and added: "And yet once again, the United States is embarking on this vicious circle.

"As a result of its politicized actions, the American state also denies itself and U.S. firms the right to cooperate with our advanced companies," Russia's Foreign Ministry said. "In business language, this is called 'lost opportunities'."

Rosoboronexport, one of the world's biggest arms traders, has recently won control of the Russian firm VSMPO-Avisma, the world's largest titanium producer. It is a key supplier of titanium parts to U.S. aviation giant Boeing and Europe's EADS.

Iraq Slogger is an invaluable one-stop-shop for Iraq News. Nir Rosen is one of the principal journalists and founders of the site. It is excellent. Add the Iraq Slogger to your Juan Cole reading on Iraq. This week Nir Rosen interviews none other than Imad Mustapha, Syria's ambassador in Washington. Read it here.

Ori Nir Ori Nir, former Washington correspondent for Israel's Ha'aretz Daily, is the spokesman for Americans for Peace Now. Jan. 3, 2007 in San Fran Chronicle

Why is Olmert rejecting the Syrian overtures? Because of another tenet of Israeli foreign policy: Never act in a way that contradicts the policies of America, Israel's chief ally. President Bush is trying to isolate Syria, punish it and possibly topple Assad's regime because he considers Damascus a part of the "axis of evil." According to several press reports, the White House even communicated to Jerusalem its disappointment that Israel did not attack Syria during its war against Lebanon's Hezbollah last summer.

Everyone in Israel, a state with many military secrets but very few political ones, knew for months that Olmert was dismissing Assad's overtures mainly because Bush expects Israel not to break ranks and engage with Syria. Israeli politicians, according to numerous press reports, confirmed the American pressure in private but declined to do so publicly.

Until last month. At the weekly Israeli cabinet meeting (held behind closed doors but — in a typical Israeli fashion — leaked verbatim to the media), Olmert reportedly said: "Bush has a clear position on this issue. One should ask whether, when the president of the United States, Israel's most important ally, is struggling on every front — including the internal front — against those who are trying to thwart his policy, it is appropriate for Israel to say the opposite." Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres reportedly said: "The worse thing we could do is contradict the United States, which opposes negotiating with Syria." And following the meeting, Interior Minister Ronni Baron told a television reporter: "When the question on the agenda is the political legacy of Israel's greatest friend, President Bush, do we really need now to enter into negotiations with Syria?"

Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector and leading Iraq War opponent, has written a new book alleging that Jerusalem is pushing the Bush administration into war with Iran, and accusing the pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and “outright espionage.”

In the new book, called “Target Iran,” Scott Ritter, who served as a senior U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 and later became one of the war’s staunchest critics, argues that the United States is readying for military action against Iran, using its nuclear program as a pretext for pursuing regime change in Tehran.

“The Bush administration, with the able help of the Israeli government and the pro-Israel Lobby, has succeeded,” Ritter writes, “in exploiting the ignorance of the American people about nuclear technology and nuclear weapons so as to engender enough fear that the American public has more or less been pre-programmed to accept the notion of the need to militarily confront a nuclear armed Iran.”

Later in the book, Ritter adds: “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.”

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak accused the US in an interview published yesterday of obstructing peace between Israel and Syria.

"I believe America is preventing (Israeli Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert from achieving peace with Syria," Mubarak told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth during Olmert’s visit to the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on Thursday.

Mr. Bush is expected to call for more troops in a speech as soon as Wednesday, as part of a renewed effort to secure Baghdad. But Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the House, and Harry Reid, the new Senate majority leader, dismissed that approach as a strategy “that has already failed.”

Here is the pre-announcement of the surge by Bush's favorite planners. The neocons are not dead.

French leader Jacques Chirac also spoke out strongly against Bush's strategy, claiming that America's "adventure" in Iraq had radicalized the region, created a new breeding ground of terrorism, exacerbated sectarian strife, and undermined the West's position in the region.

"As France had foreseen and feared, the war in Iraq has sparked upheavals that have yet to show their full effects," Chirac said in his New Year's address at Elysee Palace to the foreign diplomatic corps.

"This adventure has worsened the divisions among communities and threatened the very integrity of Iraq," he said. "It has undermined the stability of the entire region, where every country now fears for its security and its independence. It has offered terrorism a new field for expansion."

As President Bush prepares to unveil a new military strategy in Iraq, Chirac added that "the priority, more than ever, is to restore full sovereignty to the Iraqi people."

Israeli Experts Say Middle East Was Safer With Saddam in Iraq

By Orly Halpern The Forward, Page A1, Dec. 4, 2007 Although few tears were shed in Israel over Saddam Hussein's death last week, a small but growing chorus – including government officials, academics and Iraqi émigrés – is warning that Israel could find itself in more danger with him gone, and that it might even regret having welcomed his toppling. Saddam was feared and reviled in Israel, both as a tyrant and as an enemy of the Jewish state. He demonstratively supported Palestinian terrorists, and few have forgiven his bombarding of Israel with Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War. Some Israeli officials, however, including Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, believe that Saddam's death could lead to "a reinforcement of Iranian influence in Iraq," thereby putting Israel in a far more serious and dangerous position than when Saddam was in power.

Read more…

Al-Akhbar reported a visit by two Hezbollah representatives to Saudi Arabia. Number two of the Party of God, Naim Kassem, and the ex-minister Mohammed Fneich are said to have met King Abdullah. This unprecedented meeting is said to have taken place on 26 December and was not reported by official Saudi sources. However the meeting between a group supported by Shiite Iran and a historic ally – perhaps the main one in the Arab world – of Sunni Lebanese, did not yield concrete results, at least in the here and now, other than “affirmations of availability”. Here is the Arabic version from al-Jazeera

Russia is frustrating US efforts to put the Haririr tribunal on a fast track. Al-Hayat reports that the Russians have dismissed proposals to bring the issue before the Security Council in the coming days.

?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????.

???? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?? «??????» ?? «??? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????» ??? ?????.

?????? ?? ??????? ??? «?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????. ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????».

????? ?? ???? ?? ?? «????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???????? ????».

Syrian has many important archaeological sites

Archaeologist finds traces of ‘humanity's first war’ in Syria

German archaeologist finds oldest ‘example of offensive war’ in form of clay balls used as ammunition.

BERLIN – A German archaeologist says he has found relics of "humanity's first war" in the northeast of Syria in the form of clay balls used as ammunition almost 6,000 years ago, Die Zeit weekly said in its edition due for publication on Thursday.

"We have there the oldest example of an offensive war," said Clemens Reichel, who is leading an archaeological dig in the ancient city of Hamoukar, on the border with Iraq, for the University of Chicago.

Reichel said that the city, whose fortifications were three metres (10 feet) thick, was besieged and reduced to ashes probably by attackers from southern Mesopotamia.

"It was not a little skirmish which took place here," said Reichel, who has been leading the dig since 2003. He spoke of a real "combat zone", to which the some 2,300 balls of clay discovered at the main part of the site bear witness.

Druze and Jumblat

In the comment section of the pervious post Idaf wrote:

It seems to me that Jumblat is loosing it! After blatantly calling for the assassination of Asad (and actually proudly saying that “we will do it”!) and after accusing Hizbullah of carrying out previous assassinations in Lebanon, he is now calling Hizballah followers “Magian”!

For those not familiar with the term you would find historical info here. In Arabic and Islamic context, this is a very serious insult as Magus used to worship fire in Persia and fought with Muslims in early Islamic history. Basically, Jumblat is accusing Hizbullah followers of “Kufr” (being non-Muslims). This is even more extreme than the fanatical Wahabi classification of Shiites (Khawarij, Rawafidh, Safawiin.. etc.). It is remarkable how a leader of a small minority sect in Lebanon is accusing the majority of Lebanese people of being “Kaafirs”. Osama Bin Laden would really be proud of Jumblat.

I added:

Jumblat’s reference to the Shiites as Magian is not only an accusation that they are kufr, but just as importantly, an accusation that they are Persian. It suggests that they have deep and nefarious cultish reasons to take orders from Iran and are merely an extension of that distant power.

Junblat knows all about the damage such accusations can make. The Druze have frequently been accused of being crypto-Persians and part of the “Shu`ubi” conspiracy within Islam to corrupt the religion in order to get revenge for the Arab conquest of the Persian empire. What is more, Druze beliefs in the transmigration of souls and the like have often been interpreted as “Eastern” roots of their religion. The same has been said of the Alawites.

For Jumblat, who lives in a glass house, to throw such stones at the Shiites is a bit rich.

Alex came up with the kicker. Read this article he posted about the Druze-Hari krishna connection: "Druze Sheikhs at Home in India." So the war is not one between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but between Iran and India! You have to love Lebanon. And I thought it was home to only 22 world religions. It is now 23.

The irony in all this is that fundamentalist Sunnis accuse the Druze of being Magians. Here is a choice paragraph from one fundamentalist site. 

With regard to the Druze, the followers of Hashtakeen al-Durzi, who was one of the freed slaves of al-Haakim whom he sent to the people of Wadi Taym-Allaah ibn Tha’labah and he called them to believe in the divinity of al-Haakim and they call him “the creator, the all-knowing”, and swear by him, they are among the Ismailis who believe that Muhammad ibn Isma’eel abrogated the law of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allaah. They are worse kaafirs than many other extremist groups. They believe that this universe has no creator and they deny the resurrection and the duties and prohibitions of Islam. They are among the esoteric Qarmatians (al-Qaraamitah) who are worse kaafirs than the Jews, Christians and mushrik Arabs. Basically they follow the philosophy of Aristotle and his ilk, or the Magians. Their ideas are a mixture of Magian philosophy but they make an outward, hypocritical display of being Shi’ah. And Allaah knows best. 

Andrew Exum and Nicholas Noe have spent considerable time researching Hizbullah and studying the summer war of 2006. They differ on some important points about its abilities, use of intelligence, etc. I provide Exum's most important conclusions and link to Noe's 6 page critique, published at Mideastwire.com and publish a response by Exum.

Andrew Exum, "Hizballah at War: A Military Assessment," has recently been published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. It asks,"How did Hizballah's tactics differ from those the IDF has faced in the past? And what can U.S. military planners and policymakers learn from the conflict?" and can be read here.

Here are some of Exum's conclusions:

The most significant aspects of Hizballah’s organization are the high degree of autonomy given to junior leaders and the lack of any significant logistical train.

The July War will forever be the war of the antitank missile. Antitank missiles—bought from Russia by Syria with Iranian money—were used by Hizballah fighters against all types of targets. Hizballah used them against tanks, personnel, houses, shelters, and any vehicles Israel used in its attack. The AT-3 Sagger was used in this way and remained the most commonly used antitank missile. Among the new entrants onto the battlefield, however, was the AT-14 Kornet-E, which Hizballah used to great effect on IDF tanks and vehicles. Also new to the battlefield, of course, was the C-802 anti-shipping missile, which Hizballah used to kill several Israeli sailors and damage one Israeli ship off the coast of Lebanon.

Hizballah deserves to be taken seriously as a fighting force independent of any outside sponsor. Whether the decision to kidnap the two Israeli soldiers on July 12 originated in either Beirut or Tehran is still unclear, but most observers of Hizballah believe the most likely scenario is that although Iran (and Syria) were informed of the operation, all major decisions concerning both the kidnapping and the operations that followed originated in the Dahye. Hizballah trained on, maintained, and used all of its weapons systems in a skilled and disciplined manner.

As far as training is concerned, some IDF officers maintain that Hizballah is completely trained by Iran with regard to both its weapons skills and its tactics. This is not, however, entirely the case. To be sure, Hizballah receives a great deal of training and support from Iran, especially with regard to the newer and more complicated weapons systems, such as the medium-range rockets and antitank missiles. Nevertheless, the fighters of Hizballah have infinitely more combat experience and acquired tactical knowhow than their Iranian sponsors, leading one independent observer to wryly note that Hizballah trains Iran, not the other way around.

Following the kidnapping, however, Hizballah was caught off guard by the ferocity and ruthlessness of the Israeli counterattack.

But if Israel succeeded in surprising Hizballah by its strategic response to the attack, it did not succeed in surprising Hizballah tactically when the fight moved to the south. As one Israeli general admitted, Hizballah had good tactical intelligence: it knew the IDF’s commanders, the likely routes of advance through Lebanon, and, most important, the IDF’s tactics.

Hizballah’s tenacity in the villages was, to this observer, the biggest surprise of the war. As has been mentioned already, the vast majority of the fighters who defended villages such as Ayta ash Shab, Bint Jbeil, and Maroun al-Ras were not, in fact, regular Hizballah fighters and in some cases were not even members of Hizballah. But they were men, in the words of one Lebanese observer, who were “defending their country in the most tangible sense—their shops, their homes, even their trees.”

All the same, the performance of the village units was exceptional. Their job—to slow and to bleed the IDF as much as possible—was carried out with both determination and skill. Hizballah dictated the rules of how the war was to be fought. Or as one observer put it, “This was a very good lesson in asymmetric warfare. This was not Israel imposing its battle on Hizballah but Hizballah imposing its battle on Israel.”

There was no question of [Hizb] units retreating or moving forward to support another unit because the Israeli Air Force had successfully isolated the villages and fortifications from which they were fighting.

The question of who, exactly, trained these village fighters is one of the enduring mysteries of the war. It is unlikely that any of them received training in Iran—or even by the Iranians in Lebanon. More likely is that they were former militia—or perhaps even former Hizballah—fighters who carried with them knowledge and experience from prior conflicts that Hizballah was able to use in the summer war.

The Anti-Tank battle:

Eleven IDF tanks were hit by Hizballah antitank missiles, while eight crewmen and four other soldiers were killed. The casualties made up over a tenth of all IDF casualties in the July War.

Missile War:

Hizballah’s rocket attacks against Israel in the July War were at once a tactical success and a strategic failure.  Hizballah’s rockets did not have their desired effect of breaking the will of the people of northern Israel and instead—as is often the case with aerial bombardments—stiffened the resolve of the population under fire. Although Hizballah enjoyed great success launching its short-range rockets into Israel, its medium-range rockets were almost entirely destroyed by the IAF.

The early air assault on the second day of the war, for example, “knocked out fifty-nine permanent launchers of the intermediate Fajr missiles and Zelzal missiles in thirtyfour minutes.” Because the katyusha attacks really have only a psychological effect, the fact that Hizballah was not able to launch many of its longer-range weapons toward targets deep in Israel’s interior should be cause for concern in both the Dahye and Tehran, given that so much time and energy was expended acquiring them and training Hizballah in their use.

In the end, the best way to view Hizballah’s performance in the July War is by comparing it to the performance of other Arab armies that have fought against the IDF since 1948 and noting where Hizballah’s performance differs. Three differences stand out with Hizballah: its ability to maneuver tactically against the IDF, the autonomy given to its small units and the initiative taken by the small-unit leaders, and the skill Hizballah displayed with its weapons systems.

Hizballah’s display on the battlefield should worry U.S. policymakers and military planners as well. Enemies of the United States will likely seek to emulate Hizballah’s perceived successes in southern Lebanon, and the lessons learned by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan may or may not apply to such a fight.

Andrew Exum is a Soref fellow in The Washington Institute’s Military and Security Studies Program. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and the American University of Beirut, he served in the U.S. Army from 2000 until 2004.

Nicholas Noe, has written a 6-page Critique of: Andrew Exum's “Hizbollah at War: A Military Assessment.” Nicholas Noe is the founder of Mideastwire.com, a Beirut-based translation service covering the Arabic and Persian media. His forthcoming book, Voice of Hizbullah: The Statements of Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, will be published by Verso in February 2007. 

Response from Andrew Exum to Nicholas Noe provided to Syria Comment January 2, 2007.

Anything written about this past summer’s war between the IDF and Hizbollah is bound to make some people unhappy. One of the things I noticed in my first visit back to Lebanon and Israel since the war is how high emotions are running and how much attitudes have hardened. In studying the war from an exclusively military perspective, though – working hard to steer clear of political and moral judgments – I felt sure that I could write an analysis that wouldn’t offend anyone. Foolish me.

Nicholas Noe’s critique of my piece has some good criticisms, most of which get lost amidst the vitriol and emotion of his argument. He is right to highlight that I was not able to speak to any Hizbollah ground commanders. I tried to, repeatedly filling out interview requests with the organization’s public affairs section, but for some reason they weren’t anxious to speak with a former U.S. military officer about their tactics. Nicholas also highlights the fact that I did not mention the reports of Hizbollah’s ability to jam/intercept IDF communications. Nicholas is right – I should have, though these reports were not corroborated by anyone I spoke to in the IDF. (And it’s worth noting here that the IDF officers with whom I spoke were all fairly eager to speak about their short-comings and failures in the summer’s war.) Finally, Nicholas highlights the fact that I chose not to identify by name many of the people with whom I spoke. The reason I did this was because I was trying to protect the people who spoke to me, but on further review I should have included at least some sort of generic title (e.g. “senior Israeli defense official”) in the footnotes.

Most of the rest is easy enough to answer. Nicholas notes, for example, that Nabatiyya is a large city in the south of Lebanon – but that I wrote that the only large city in southern Lebanon is Tyre. This is true. But I confined “southern Lebanon” in my paper to the area currently under UNIFIL jurisdiction as this was the area contested in the bulk of the ground fighting. Nicholas also takes me to task for ignoring the report prepared for the Asia Times on the war. This is also true. I had read the report and enjoyed the political analysis. But I had some issues with the paper’s military analysis, so I chose not to reference it in my own work.

The above are just two examples (I am not going to issue a point-by-point response here), but what they have in common is a conscious decision-making process to include or omit certain things. Nicholas contends I carelessly omitted things in specific cases, but I’ve read most of what’s been written in the English language on this last war (and quite a lot of what’s been written in French and Arabic too), so when I left something out, it was usually because I disagreed with it or found it lacking in value.

The biggest substantive problem between Nicholas and me is that Nicholas doesn’t understand what a tactical analysis is. This is highly understandable, and I’m not attempting to insult his intelligence here. Most people without military experience (including some Middle East political experts) are unable to distinguish between tactics and strategy, and although Nicholas at one point mentions that I am a recent graduate school product (true), it’s important to note that my formal study of the Middle East began after a military career in which I led combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t claim to be the world’s leading expert on Hizbollah, but, on the mechanics of infantry combat, I know more than the average AUB graduate.

To explain briefly: if you decide to attack a house, and you decide to attack it by going in the back door as opposed to the front, that’s a tactical decision. These decisions are made by small unit leaders. The decision to go to war in Iraq, the decision to go to war in Iraq with a small invasion force, the decision to disband the Iraqi Army – these are strategic decisions. These decisions are made by generals and politicians.

By the same token, this paper is concerned with Hizbollah’s tactics – how their small unit leaders performed, how their anti-tank missile teams performed, etc. Anyone reading this paper expecting a political analysis or strategic advice to the National Security Council on what to do about Hizbollah would leave it like Nicholas: angry and disappointed. 

 Finally, a word on civility. I realize that a former U.S. Army officer writing an analysis from Washington, DC (in the employment of The Washington Institute no less!) is – as far as Beirut-based Middle East specialists are concerned – a bit like waving a red flag at a bull. I understand that people with a bit of expertise in something (as Nicholas has with Hizbollah) can be a bit territorial about that expertise. And I understand that frustration and anger about U.S. Middle East policy is high – I’ve lived, after all, in Beirut and Cairo for the past few years. But there is no reason why we can’t debate most subjects with something approaching respect and civility. Nicholas’s response to my piece reminds me of everything I don’t like about 90% of the blogs on the region: all vitriol, marked by an antipathy toward admitting the other guy might have something worth saying. That said, I welcome any and all comments on the paper.  

[End of Debate]

Here is a Russian analysis of the war's results which is interesting: War in Lebanon won by Syria and Iran, and lost by the U.S.

Walid Jumblatt has raised the level of attack against Hizbullah. The heated exchange between the Druze and Hizbullah leaders mirrors the anxiety over what Jumblatt calls Hizbullah's attempt to carry out a "coup" to gain more power within the Lebanese government. Jumblatt did well in the last parliamentary elections because he formed an alliance with Hizbullah, which supported pro-Jumblatt candidates in the Shuff. When new elections are carried out, Jumblatt's supporters stand to suffer a number of defeats and his coalition will be smaller. Here are some excerpts from the Jumblatt – HIzbullah exchange.

Hizbullah flays Jumblatt as a fickle friend

By Hani M. Bathish
Special to The Daily Star
Saturday, December 30, 2006

BEIRUT: Hizbullah accused leading March 14 Forces member  Walid Jumblatt on Friday of discarding allies when it suits him and embracing new ones on a whim, adding that the MP now has a "new master" in the form of the United States….

In his interview with Al-Arabiyya, Jumblatt accused Hizbullah and its leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, of being behind "some, if not all" of the assassinations in Lebanon, accusing them of obtaining weapons from Israel in exchange for the release of Western hostages in what was known as the "Iran-Contra" affair.

Referring to earlier statements made by Jumblatt that he would rather be a trash collector in New York than a political leader in Lebanon, Hassan said that "if Jumblatt's imagination convinces him he would rather be a 'trash collector' in New York, he is free to do so, but to link [Hizbullah] with Israel … I do not know how he can do that.

Jumblatt said there is no possibility to work with Hizbullah as it represents the "culture of death," stressing that there will be no resolving matters with the Syrian regime either.
 

Jumblatt on Monday called Syrian President Bashar Assad the "Damascus tyrant."

"We tell them that this boy (Assad), who is controlling people's necks in Damascus and killing free people in Lebanon, there will inevitably be a Nawwaf from Beirut, Dahiyeh, the Chouf or the Bekaa, he might also be from Damascus or Aleppo," he said during the funeral of Salman Siour, Jumblat's personal security officer.

He was referring to Nawaf Ghazali, a Syrian [Druse] who assassinated ex-Syrian President Adib Shishakli in Brazil in 1964.

"If the tribunal is hindered, we will all be a Nawwaf," he said, in reference to the Special International Tribunal for Lebanon to try suspects in the murder of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri and related crimes.

"No matter how long it takes, one of us will take revenge for the martyrs and the liberals, starting from (his slain father Kamal Jumblatt to (Industry Minister) Pierre Gemayel," he added.

Al-Akhbar editor explains why Jumblatt has accused Hizbullah of participating in the assassinations: (story translated by Mideastwire.com)

“The visit by Hezbollah’s delegation to Saudi Arabia aroused the anger ‘of the remaining neo conservatives’ in Riyadh and Beirut which resulted first in the infamous Junblatt (the media spokesman for the American-Arab moderation campaign) interview on the Al-Arabiya channel with which he wanted to move the confrontation to another level by giving an extra dose to the issue of the international tribunal by accusing Hezbollah of being involved in the assassinations. Junblatt’s live interview on a network funded by Saudi Arabia, and run by Bandar Bin Sultan’s group and his allies in the Jordanian intelligence services and the CIA, which came a few days after he called for the assassination of Bashar Al-Assad, is linked to Saudi Arabia’s attitude towards what is going on which has not been explained so far except in the context of the raging battles on the Arab scene with Junblatt being a direct member of the axis that supposes that getting rid of Syria and its allies in Lebanon is a prerequisite for guaranteeing the stability of the regime in Lebanon as well as in the other countries…”

A new decree on elections in Syria was issued today.

Idaf supplied this English summary and comment:

The new amendment to the Syrian “elections law” now organizes the funding and management of election campaigns. Candidates are now allowed by law to promote their agendas on state run media as well as raise funds for their campaign.

This is an important amendment to the election law. Earlier, most candidates were only depending on their family names, tribes, sects, bribes etc. for votes. The new law also prohibits candidates from providing “services and financial assistance” prior to elections. This is one of the most important points in the new law IMHO as it will limit the bribes that dominate election campaigns in Syria (the dominant trend in elections in developing countries).

Ehsani2 responded to Idaf with the following critique.

One of the commentators highlighted the new amendment to the election law after it was made public this morning.

Idaf’s conclusion regarding the new amendment to the election law was that “it will limit the bribes that dominate election campaigns in Syria.”

First, this amendment only applies to the independents, which make up 84 of the 253-seat assembly. Please note that this is conveniently just below the one third that is needed to implement article 91 of the constitution for example (it is 33.2%). Moreover, 43 of the 84 so-called independents must belong to the “ummal and Fallaheen” group. The other 41 can come from “other” classes of society. The Baath party (134 members) dominates the proceedings by being a member of the National Progressive Front, a grouping of parties that attempts to give the impression that this is not a one-party political system. The 35 members that make up this group are supposed to represent Communists, Arab Socialists and Nationalists.

For those interested in the constitution and its amendments, you can visit:

http://www.parliament.gov.sy/ar/law.php

This brings us back to the $57,000 equivalent that is the new spending cap for the 84 independent candidates. Remember that 43 of them belong to the “ummal and Fallaheen” group. Presumably, these individuals could not possibly spend $57,000 on campaign advertising. This leaves us with 41 members who will have to pay a penalty of 10 times any excess spending over the cap. Moreover, they are forbidden from offering any “services, monetary or in-kind help” to individuals, unions, sports clubs or any non-officials parties. Parties that accept to receive any such help from candidates are also also forbidden from doing so.

Instead of making the system more democratic by increasing the percentage of independents that can run, the new amendment is designed to exclude independently wealthy candidates from ever thinking of applying.

This rubber-stamping branch of government was already in a shameful state of existence. Idaf’s statement above did nothing to highlight this fact. Instead, it gave the socialist/communist impression that wealthy candidates must be bad for the country since they can buy their way in this already ineffective body.

For true change to take place, Mr. Assad should have raised the 33.2% limit of the independent candidates rather than worry about how much they spend on their advertising campaigns. That would have served the country more than this populist self-serving draconian amendment ever will.

Ibrahim Hamidi of al-Hayat writes that Syrians will participate in a "Madrid + 15 Conference" to be held in Madrid between January 10 and 12. Israelis and Palestinians will be represented to discuss the possibilities of Peace. This is second track diplomacy with a difference, because a number of European foreign ministers will be there to lend legitimacy to it. We do not know who the Syrian personalities will be yet, but Ibrahim reports that they will participate "as individuals" with the "permission of the government."

A big contingent of Israelis are due to participate. Among them will be David Kimche and Uri Sagi, both past intelligence heads, who have been outspoken in calling for negotiations with Syria. Syria Comment has posted their articles here and here.

Spain's foreign minister said that the key supporters of the meeting were the foreign ministers of Denmark and Norway, who will participate. So will officials from many other countries. Americans will be there, both low-level officials and some notable ex-officials. Palestinians will be there to discuss possibilities for Arab-Israeli Peace, as will ex-foreign ministers from many other Arab countries. There are four main topics of discussion to include Arab-Israeli peace and Iraq. Here is the Hamidi's article.

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

 ???? ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? «????? + 15» ??? 10 ?12 ????? ??????

 ???? – ??????? ????? -?????? 03/01/07

???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? «??????» ?? ????? «????? + 15» ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? 10 ?12 ????? ?????? (?????) ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ???????. ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????????? ????????? ???????? ??????? ??? ?? «?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???????». ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? «????? + 15» ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? «?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? – ?????????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????. ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ??????? ????? 2002 ?????????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? (?????????) ?????? ???????. ??????? ????? ????? ????????? ??????? (??? ???????). ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ????????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??????».

????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???????? ??? «?????? ???????????? ???? ??? ???» ? «????? ???? ??????» ? «????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????????» ? «?????? ??????? ???????». ??? ???? ???????? ???????? ????? ????? ????????? ????? «?????? ???????» ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????????? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????.

????? ????????? ????????? ?? «??????» ????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? 1559 ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?????? – ??????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ??????. ????? ?? ????? ?????? «????? ???» ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ? «????? ?????? ?? ???????» ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????.

?????? «????? + 15: ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??????» ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ????????? ????? ??????. ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????????? ?????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??????. ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????.

????? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????. ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????????. ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? «????????» ?? ?????. ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ????.

Monday Morning, the local Syrian English paper reports that for Syria the Golan is the key.

Syria, United States: Damascus daily hits out at American terms for dialogue President Bashar Assad:

For Syria and its people, recovery of the Golan Heights is the overriding priority The Syrian government daily Ath-Thawra has hit out at terms set out by the US government for heeding a bi-partisan panel’s recommendation to open a dialogue on calming Iraq.

“American efforts to present dialogue with Syria as an act of good faith are mean-minded as Syrians are not so taken with [President George W.] Bush as to perform free services for a country that supports Israel and cynically fights against Arab rights”.

Bush has dismissed the calls from the Iraq Study Group for dialogue with Syria, insisting that the Baathist regime first cease what he said was allowing the smuggling of men and material to insurgents in Iraq.

Ath-Thawra said the key issue for Syria was the return of the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau that Israel seized in 1967 and unilaterally annexed in 1981. Peace talks between the two neighbors broke down in 2000. “You cannot tackle the Iraq question independently of the other issues in the region, because the root cause of all the problems is Israel’s occupation of Arab lands”, the paper said.

“As far as Syria is concerned, the recovery of the Golan Heights is the overriding priority”. The paper was echoing words already spoken by President Bashar Assad on a visit to Russia earlier this month. “They [the Americans] have to differentiate between a dialogue and giving instructions. We are open to a dialogue, but we will not take instructions”, Assad said.

British journalist Patrick Seale, who wrote the biography of former Syrian President Hafiz al Assad, father of current President Bashar Assad, said Sunday morning that the latest Syrian peace overtures toward Israel were serious.

Seale, who is close to the Syrian regime, told Israel Radio in an interview that Assad wants a diplomatic pact because he fears the anarchy in the Middle East, which he believes has been caused by the failure of US policy.

Syria: First things first
By Moshe Arens,  02/01/2007, Haaretz

Instead of trying to divine just what Bashar Assad's real intentions are in offering to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel, and whether his present intentions will also be his future intentions, some thought should be given to the basic premises of Israel's response to the latest Syrian overtures. What should Israel's position be regarding the Golan Heights and the 20,000 Israelis living there, and what obligations, if any, does Israel have to her American ally on this matter?

Having been offered the Golan Heights during negotiations by three successive Israeli prime ministers, there is every reason to believe that Syria expects a similar offer to be made within the framework of any future negotiations. It is, therefore, essential that Israel either reaffirm that position or else make it clear that this position has changed in the intervening years. So what should Israel's position be regarding the Golan Heights? Should it be considered an integral part of Israel, and therefore not a bargaining chip in negotiations with Syria, or is it to be ultimately restored to Syria and 20,000 Israelis removed from their homes, if other Israeli requirements for a peace agreement are met?

By what criterion should this issue be judged? That the Golan Heights was under Syrian sovereignty until 1967, or that it has been under Israeli control for almost forty years and 20,000 Israelis have been living there for many years? That security considerations require Israeli control of the heights overlooking northern Israel, or that a peace agreement with Syria will make such security considerations irrelevant? Or, more importantly, that aggression must not be rewarded?

Syria has attacked Israel three times – in 1948, in 1967 and in 1973. In the Six-Day War, it lost control of the Golan Heights and did not succeed in regaining control of that area during the Yom Kippur War. It is not the accepted practice in international relations for aggressors, who lose territory in a war they began, to be rewarded by a return of that territory once a peace agreement has been signed.

In other words, when attacking a neighbor, you have nothing to lose – whatever you lose in the fighting will be returned eventually. This is both immoral and nonsensical. Probably the only case in recorded history where this folly was practiced was the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty of 1979. Three times the attacker, and three times the loser, the Egyptians got back everything they lost down to the last square meter.

That's done. But should this be the precedent that applies to all other aggressors in the Middle East or anywhere else, for that matter?

The United States, presently leading the world in a war against terrorism, has made it clear that it does not favor Israeli negotiations with Syria, a malevolent member of the axis of evil, at this time. Should Israel proudly assert its independence, place its interests ahead of those of the United States and disregard the opinion in Washington?

Those who advocate this manly stance seem to forget that Israel and the U.S. are allies in the war against terrorism, and that allies have obligations to each other. After all, what is the meaning of an alliance, if not respectful consideration for each other's interests? Six years ago, Israel betrayed its allies in southern Lebanon, and deserted the South Lebanon Army. This will remain an everlasting blot on Israel's moral record, and as should have been expected, it turned out to be harmful to Israel's own interests.

To repeat this grievous mistake with our closest ally, the United States, a country that has repeatedly come to Israel's assistance, would be unconscionable and not likely to be quickly forgotten.

So it is all well and good to announce that the removal of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad headquarters from Damascus and the cessation of assistance to Hezbollah would be an important indication of Syria's true intentions, but first things first – Israel should make two basic things clear. We will respect the position of our allies in Washington, and we have no intention of rewarding Syrian aggression. And one other thing: Israel will not negotiate while a gun is being held to its head. The message from Damascus is you either negotiate or we go to war. This should not work on Israel.

When all this is well understood in Damascus, in time, the way may be opened for negotiations with Syria.

Help, he wants peace!
By Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz, Dec. 30, 2006

In one of the news broadcasts that he presented last week on Channel 1 television, Haim Yavin defined the Syrian feelers as an "escalation in the peace attack," no less. No one could better describe the panic that Syrian President Bashar Assad is arousing in Israel. Attacks are something we understand, and escalation is also a user-friendly concept for Israelis. Therefore, it appears that peace has no meaning unless it comes in the form of an attack.

The alarmed and the perplexed are split into two groups. The first consists of those who are convinced that everything Assad does is aimed at advancing his own narrow interests: ridding Syria of the stigma of being a country that supports terror, luring investors to the country and freeing himself from pressure over the Lebanese issue. In other words, becoming a country like any other country. This group of believers forgets that these are precisely Israel's demands of Assad. But it wants eternal guarantees that after the Syrian president gets the Golan Heights back and no longer heads a country that supports terror, he will not turn on his heels and laugh out loud at the stupid Israelis. This is a reasonable demand, but it cannot be fulfilled before negotiations are actually held. Certainly such a demand cannot be a precondition.

The demand that Syria sever relations with Iran is also a deal-breaker. Israel did not demand this of Turkey, or of the leaders of the Islamic republics that broke away from the Soviet Union, when it signed peace treaties with them. It will also not demand this of Saudi Arabia, if and when a peace agreement is signed with that country. And how is it possible to explain Syria's willingness to sign a peace agreement with Israel when its relations with Iran are so close? According to the alarmists, this is of course another lie, or at least part of a nefarious plot. Therefore, it is not superfluous to ask why Iran has not reacted to Syria's feelers toward Israel, just as it is possible to wonder why Iran is not demanding that Turkey cease doing business with Israel. The answer lies in a mosaic of interests that goes far beyond the simplistic definition of the "axis of evil" or the division of the world into Shi'ites and Sunnis.

The precondition that Syria close the bases of Palestinian organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad is especially interesting. If the headquarters of these organizations are fated to live outside the territories, would it not be better for them to operate from a country that has a peace agreement with Israel, instead of being expelled to a hostile country from which they can operate as they please?

The second group of alarmists offers the learned argument that Assad cannot mean real peace, because such a peace would topple him, his regime and his minority sect, which controls the country. Alternatively, spokesmen for this group take refuge in the assessment that even if there is peace with Syria, it will undoubtedly be a very cold peace. They are forgetting that the younger Assad has already proposed peace, while the elder Assad already held discussions with Israel and obtained concessions and even talked about normalization. Is Bashar Assad risking more now than ever before? One can confidently assume that an improvement in Syria's economic situation in the wake of an agreement with Israel, as well as the return of the Golan Heights, would do wonders for Assad's standing.

There is nothing wrong with Assad currently wanting to advance "only" Syrian interests. This is precisely the motivation for which Israel should be looking. If peace with Israel serves his interests, it would be wise to set up a table somewhere and sit negotiators around it – people who would pull out what was concluded with Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak and tell Assad: This is where we are continuing from, and here is our list of new demands.

Assad's intentions are not a matter for trust or faith, nor for prior examination. Rather, they are a matter for negotiations whose sole aim is to reach peace with Syria. Only in this way will it also be possible to shake off the profound self-righteousness that holds that "we" owe it to our fighters and our homeland at least to try. It is not trying that is needed here, but rather action and achievement. Similarly, the main consideration cannot be how we will look to the world if we refuse to negotiate with Assad, but rather how life in Israel will look if we respond in the affirmative.

Rifaat al-Asad is in Egypt to meet with officials with America's blessing, writes Bahiya Mardini, the reporter who covers the Syrian opposition most closely. How he knows it is with America's blessing, he does not say.

???? ??????? ?? ????: ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????????? ?? ???? ???? ? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????????????? ????? ?? "?????"?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??????
 ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ANN ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????   ???? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????????? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? 

The US is trying to beaf up the PLO and Abbas. Some time ago, Journalists explained that the Jordanians had resupplied the PLO with arms with the approval of the US as part of its effort to undo the Hamas government. The rearming of the PLO is not direct US assistance, in contrast to the training programs discribed below.

U.S. Eyes Support for Abbas' Forces
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP

The Bush administration is holding talks with Congress about providing training and other support to security forces loyal to Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority.

"Those consultations are ongoing," deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Friday. "I'm not sure that there is any specific end result of them."

Casey said the talks would continue next week, when Congress officially returns from a holiday adjournment.

The issue is touchy. Under U.S. law and Bush administration policy, any form of assistance to the Palestinians must sidetrack Hamas, the militia that won control of the Palestinian government nearly a year ago.

"We need to be very careful in how we do it," Casey said.

The State Department has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization and barred its participation in any peacemaking process until it accepts Israel's existence and abandons violence against the Jewish state. Abbas' security forces are obligated to stop Palestinian attacks on Israel.

The administration is trying to fan hopes for peacemaking between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who have held high-level talks and are committed to a peaceful settlement. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to go the area next month to gauge peacemaking prospects.

There have been reports that Egypt, with Israel's approval, has shipped arms to forces loyal to Abbas. Abbas denied the reports.

On possible U.S. assistance, Casey said, "My understanding is that none of this would be what is referred to as lethal assistance. … So, it would basically be, as I understand it, in the form of training and other kinds of support."

The Bush administration is holding talks with Congress about providing training and other support to security forces loyal to Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority.

"Those consultations are ongoing," deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Friday. "I'm not sure that there is any specific end result of them."

Casey said the talks would continue next week, when Congress officially returns from a holiday adjournment.

The issue is touchy. Under U.S. law and Bush administration policy, any form of assistance to the Palestinians must sidetrack Hamas, the militia that won control of the Palestinian government nearly a year ago.

"We need to be very careful in how we do it," Casey said.

The State Department has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization and barred its participation in any peacemaking process until it accepts Israel's existence and abandons violence against the Jewish state. Abbas' security forces are obligated to stop Palestinian attacks on Israel.

The administration is trying to fan hopes for peacemaking between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who have held high-level talks and are committed to a peaceful settlement. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to go the area next month to gauge peacemaking prospects.

There have been reports that Egypt, with Israel's approval, has shipped arms to forces loyal to Abbas. Abbas denied the reports.

On possible U.S. assistance, Casey said, "My understanding is that none of this would be what is referred to as lethal assistance. … So, it would basically be, as I understand it, in the form of training and other kinds of support.

NPR interviews State Department figures about arming the PLO to fight Hamas. They say it is all about balance and helping legal officials. Listen to the story: Rice Will Likely Head to Mideast in Early 2007 by Michele Kelemen, January 2, 2007. "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has promised to get more deeply involved in promoting Arab-Israeli peace, is expected to go to the region in January. Part of the administration's goals seems to be to boost Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas."