Addressing a parade of about 50 thousand revolutionaries in the southwestern city of Bushehr on Sunday, Vahidi warned that it will sink the US warships :

” If the enemy attacks Iran, it must be ready to answer some questions such as how long it can fight against the Islamic Republic and how much it is ready to watch the sinking of its warships and ships.”

150, 000 missiles?
Commenting on Israeli threats to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities , Vahidi warned:“Why does the Zionist regime issue such threats? For how many missiles has it readied itself: 10 thousands, 20 thousands, 50 thousands, 100 thousands, 150 thousands, or more?”

He added, “The Zionist regime has not yet paid the price” for the massacres it committed in Sabra and Shatila and the Gaza Strip, and, if this regime attacks Iran, the Islamic Republic will take revenge for those crimes.

He did not say whether the 150, 000 missiles will be fired from Iran or by Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza.

Last Thursday the military adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei , General Yahya Rahim Safavi warned Israel that should it attack Iran’s nuclear sites the Islamic Republic will rely on its allies Hezbollah and Hamas to do the fighting.

“There will be no need for Iran to launch ballistic missiles at Israel, because all the Zionist cities are within the range of our ally Hezbollah’s Katyusha (rockets),” he said.

“The U.S.’ decision to stop paying its share of the funds to UNESCO has shocked both Arab and world public opinion,” Siniora said a statement Friday.

“This U.S. decision is totally unacceptable. It would be better for the United States to … revoke [its decision] because it is contrary to the values and principles advocated by the American people and is a flagrant bias on the part of the U.S., alongside Israel, in the face of the rights of the Palestinian people,” he added.

“It is also a clear message sent by America to the people of the region and the world and the Palestinian people that it stands against peoples’ right to freedom and independence, and that it is still unable to play the role of an honest broker,” said Siniora, who also heads the Future parliamentary bloc.

He appealed to the Arab League as well as Arab kings and presidents and Islamic countries, in addition to Western and friendly countries to “collect and pay the amounts that were to be paid by the United States and Israel to UNESCO.”

“I am confident that this step would thwart Israeli blackmail and intimidation and U.S. pressure [for the sake of] dominance,” Siniora concluded.

UNESCO lost around 25 percent of its annual funding after the U.S., and shortly later Canada, halted their contributions after the Palestinians won membership Monday. It lost a further $2 million when Israel Thursday announced it would withhold its annual contribution.

The Daily Star

As security, police and numerous men in riot gear hung around on Monday morning, thuggish loyalists of embattled president Bashar al-Assad attacked both embassies and the residence of the American ambassador, Robert Ford. A handful breached the walls and tore down the Stars and Stripes to replace it with the Syrian flag. French security guards fired live shots in the air to disperse demonstrators who had taken a battering ram to the embassy.

If the Syrian regime hoped to provoke international outrage, it has done so. America has so far refrained from calling for Mr Assad’s ouster. There is little appetite, or capacity, for further interventions in the Middle East, particularly those of a military nature. But in a sharp escalation of rhetoric last night, the American secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said Mr Assad had lost legitimacy. She said that the Syrian leader was not indispensable after the attacks on civilians.

France, which has already said Mr Assad’s rule is now illegitimate, condemned the attacks but said they would not detract attention from the killing, torture and arrests being carried out by the Syrian government.

The protests mainly played to a domestic audience after visits by Mr Ford and the French ambassador, Eric Chevallier, to Hama at the weekend caught the regime off guard. Rallying anti-western, especially anti-American, sentiment is an old trick that has worked for the government in the past. But after four months of protests and a violent crackdown, the authorities’ talk of resistance rings hollow. Many Syrians are embarrassed and outraged by the embassy attacks.

The regime has so far remained quiet about the incident. Few doubt it is responsible, despite its obligations to protect embassies. Thuggish gangs, some believed to be Alawites from the coastal areas, were bussed in. Al-Dounia, a pro-regime television channel, called for protests at embassies in the capital. Security forces, always quick to clamp down on those protesting against the regime, stood idly by.

As the attacks took place, a summit which government officials had hailed as the only way out of the crisis, promising a move to democracy, was held on the outskirts of Damascus. But with opposition groups boycotting the event, it is more of a regime pow-wow. They have much to discuss.

The Economist

As forces opposed to the longest-serving Arab leader took control of several western Libyan towns, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed the calls of world leaders, including President Barack Obama, for him to quit.

“I think it is way too soon to tell how this is going to play out. We are going to be ready and prepared to offer any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the US,” Clinton told reporters, noting Washington was in touch with the Libyan opposition.

“We are just at the beginning of what will follow Gaddafi,” she said Sunday.

“First we have to see the end of his regime and with no further bloodshed,” she continued, noting Washington is eager for his ouster “as soon as possible.”

The top US diplomat spoke as she prepared to leave for a ministerial-level meeting of the UN Human Rights Council on Monday, and for bilateral talks with many of her counterparts about the crisis in Libya.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported late Sunday that US and European officials discussed plans to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent further killings of civilians by troops loyal to the country’s embattled leader.

The newspaper cited an unnamed senior administration official as saying that no decision had been made.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Sunday that a key friendship treaty signed between Italy and Libya in 2008 was “de facto suspended.”

According to The Times, the accord contains a non-aggression clause that some analysts said complicated Italy’s position in the event of international military intervention in Libya.

The chaos engulfing the oil-rich North African state of 6.3 million has fanned fears that Gaddafi’s hold on power could descend into civil war as the United Nations said nearly 100,000 people have streamed out of the country.

More than 1,000 people are believed to have been killed in a government crackdown on the protests.

Protest leaders established a transitional “national council” in eastern cities seized from the Gaddafi regime and called on the army to help them take the capital Tripoli.

Two senior US lawmakers urged Washington to recognize any transitional government and supply it with weapons and humanitarian assistance to oust Gaddafi, who has ruled Libya with an iron fist for four decades.

“We ought to recognize the provisional government as the legitimate government of Libya and we ought to give that government certainly humanitarian assistance and military arms… to give them the wherewithal to fight on behalf of the people of Libya against a cruel dictator,” Senator Joe Lieberman told CNN.

Lieberman was speaking alongside Republican Senator John McCain from Egypt, where a popular uprising swept President Hosni Mubarak from power earlier this month after nearly 30 years of autocratic rule.

McCain urged Obama, his former rival in the 2008 presidential campaign, to “get tough” and make it clear that Libyan officials involved in attacks on their own people would face prosecution for war crimes.

The war hero and former naval aviator also called for a no-fly zone over the country so that “Libyan pilots won’t fly” and shoot on civilians.

But he stopped short of calling for a military intervention with ground forces in the oil-rich North African country, though he did not rule out that possibility.

Lieberman, an independent who used to be a Democrat, said he understood the Obama administration’s initial hesitation in speaking out strongly against Libya’s crackdown due to concerns over the safety of US citizens in the country.

But, he added: “Frankly I wish we had spoken out much more clearly and early against the Gaddafi regime… The fact is now is the time for action, not just statements.”

The UN Security Council has imposed a travel ban and assets freeze on Gaddafi’s regime and ordered an investigation into possible crimes against humanity by the Libyan leader, the first time such a decision has been made unanimously.

On Friday, Obama announced unilateral sanctions targeting Gaddafi and his inner circle in a move intended to encourage defections and peel away loyalists defending the Libyan’s 42-year rule.

Clinton has signed an order revoking the US visas of Libyan officials and others linked to the violence against civilians. New visas will now be denied as a matter of policy.

Alsharq Alawsat

Paraguayan anti-drug trafficking agent Maria Mercedes Castineira told The Associated Press that the three men were put on a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration plane after being held for months in Paraguayan jails.

Nemir Ali Zhayter and Amer Zoher El Hossni were captured Aug. 6, 2008, in Ciudad del Este on Paraguay’s “Triple Frontier” with Brazil and Argentina. Both were allegedly involved in trafficking cocaine to the U.S., Castineira said.

Moussa Ali Hamdan was arrested last June 16 in the same Paraguayan city shortly after arriving from New York. Prosecutors in Philadelphia said Hamdan, a dual U.S.-Lebanese national, bought what he thought where stolen goods from a U.S. government informant.

Hamdan allegedly exported more than 1,700 cell phones, 400 Sony PlayStation 2 systems and three used cars after the informant told him the money as well as counterfeit currency would go to finance Hezbollah. The Iranian-backed political group, which now has a major role in Lebanon’s government, is considered by the United States to be a terrorist organization.

He faces 25 years if convicted of 31 charges filed in November 2009 in Philadelphia. Hamdan said after his arrest that he’s been falsely accused, and that if he weren’t Muslim would not have been charged.

Washington Post

The Obama administration on Tuesday reiterated its condemnation of bloody clashes between protesters and those loyal to the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, but it stopped short of threatening concrete measures, like sanctions or a no-flight zone above Tripoli.

A few hours after the Libyan dictator issued his defiance of the international community, the security council hit back with a unanimous statement from the 15 members of the security council that condemned the violence and deplored the repression of peaceful demonstrators.

The statement called for the immediate lifting of restrictions on all forms of the media and for the safety of foreign nationals to be ensured.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Libyan government was responsible for the bloodshed, which she called “completely unacceptable.” But with the United States not yet able to get its diplomats out of the country, she said, “the safety and well being of Americans has to be our highest priority.”

Mrs. Clinton said the United Nations Security Council was the proper place for further action against Libya, adding that the situation on the ground was still too murky to make a judgment. “As we gain a greater understanding of what is actually happening,” she said, “we will take appropriate steps in line with our values, our principles and our laws.” She noted that communications were largely shut down.

Libya’s deputy ambassador to the UN, Ibrahim al-Dabashi, who has joined a number of Libyan diplomats who have defected from the Gaddafi regime, said the UN’s position did not go far enough. “It is not strong enough, but any message to the Libyan government at this stage is good.”

Dabashi said that he had received reports that “genocide” had begun in the west of the country, with ground attacks occurring from Libyan forces working alongside “mercenaries from many African countries”.

The US and British governments welcomed the security council statement. Mark Lyall Grant, the UK ambassador to the UN, said its strength came in its contents “and the fact that it is a united message”.

The US mission to the UN said it provided a “clear and unified voice that the violence must end immediately”.

The statement has no instant teeth – it will lead to no action on the part of the international community. That would require the forging of a resolution that would take days, if not weeks, to accomplish.

Its issuing was preceded by hours of confusion over the Libyan representation at the UN. In farcical scenes, the Libyan ambassador to the UN, Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgham who still supports Gaddafi, and deputy Dabashi, both claimed to be speaking for their nation.

In the end Shalgham addressed the security council, telling the five permanent members – the US, Britain, France, Russia and China – and 10 non-permanent members that the Libyan public prosecutor had begun to investigate the killings in the unrest so far. The ambassador denied that there had been any aerial bombardments of demonstrators, though he did concede that the eastern side of the country had fallen and was no longer in government control.

Shalgham’s appearance surprised observers as he had been absent for several days.

He said he had been holding discussions with senior members of the government, including the foreign minister, trying to persuade them to stop the bloodshed. “I am still trying to speak to the leader [Gaddafi]. We have to stop attacking Libyans,” Shalgham said.

Asked who was to blame, he answered: “All the regime is responsible. I am one of them – we are all responsible.”

The Guardian & New York Times

“Mrs. Clinton Do you want to hear the voice of the oppressed nations will from heart of USA? Islamic world doesn’t believe USA trickery. We call on you to stop interfering in Islamic countries,” reads the message left by the ICA.

The website of Voice of America Persian was also attacked by the Iranian pro-government group. Voice of America is the official news service of the United States Government. Of the 94 domains listed by the ICA, a majority of them are VOA related.

“Website of VOA Persian Service was Hacked today by #Iran ’s Cyber army #Iranelection,” Golnaz Esfandiari wrote at around 5:30 p.m. Eastern on the social media tool Twitter.

One VOA story now states that the incident may have been prompted by the U.S. State Department’s recent Arabic- and Persian-language Twitter campaigns in support of pro-democracy opposition groups overseas.

The ICA made headlines in 2009 when they compromised the email account owned by a Twitter staff member and used that access to redirect Twitter’s DNS services.

In each of the previous defacements, the ICA’s actions were political. There have been rumors that the ICA is connected to the Iranian government. At the same time, rumors also call them Russian hackers.

As quickly as the ICA made the news and made themselves known, they went idle with no explanation. It’s possible that as things heat up in Iran and in North Africa, this incident marks their return.

So what happened this time? The short answer is that no one knows yet.

The Tech Herald

Hariri hosted a dinner in honor of McCain and Lieberman, and the accompanying delegation.

“Our roots are Lebanon and the Arab cause, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is a just cause to unmask the criminals who assassinated Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and all the other martyrs,” Hariri said yesterday.

Hariri, who spoke to the delegations of sectors lawyers and engineers in the Future Movement, stressed the importance of mass participation in the forthcoming celebration of March 14.

Ministers from Hezbollah and its allies resigned on Wednesday, toppling Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri’s government before expected indictments against the Shi’ite group over the February 2005 killing of his father, Rafik.

The collapse of the government lays bare the stalemate between Hezbollah, supported by Syria and Iran, and the Western- and Saudi-backed Hariri which has crippled his 14-month old “unity” government.

The United States has given the Lebanese Armed Forces an estimated $650 million since 2006 to pay for such things as helicopter maintenance, weapons and ammunition, night-vision goggles and anti-tank missiles.

The decision to ramp up security and economic aid after the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah in part reflected a U.S. desire to help Lebanon better patrol its borders and prevent the Shi’ite militant group from rearming.

In a country with a long history of sectarian militias, the United States also hoped to help professionalize the army, reinforce the concept of civilian control of the military and, ultimately, diminish the influence of Hezbollah’s forces.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the Obama administration had no plans to cut off assistance and U.S. officials offered strong support for Hariri and criticized Hezbollah for its decision to bring down the government.

“We provide support to institutions, like the LAF, that operate under the constitutional authorities of the Lebanese state. We believe that our support for these institutions is critical to a sovereign and independent Lebanon,” he said.

“What happened today at Hezbollah’s instigation was an unfortunate action, but a new government will emerge through constitutional procedures. There is no reason at this point to review our assistance to Lebanon,” Crowley added.

‘PLAYING INTO HEZBOLLAH’S HANDS’

However, a U.S. congressional aide said there had long been doubts among Republican lawmakers about the assistance and the political uncertainty in Lebanon would only accentuate these.

“A lot of (Republican) members have had concerns previously about Hezbollah’s growing influence and whether the assistance we provided the government at this time, or in the future, could be something that benefited Hezbollah,” said the aide.

“With today’s events, those questions only become greater,” he said.

In November’s mid-term U.S. elections, Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, while Democrats held on to their majority in the Senate.

Congresswoman Kay Granger, the Texas Republican who chairs the House subcommittee that oversees the aid, “is following the unfolding events in Lebanon very closely and hopes for stability during this crucial time,” said a spokesman.

Analysts said the United States was likely to take a wait-and-see approach on Lebanon until it becomes clear what kind of government might succeed Hariri

“I don’t think that the collapse of the government necessarily triggers an immediate reassessment about American weapons sales or military assistance to the LAF,” said Robert Danin of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank.

However, given Republican control of the House and Israeli concerns about aid, he said, “it wouldn’t be surprising to see, at a minimum, more intensive scrutiny by the Congress.”

Two Democratic lawmakers placed a hold on $100 million in U.S. aid for the Lebanese army last year after an August 3 clash between Israeli and Lebanese forces that killed two Lebanese soldiers, a Lebanese journalist and a senior Israeli officer.

The funding was ultimately released after Lebanon took steps to prevent such border clashes in future.

Martin Indyk, director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the United States should not signal any diminution in its support for the Lebanese army.

“There’s good reason for skepticism, but this is not the moment to change course and cut off the Lebanese army,” Indyk said. “That’ll just be playing into Hezbollah’s hands.”

Reuters

hamas flagHezbollah and Hamas just went mainstream. According to Foreign Policy magazine’s Mark Perry, in a recent US military report “senior CENTCOM intelligence officers question the current U.S. policy of isolating and marginalizing the two movements” and encourage a “mix of strategies that would integrate the two organizations into their respective political mainstreams.”

The groundbreaking report is a product of CENTCOM’s “Red Team,” a group formed in 2006 to “think outside of the box and offer contrarian thinking” on critical issues for the benefit of senior military officials. The whole point of the Red Team, according to CENTCOM spokesman Major John Redfield, is that “it is meant to sharpen the reasoning and force intellectual rigor on these issues so that we can ultimately produce more informed decision making.”

The extraordinary five-page report entitled “Managing Hezbollah and Hamas” produces some critical conclusions and recommendations — Perry highlights some of these key points in his article:

- The report recognizes Hezbollah and Hamas as “pragmatic and opportunistic,” a nuanced distinction that is a world away from the current one-dimensional U.S. position that simplistically characterizes these groups as “terrorists.”

- The report recommends the integration of Hezbollah and Hamas into their national security forces and governing entities, recognizing that the existing political bodies “represent only a part of the Lebanese and Palestinian populace respectively.”

- The report downplays the view relentlessly promoted by Israel that Hezbollah is merely a proxy for Iran, instead claiming that the Lebanese resistance group’s “activities increasingly reflect the movement’s needs and aspirations in Lebanon.” Tellingly, Foreign Policy magazine also published an interview this week with Israeli Ambassador to Washington Michael Oren, in which he warns that Iran may use Hezbollah and Hamas to start a new Middle East war.

- The report draws parallels between the IRA’s gradual participation in peace talks and the possibility of taking a similar tack to integrate Hezbollah into the Lebanese Armed Forces. Citing a meeting between British Ambassador to Lebanon Frances Guy and Hezbollah in 2009, the report urges the British to pursue further talks with “vigor.”

In a twist I couldn’t possibly make up, an hour before reading Perry’s article, I was meeting with the very same Ambassador Guy, a universally-respected senior diplomat who speaks fluent Arabic and knows her terrain well. In a conversation about the peace process deadlock, I asked about her views on engaging Hamas, which is currently excluded from the talks.

Pointing to Russia’s recent statements advocating for Hamas’ inclusion in direct talks, Ambassador Guy volunteered an increasingly familiar refrain heard in Western policy circles: “You are not going to have peace without Hamas, obviously. They are going to have to be involved eventually.”

-The report, and the officials quoted by Perry, frequently question Israel’s policies and behaviors in regard to both Hezbollah and Hamas, citing the four-year siege of Gaza and 2006 attack on Lebanon as examples of failed initiatives. Perry, an experienced military analyst and author of eight books, says “the CENTCOM team directly repudiates Israel’s publicly stated view — that the two movements are incapable of change and must be confronted with force.” The report underlines this fact: “failing to recognize their separate grievances and objectives will result in continued failure in moderating their behavior.”

“Putting Hizballah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in the same sentence, as if they are all the same, is just stupid,” says one of Perry’s military sources. “I don’t know any intelligence officer at CENTCOM who buys that.”

This is not a new theme. In January 2009, then-British Foreign Secretary David Miliband lashed out at the “War on Terror,” arguing that lumping these groups together was counterproductive and played “into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common.”

Unknowingly prescient, Miliband follows that statement with this observation: “The ‘war on terror’ also implied that the correct response was primarily military. But as General Petraeus said to me and others in Iraq, the coalition there could not kill its way out of the problems of insurgency and civil strife.”

Irony of ironies. The US military is the architect of cutting-edge diplomatic initiatives, and the civilian-run federal government advocates the flexing of military might to address conflict.

There is no reason to suspect that General Petraeus himself does not buy into the Red Team’s conclusions on Hezbollah and Hamas. In March, the CENTCOM commander testified: “the enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Responsibility of Centcom]. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel,” which in turn “limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships” in the region.

A US military official familiar with the Red Team report strongly reconfirmed that viewpoint with me: “This issue permeates the entire Middle East. The Israel-Palestine problem is the key issue in the whole region.”

Ironically, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories are the one area in the entire Middle East that is not under CENTCOM’s 20-nation jurisdiction. Yet this is the theater which most seems to affect their ability to perform their duties elsewhere in the region.

The official added that “labeling” Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist groups was “pretty unhelpful” in addressing this issue and managed only to “water down the term.”

Changing the US position on Hezbollah and Hamas — resistance groups that have participated as political parties in fair elections and are favored by sizeable populations internally and throughout the Arab world — will almost certainly alter regional perceptions about the US’s willingness to engage realistically in brokering peace.

Hezbollah official Ibrahim Moussawi cautions, however, that perceptions are not enough:

People in the region are waiting for a change in action, not words, of US policymakers. Here is the Palestinian issue, here are the refugees and their right to return, here is the Jerusalem issue. They can show us some actions here first. The region wants to see tangible change and concrete actions first.

Timing and Intent

The timing of the disclosure of the Red Group report is intriguing. The U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed General Petraeus as the new commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan on the same day as the Foreign Policy story dropped online. His popularity and prestige are at a peak. And importantly, Petraeus demonstrated some serious invincibility in Washington when he emerged unscathed after linking Arab-Israeli peace failure to CENTCOM’s difficulties in the Iraq-Afghanistan military theater.

It is surely unlikely that this report, and the accompanying plugs by military intelligence officials, were leaked without the knowledge of some administration officials. Not this soon after the very public dismissal of Petraeus’ predecessor General Stanley McChrystal for criticizing, with his aides, senior administration officials in a Rolling Stone article.

I believe this “new” thinking on Hezbollah and Hamas has been percolating for some time within this very administration. I reference an article I wrote last November pointing to evolving views on Hezbollah within the White House and State Department. The view on Hamas has been tackled even more proactively — even before Obama became president, he was being urged to take a more pragmatic approach to the Palestinian resistance group by a broad array of former senior US officials, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Interestingly, the leak comes just days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — an unwavering foe of Hezbollah and Hamas — is due in Washington for talks with President Obama. Netanyahu isn’t much liked by this administration, and CENTCOM’s last leak opened up an unprecedented debate on whether Israel was a strategic liability for the United States.

Conjecture, facts, and anecdotes aside, this report is long overdue, and as one military official pointed out to me, it may have proven it’s worth already:

The timeline on the May 7 Red Team report predates the Israeli attack on the Gaza-bound Freedom Flotillas and the subsequent international scrutiny over Israel’s illegal blockade. Perry claims that the report’s authors were uneasy with “Israel’s anti-Hamas policies,” and felt that the siege on Gaza keeps “the area on the verge of a perpetual humanitarian collapse,” thereby “radicalizing more people.”

Post-flotilla, these are the same conclusions arrived at by many Western governments, whose first order of business was to diffuse tensions by pushing Israel to “ease” its siege.

The Red Team has passed an important credibility test at this first hurdle. With nothing but a failed peace process to stare at, this US administration would be wise to embrace the report’s daring recommendations and welcome Hezbollah and Hamas as full participants in any Mideast solution.

Huffington Post