By: Nilita Petrov –

MOSCOW — Three events came together independently to produce an intrigue that is hooking politicians and media in the Middle East. This is what happened.

Moscow hosted MVSV-2008, an international show of weapons and military equipment. Then King Abdullah II of Jordan visited the show, met with designers and producers and had a discussion with President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. A few days previously, President Bashar Assad of Syria flew in for talks with Medvedev.

The press and television in Amman, Damascus and Tel Aviv have made much of the events, especially the Syrian visit.

MONEY SPINNERS — Russia wants to sell $8 billion of Russian arms in 2008. The latest clash with Georgia has set it up to achieve that target. The Image shows an RPG-7V2 grenade launcher on display at the recent MVSB 2008 international exhibition of weapons and military equipment at ExpoCentre in Moscow. (ITAR-TASS via Newscom)

Israeli media claimed Assad had arrived on a purchasing spree, and his main aim was to buy the Iskander-E tactical missile system, in addition to Pantsyr-S1 and Buk-M2 ground-to-air missile systems and Su-30, MiG-29SMT and MiG-31E fighters.

The Iskander missile had been promised to Damascus in 2001, and only a personal request by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to former President Vladimir Putin put a stop to its sale to Syria.

But now that Israel has helped to train Georgian commandos and equip the Georgian army that attacked South Ossetia, Moscow thinks it is within its rights to “repay the debt” and provide Damascus with the system, the media in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv said.

Yet Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters during Assad’s visit that Moscow “is ready to supply Syria only with defensive weapons, ones that do not upset the balance of strength in the region.”

This means that Syria — as Moscow promised to Tel Aviv — will not get the Iskander system. Regarding ground- and air-based air defense units, including interceptor fighters, they are not considered offensive armaments and are exempt from Russian-Israeli agreements.

Military technical cooperation between Moscow and Damascus needs re-evaluating. Syria owes Russia $3 billion for weapons supplied to it, and this on top of Damascus’ $10 billion debt for armaments sold in Soviet times which Moscow forgave, incidentally, for a pledge to spend another $2 billion on arms purchases from Russia.

Contracts currently being negotiated include Pantsyr and Buk missile systems, as well as Sukhoi and MiG fighters, but not Iskander missiles. The parties are also discussing the expansion of a Russian naval maintenance base at the Syrian port of Tartus.

Any movement of Black Sea Fleet forces from Sevastopol to Syria, as some Middle East publications suggest is, of course, out of the question. But a supply and maintenance center for warships on missions in the Mediterranean will come in handy for Moscow. In the Soviet era, the Soviet Navy’s Fifth Mediterranean Squadron made full use of this port.

King Abdullah’s visit to Moscow did not produce as much excitement as the trip by Assad to Sochi, perhaps because problems between Jordan and Israel are not as serious as between Tel Aviv and Damascus. In the king’s visit, discussions mainly focused on military-technical cooperation between Moscow and Amman, rather than on Middle East issues. This cooperation is now on the rise, Medvedev said during the meeting.

“Our relations are making good headway. This is our third meeting in six months and that points to the intensity of our contacts and good-neighbor relations,” the president said, adding, “Trade between our countries grows steadily, although both countries would like to see it develop more quickly.”

Jordan lives up to these words. In recent years it has bought from Russia two Il-76MF military transport planes worth a combined $100 million, and six light multi-role Ka-226 helicopters (at an estimated cost of $25 million), which will be assembled in Jordan under license. The two countries have even set up a joint venture, Oboronprom Middle East, to assemble 15 to 20 Ka helicopters a year.

Plans are also underway to set up a joint venture for the production of RPG-32 Hashim multi-caliber grenade launchers. The launcher was developed by the Bazalt Moscow State Research and Production Enterprise at the suggestion of the king himself. It is designed to engage armored vehicles and defended gun posts from a distance of up to 700 meters with 72mm and 105mm grenades.

It will be produced in quantity both in Russia and in Jordan. Trial specimens have already been sent to Amman and were highly praised. A manufacturing license contract is expected to be signed soon. Jordan has received a special $350 million credit from Russia for this purpose, although the sum is also supposed to cover repairs and upgrading of weapons previously supplied to Amman.

Other equipment includes armored personnel carriers, fighting infantry vehicles, Kornet anti-tank missile systems, Igla ground-to-air missiles, and weapons for special operations — reconnaissance, sabotage and protection of the royal palace.

King Abdullah is a former commando. He is an arms expert, and his buying of Russia’s VSS silent sniper rifles and PSS silent pistols is good publicity for Russian arms-makers. It is not impossible that after his visit to Moscow, Amman will take delivery of Pantsyr-S1 ground-to-air missile systems, which are considered today among the most effective close-range air defense systems.

Russian weapons appeal not only to buyers in the Middle East. On Aug. 23, the Russian president sent a message to President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, raising the matter of military-technical cooperation between the two countries.

“Russia is interested above all in trade and economic cooperation between security-related agencies,” the Russian leader told his Nicaraguan counterpart. “Military-technical cooperation between us offers a promising future.”

This means that the military equipment once supplied to Nicaragua by the Soviet Union and which needs repairing, upgrading or replacing could be replaced with more advanced weapons, if Managua is willing.

And Managua is willing, as is clear from the close ties that exist between Ortega and Hugo Chavez. The Venezuelan leader is very pleased with Russian weapons.

The target mentioned at the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, of exporting $8 billion worth of Russian arms supplies in 2008, compared with $6.2 billion in 2007, does not seem too far-fetched.

* Americans Approve Military Strike on Iran if Diplomacy Fails The drums of war are beating louder, amplified by Iran’s pursuit of its nuclear agenda and the West and Israel’s determination not to let it do so.

* EU considers sanctions on Russia EU leaders are considering sanctions “and many other means” against Russia over the Georgia crisis.

* Russia to up naval presence in Syria Russia plans to increase its military presence in the Mediterranean by using Syrian ports more frequently.

* Cold War tension rises as Putin talks of Black Sea confrontation A new Cold War between Russia and the West grew steadily closer yesterday after the Kremlin gave a warning about “direct confrontation” between American and Russian warships in the Black Sea.

* Jordan reaches out to Hamas In an about-face, Jordan is reaching out to Hamas amid fears that a collapse of Mideast peacemaking would bring an influx of refugees.

* Israel unlikely to berate Russia As the US and Russia sent military vessels to dock at different Georgian ports on Wednesday, Israel continued to tread carefully.

* Russia fails to win support of Asian alliance Russia’s hopes of winning international support for its actions in Georgia were dashed Thursday.

* NASA Technology Illuminates Dead Sea Scrolls Scientists are using American space-age technology to bring to light the faded script on thousands of fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

* West fears Hezbollah setting up cells in Venezuela The budding strategic partnership between Venezuela and Iran has prompted fears from Western governments that Hezbollah is establishing a growing number of operational cells in the South American country.

* Abbas: All Palestinians should have the right to return home Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Thursday that he rejects the idea that Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon might be forced to stay there permanently.

By: Ian Traynor – Guardian News and Media Ltd.

Europe from space … a satellite image shows the population hotspots. The EU is currently home to 495 million people. Photograph: Nasa/Corbis

Britain will overtake Germany and France to become the biggest country in the EU in 50 years’ time, according to population projections unveiled yesterday. A survey of demographic trends finds Britain’s positive birth rate contrasting strongly with most other large countries in Europe.

The impact of population shrinkage, coupled with the aging of key European societies, spells big problems for pensions, health and welfare systems across much of the union, says the report, published by Eurostat, the statistical service of the European commission.

But Britain, it says, is likely to suffer less because of its strong population growth and the younger average age of British society.

Immigration is singled out as the sole mitigating factor, seen as crucial to maintaining population growth. But the report says this probably will not be enough to reverse the trend of population decline in many countries.

The survey predicts that Britain’s population by 2060 will increase by 25% from the current figure of just over 61 million to almost 77 million.

Germany is the biggest country in the EU, with more than 82 million people, but it is likely to shed almost 12 million by 2060, says the report. The widely praised family policies and support of working women in France means that the French population will rise to almost 72 million by 2060.

With the British birth rate now at its highest in a generation – 1.91 children per woman according to the Office for National Statistics last week – the UK has less to fear about any “generation wars” brought on by the “demographic timebomb” of ageing and shrinking populations where those in work cannot support the pension needs of retired citizens.

“With climate change and globalization the aging of the population is one of the major challenges Europe must face,” said Amelia Torres, a commission spokeswoman.

Of the biggest six EU countries (Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Spain and Poland) Britain has by far the greatest birth rates. Only Luxembourg, Cyprus, and Ireland are growing faster than the UK.

The average age of Europeans is now just over 40; this will be 48 by 2060. The average age for Britons is 39 and will be 42 in 2060 – the lowest age in Europe with the exception of Luxembourg.

The EU’s population now stands at 495 million and is projected to rise to more than 520 million by 2035, before falling to 505 million by 2060.

“From 2015 onwards deaths would outnumber births, and population growth due to natural increase, would cease,” says the survey, assuming a net migration inflow to the EU of almost 60 million over the next 50 years. “Positive net migration would be the only population growth factor. However, from 2035 this positive net migration would no longer counterbalance the negative natural change.”

Across the EU’s 27 countries there are now four people of working age for every person over 65, but by 2060 that ratio will be 2:1, causing stress on welfare and pension systems. Torres said pension and health systems had to be reformed.

Fourteen of the 27 countries are projected to have smaller populations in 50 years’ time. The survey reveals striking contrasts, between eastern and western Europe and between the north and south, with Scandinavia and Britain comparing positively with Mediterranean Europe, while central and eastern Europe see chronic population depression.

The number of people aged 65 or more broadly doubles across the EU, with Britons of retirement age being almost 19 million. While the number of Germans of working age is predicted to decline from 54 million now to 39 million by 2060, in Britain the figure rises by more than 4 million.

Across the EU, the number of children under 14 will drop from 77 million to 71 million, but in the UK the number rises by 2 million. In Britain the proportion of over-80s will double to 9% while across the EU it will triple to 12%.

The UK population is increasing at a rate of around 1,000 people a day according to figures released by the National Statistics agency earlier this month.

Children aged under 16 represent around one in five of the total population, around the same proportion as those of retirement age. UK fertility rates dropped steadily during the 1980s and 1990s but began to increase again from 2003.

* Rice Visit: PA State Closer than Ever Negotiations between Israel and PA continue at a “crazy” pace.

* Iran: Israel too vulnerable to attack Israel would not dare launch an attack on Iran for fear of the Islamic Republic’s missile array and the support of its Islamic allies in the region.

* Egypt urges end to Israel threats Egypt has urged Israel to stop making threats against Lebanon, its foreign minister said on a visit to Beirut.

* UK urges tough response to Russia UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has called on the EU and Nato to initiate “hard-headed engagement” with Russia in response to its actions in Georgia.

* Russia Pushing Weapons Sales in Middle East and Beyond Three events came together independently to produce an intrigue that is hooking politicians and media in the Middle East.

* Tensions build as U.S. ship arrives in Georgia A U.S. Coast Guard ship carrying humanitarian aid docked in the Georgian Black Sea port of Batumi Wednesday.

* Dimitri Medvedev raises spectre of new Cold War Russia put the West on alert for a new Cold War that the Kremlin is ready to fight.

* World poverty ‘more widespread’ The World Bank has warned that world poverty is much greater than previously thought.

* Europe of the future: Germany shrinks, France grows, but UK population booms Britain will overtake Germany and France to become the biggest country in the EU in 50 years’ time.

* Oil Interests Win Out Over Ecology Israel’s Nature and Parks Authority have approved exploratory oil drilling in a nature reserve, despite opposition from its own science committee and environmentalist.

By: Ehud Zion Waldoks – The Jerusalem Post

Two Israeli energy companies are convinced the best chance for finding oil in Israel lies at a site in the Judean Desert nature reserve and have stirred up a storm of controversy with their persistent requests to drill an exploratory hole.

The Judean Desert
Photo: Foreign Ministry

The companies, Ginko Oil Exploration and Delek Energy System, want to drill in an empty corner of the desert. However, the Nature and Parks Authority Science Committee and the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI) contend that even exploratory drilling will destroy the fragile ecosystems in the reserve. The two sides will go head to head on Tuesday in front of the Nature and Parks Authority general assembly, the Authority’s highest body, which will decide whether to grant the companies’ request.

The situation, from an environmental perspective, has also been complicated by the fact that Environmental Protection Minister Gideon Ezra has recommended the drilling plan, although on the condition the ecological damage was reversible.

Ginko made headlines two years ago when it discovered a small amount of oil near the Dead Sea through Zuk Tamrur 3. This time around, Ginko director Rami Karmin believes Zuk Tamrur 4 in the reserve has the best chance to produce as much as 6.5 million barrels.

But even he admits that drilling for oil is “a tricky business” and there are no guarantees.

“We are talking about drilling in a spot that the Authority had already approved drilling there 10 years ago, and we requested that spot because we thought they’d approve it again. The district committee approved it two weeks ago and now we need the Authority’s approval,” he said.

“We need [approximately] 1.25 acres out of 150,000 for two months so that we can drill an exploratory hole 2,000 meters down. We had an ecological company evaluate the area. There have also been other exploratory holes in the Dead Sea area and you can’t even see them anymore,” Karmin argued.

According to Karmin, Zuk Tamrur 4 is the likeliest place in Israel to find oil because of its unique geological properties.

“There is oil around the Dead Sea but the constant little earthquakes that occur because the Sea is on a fault line release the pressure before the oil can be driven to the surface. At this spot, there is a four-way closure and there is a good chance there is oil there,” he said.

However, SPNI argued Sunday in a position paper ahead of Tuesday’s meeting that the relatively small predicted reservoir did not justify the massive ecological damage. Israel uses about 80 million barrels of oil per year, or 270,000 per day. 6.5 million barrels would meet Israel’s needs for less than a month.

Karmin contended that the amount of oil wasn’t the point, its cost was.

“Six-and-a-half million barrels is worth about $800 million. The government would be receiving about $400m. in fees and taxes – can we really afford to turn down that much money?” he demanded.

The Authority’s Science Committee, nevertheless, has submitted its assessment report to the general assembly and has counseled the body to prohibit the companies from drilling. The committee consists of, among others, two professors and two doctors, including the Environmental Protection Ministry’s chief scientist Dr. Yishayahu Baror – who apparently disagrees with his minister.

Rather than a deserted corner of the desert, the site actually sits in the middle of a very narrow corridor which serves as a natural transit area between the Judean Desert Reserve and the Negev reserve, the committee said. Disturbing the area would have a massive impact on plant and animal life in the whole area, they argued. Animal populations would be cut off from their main groups with no way to get back to the Negev, they said.

The committee addressed both the potential damage from the initial drilling, but also the greater potential impact of striking oil.

While an exploratory hole would inevitably cause some damage, if oil was found, much more damage would result, the committee wrote. A constant stream of tanker trucks and the new roads they would require would doubtless result in severe damage. Even putting up lights, as is usual for drilling sites, would adversely affect the delicate ecosystems. The inevitable accidents if oil were found would pollute the ground in the area as well, according to the report.

The committee concluded by reminding the general assembly that it was precisely their job to protect nature in the face of such threats.

Meanwhile, even if the committee voted against granting them permission on Tuesday, Karmin vowed to employ additional legal measures to get the permits.

By: Lucia Kubosova – EUobserver

Europe’s attempts to keep religion away from the public domain was one of the reasons the Irish rejected the EU’s new Lisbon treaty, the country’s top Catholic church figure, cardinal Sean Brady, has suggested.

Speaking at the Humbert Summer School in Co Mayo on Sunday (24 August), the cleric said the EU’s prevailing culture and social agenda seems to be driven by the secular tradition “rather than by the Christian memory and heritage of the vast majority of member states,” the Irish Times reported.

Cardinal Brady warned of “dangerous individualism that does not care about God or about what the future might have in store” (Photo: EUobserver)

“As the recent referendum on the Lisbon treaty in Ireland suggests, at least some of those who were previously enthusiastic about the founding aims of the EU, both social and economic, are now expressing unease,” he added.

The cardinal referred to “a fairly widespread culture in European affairs which relegates manifestations of one’s own religious convictions to the private and subjective sphere.”

“Successive decisions which have undermined the family based on marriage, the right to life from the moment of conception to natural death, the sacredness of the Sabbath, the right of Christian institutions to maintain and promote their ethos, including schools – these and other decisions have made it more difficult for committed Christians to maintain their instinctive commitment to the European project.”

“Without respect for its Christian memory and soul, I believe it is possible to anticipate continuing difficulties for the European project,” Cardinal Brady warned, explaining that “dangerous individualism that does not care about God or about what the future might have in store” will compound the EU’s economic and social problems.

Ireland was the only country to hold a referendum on the EU’s new rule book – the Lisbon treaty. Its rejection in June has interrupted the ratification marathon and caused the delay of several institutional changes originally planned for next year.

The document was based on a package of key reforms introduced already in the European Constitution, which failed to see the light of the day after it was knocked back by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005.

In a debate about the constitution, some countries, political leaders and organizations demanded that God be mentioned in the preamble as a reference to Europe’s common Christian heritage, but the idea did not gather enough support.

The Late Pope John Paul II had criticized the final outcome, describing it along with other decisions in Brussels as the “loss of Christian memory” in European institutions and policy.

EU leaders are due to debate the future of the Lisbon treaty at an October summit organized by France, as the current holder of the bloc’s six-month rotating presidency.

By: Ariel Cohen – Middle East Times

Syrian President Bashar Assad joined Muammar Gadhafi of Libya in backing Russia’s lightning military action against Georgia, making Syria one of the few countries in the world to publicly back the Kremlin.

“We understand the essence of the Russian position and its military response,” Assad told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the start of their meeting in Moscow. “We believe Russia was responding to the Georgian provocation.”

At the start of the war, almost no country in the world came out in support of Russian action. Cuba and Libya were in the vanguard of the old Soviet coterie speaking out in support. Venezuela and Hamas chimed in, but even “brotherly” Belarus and historic ally Armenia, two countries over which Russia has the most sway, remained noticeably silent.

Good old days of the Cold War and U.S.-Russian competition may be returning to the Middle East. Damascus, supported by Iranian cash, wants bigger and better toys. The Baath regime signals that it is not serious about the still-born negotiations with Israel it conducted in Istanbul.

Assad has been seeking state-of-the-art SA-10s anti-aircraft missile system for close to a decade, and the sale has been blocked numerous times in the past, by pressure from the United States and Israel. Damascus also is interested in the long range S-300 anti-aircraft/anti-ballistic missile system Russia has sold to Tehran.

Assad said he hopes to offer Moscow the opportunity to deploy that type of missile in Syrian territory, as a counterweight to U.S. missiles in Poland, but it is clearly aimed at Israel. Syria also is asking short-range surface to surface ballistic missiles SS-21 SCARAB (9K79 Tochka) single-stage, short-range, tactical-ballistic missile and SS-26 Iskander short-range missile.

The SS-26 comes in two modifications: a longer range (greater than 400 km) variant for the Russian forces, and a shorter range (less than 300 km) version for export. If Syria gets either, it will be able to hit the Tel Aviv area with greater accuracy than with the current SCUDs. If Russia satisfies Syria’s demands, it will mean that it is seeking a confrontation with the United States not just in the Soviet periphery, but in the old battleground of the Middle East.

Lessons from the Georgia war are going to be studied in the Middle Eastern military academies for years to come. The early assessment signals the return of conventional military operations, 20th century style — with some elements of intensive information warfare and cyber attacks thrown in for a good measure.

The Russian General Staff planning provided a speed and complexity in implementing combined operations that were well prepared and reasonably executed. More important, the Russian offensive achieved a strategic surprise. Essentially, after regaining control of Tskhinvali, the Russian army conducted a two-pronged offensive against Georgia from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is purely within the tradition of the classical Russian operational art, of conducting more than one offensive operation to prevent the defender’s concentration of forces and overwhelm his defensive strategy.

The Russian military occupied the strategically vital highway and railway line which crosses central Georgia and links Tbilisi with the coastline, severing access to its main port, and essentially paralyzing and dividing the country in several parts.

Overwhelming Force

The Russian main ground forces involved in the invasion of Georgia belong to the 58th Army, which took part in the invasion and occupation of Chechnya since 1999. Other Russian units that are taking part in the campaign are the 42nd Guards Motorized Rifle Division based in Chechnya, the Guards “Pskov” 76th Guards Airborne Division, the 98th Guards Airborne Division based in Ivanovo, and the 45th Independent Strategic Reconnaissance Regiment, which is under the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (Spetsnaz GRU).

The Russian airborne troops operated from South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the invasion of Georgia, providing security to the Roki Tunnel; occupying Poti; destroying oil infrastructures there; and possibly participating in the capture of the strategic Inguri hydro power station without a shot fired. Ingrui station provides two-thirds of Georgia’s electricity.

Lessons Learned

A few preliminary lessons can be distilled after only 13 days since the beginning of hostilities. These include:

– Watch out for the Bear! Russian continental power is on the rise. Central European countries should watch their rhetoric, while staunchly defending their own national security interests. Small states need to treat nuclear armed great powers with respect. Provoking a militarily strong adversary is worthwhile only if you are confident of victory, and even then there may be bitter surprises, just as Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili found out.

– Combine NATO and U.S. Guarantees with Military Self-Reliance. European NATO members have much higher level of security guarantees than Georgia, including NATO’s Article Five. Yet, during the Cold War years, countries which had contingencies and training for popular resistance against the USSR — Albania, Romania, and Switzerland — had a higher level of security than those which only relied solely on U.S. troops or nukes. Revisiting civil defense and organized popular resistance may be in order.

– Airpower alone is not sufficient. Russia used air, armor, the Black Sea Fleet, special forces and allied militias. Clausewitzian lessons still apply: the use of combined operations with overwhelming force in the war’s center of gravity does work.

– Surprise and speed of operations still matter — as they have for 4,000 years of recorded history of warfare. To be successful, wars have to have limited and achievable goals. Russia achieved most of its goals between Friday and Monday, while the world, including U.S. President George W. Bush, was busy watching the Olympics and parliaments were on vacation.

– Do not cringe — within reason — from taking military casualties and inflicting overwhelming military and civilian causalities at a level unacceptable to the enemy. Georgia lost between 100-200 soldiers, and was routed. A tougher enemy, like Japan or Germany in World War II, or even a non-state actor like the Taliban or Hezbollah, could suffer a proportionally much higher rate of casualties and keep on fighting.

– Information and psychological warfare is paramount. So is cyber-security. It looks like the Russians conducted repeated denial of service attacks against Georgia (and in 2007, against Estonia), shutting down key Web sites. Russia was ready with accusation and footage of alleged Georgian atrocities in South Ossetia, attempting to shift the information operations playing fields from “aggressor-victim” to “saving Ossetian civilians from barbaric Georgians.” These operations also matter domestically, to shore support and boost morale at home.

Avoiding the New Cold War

It is still early to digest all the lessons of this conflict, but this geopolitical earthquake symbolizes that the tectonic plates of Eastern Europe and Western Eurasia are shifting. And this is just the beginning: the future of southern Caucasus, Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Empire is at play.

Most important, this war is not about Georgia, but about what kind of international actor Russia will be in the 21st century. If Russia expands its confrontation, grave implications for the Middle East will follow.

After an almost-20 year hiatus, the United States and NATO allies may once again prioritize Russia as a potential threat to their vital interests in Europe and beyond.

The question is whether NATO will send a strong signal to Moscow that its aggression will not stand. This should be done through tough diplomacy, in international organizations, and through inventive economic measures. The United States, its allies and Europe must do everything possible to reverse Russian aggression against Georgia — and to prevent further hostile action against its allies.

By: Peter Baker- The International Herald Tribune

The president of Syria spent two days in Russia this week with a shopping list of sophisticated weapons he wanted to buy. The visit may prove a harbinger of things to come.

If the conflict in Georgia ushers in a sustained period of renewed animosity between Russia and the West, Washington fears that a newly emboldened but estranged Moscow could use its influence, money, energy resources, United Nations Security Council veto and, yes, its arms industry to undermine American interests around the world.

Although Russia has long supplied arms to Syria, it has held back until now on providing the next generation of ballistic missiles. But President Bashar al-Assad of Syria made it clear that he was hoping to capitalize on rising tensions between Moscow and the West when he rushed to the resort city of Sochi to meet with his Russian counterpart, Dmitri Medvedev.

The list of ways a more hostile Russia could cause problems for the United States extends far beyond Syria and the mountains of Georgia. In addition to increased arms sales to other anti-American states like Iran and Venezuela, policymakers and specialists here envision a freeze in cooperation on counterterrorism and nuclear nonproliferation, manipulation of oil and natural gas supplies, pressure against U.S. military bases in Central Asia and the collapse of efforts to extend Cold War-era arms-control treaties.

“It’s Iran, it’s the UN,” said Angela Stent, who served as the top Russia officer at the U.S. government’s National Intelligence Council until 2006 and now directs Russian studies at Georgetown University. “It’s all the counterterrorism and counternarcotics programs, Syria, Venezuela, Hamas – there are any number of issues over which they can be less cooperative than they’ve been. And of course, energy.”

Michael McFaul, a Stanford University professor and the chief Russia adviser for Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said, “The potential is big because at the end of the day, they are the hegemon in that region and we are not and that’s a fact.” McFaul said Russia appeared intent on trying to “disrupt the international order” and had the capacity to succeed.

Russia may yet hold back from some of the more disruptive options, depending on how both sides act in the next few weeks and months. Many in Washington hope Russia will restrain itself out of its own self-interest; Moscow, for instance, does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons either, and so has incentive to continue working with the United States to press Tehran to give up its uranium enrichment program.

Moscow may also be checked by the desire of its economic elite to remain on the path to integration with the rest of the world. The main Russian stock index fell sharply in recent days, costing investors – many of whom have close ties to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s circle – $11 billion.

Still, although the confrontation over Georgia had been building for years, the outbreak of violence demonstrated just how abruptly the international scene can change. Now Russia is the top focus in Washington, and some veteran diplomats fret about the situation spiraling out of control.

“Outrage is not a policy,” said Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is now president of the Brookings Institution. “Worry is not a policy. Indignation is not a policy.”

“Even though outrage, worry and indignation are all appropriate in this situation, they shouldn’t be mistaken for policy and they shouldn’t be mistaken for strategy,” he added.

For Washington, there are limited options for applying pressure. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, wants to throw Russia out of the Group of 8 major powers. Such an action would effectively admit the failure of 17 years of bipartisan policy aimed at incorporating Russia into the international order.

Yet Washington’s menu of options pales by comparison with Moscow’s. Masha Lipman, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, said, “There’s a lot more” that the United States needs from Russia than the other way around, citing efforts to secure old Soviet nuclear arms, support the war effort in Afghanistan and force Iran and North Korea to give up nuclear programs. “Hence Russia has all the leverage,” she said.

In forecasting Russia’s potential for causing headaches, most specialists look first to Ukraine, which wants to join NATO. The nightmare scenario circulating in recent days is an attempt by Moscow to claim the strategic Crimean peninsula to secure access to the Black Sea. Ukrainian lawmakers are investigating reports that Russia has been granting passports en masse to ethnic Russians living in Crimea, a tactic Moscow used in the Georgian breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to justify intervention to protect its citizens.

Arms sales, as Assad’s visit underscored, represent another way Russia could create problems. Israeli and Western governments have already been alarmed about reports that the first elements of a Russian-built S-300 antiaircraft missile system are being delivered to Iran, which could use them to shoot down any U.S. or Israeli planes that seek to bomb nuclear facilities, should that ever be attempted.

Russia could make it more difficult for the United States and NATO to support forces in Afghanistan. Russia agreed in April to allow NATO to send nonlethal supplies overland through its territory en route to Afghanistan, a transit right it could easily revoke. Russia could also turn up pressure on Kyrgyzstan to evict U.S. forces that support operations in Afghanistan and could block any large-scale return to Uzbekistan, which kicked the Americans out in 2005.

“The argument would be: Why help NATO?” said Celeste Wallander, a Russia scholar at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service.

Even beyond the dispute over Iran, Russia could obstruct the United States at the UN Security Council on a range of other issues. Just last month, Russia vetoed sanctions against Zimbabwe’s government, a move seen as a slap at Washington.

“If Russia’s feeling churlish, they can pretty much bring to a grinding halt any kind of coercive actions, like economic sanctions or anything else,” said Peter Feaver, a former strategic adviser at the National Security Council.

Russia could also accelerate its withdrawal from arms-control structures. It has already suspended the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty to protest U.S. missile defense plans and threatened to pull out of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty. Renewed tension could unravel a recently signed civilian nuclear cooperation agreement and doom negotiations to extend soon-to-expire strategic arms control verification programs.

“Ironically, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there’s always been the concern about Russia becoming a spoiler,” said Stent, the Georgetown professor, “and now we could see the realization of that.”

By: Daniel Pipes – The Jerusalem Post

How do Muslims see Barack Obama? They have three choices: either as he presents himself, as one who has “never been a Muslim” and has “always been a Christian”; or as a fellow Muslim; or as an apostate from Islam.

Sen. Barack Obama hugs associate pastor Jennifer Elmquist at the First Lutheran Church, Sunday.
Photo: AP

Reports suggests that while Americans generally view the Democratic candidate having had no religion before converting at Rev. Jeremiah Wrights’s hands at 27, Muslims the world over rarely see him as Christian but usually as either Muslim or ex-Muslim.

Lee Smith of the Hudson Institute explains why: “Barack Obama’s father was Muslim and therefore, according to Islamic law, so is the candidate. In spite of the Koranic verses explaining that there is no compulsion in religion, a Muslim child takes the religion of his or her father… For Muslims around the world, non-American Muslims at any rate, they can only ever see Barack Hussein Obama as a Muslim.”

In addition, his school record from Indonesia lists him as a Muslim. Thus, an Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masri al-Youm, refers to his “Muslim origins.” Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi referred to Obama as “a Muslim” and a person with an “African and Islamic identity.” One Al-Jazeera analysis calls him a “non-Christian man,” a second refers to his “Muslim Kenyan” father, and a third, by Naseem Jamali, notes that “Obama may not want to be counted as a Muslim, but Muslims are eager to count him as one of their own.”

A conversation in Beirut, quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, captures the puzzlement. “He has to be good for Arabs because he is a Muslim,” observed a grocer. “He’s not a Muslim, he’s a Christian,” replied a customer. Retorted the grocer: “He can’t be a Christian. His middle name is Hussein.” Arabic discussions of Obama sometimes mention his middle name as a code, with no further comment needed.

“The symbolism of a major American presidential candidate with the middle name of Hussein, who went to elementary school in Indonesia,” reports Tamara Cofman Wittes of the Brookings Institution from a US-Muslim conference in Qatar, “that certainly speaks to Muslims abroad.”

Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times found that Egyptians “don’t really understand Obama’s family tree, but what they do know is that if America – despite being attacked by Muslim militants on 9/11 – were to elect as its president some guy with the middle name ‘Hussein,’ it would mark a sea change in America-Muslim world relations.”

Some American Muslim leaders also perceive Obama as Muslim. The president of the Islamic Society of North America, Sayyid M. Syeed, told Muslims at a conference in Houston that whether Obama wins or loses, his candidacy will reinforce the idea that Muslim children can “become the presidents of this country.” The Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan called Obama “the hope of the entire world” and compared him to his religion’s founder, Fard Muhammad.

BUT THIS excitement also has a dark side – suspicions that Obama is a traitor to his birth religion, an apostate (murtadd) from Islam. Al-Qaida has prominently featured Obama’s statement “I am not a Muslim” and one analyst, Shireen K. Burki of the University of Mary Washington, sees Obama as “bin Laden’s dream candidate.” Should he become US commander-in-chief, she believes, Al-Qaida would likely “exploit his background to argue that an apostate is leading the global war on terror… to galvanize sympathizers into action.”

Mainstream Muslims tend to tiptoe around this topic. An Egyptian supporter of Obama, Yasser Khalil, reports that many Muslims react “with bewilderment and curiosity” when Obama is described as a Muslim apostate; Josie Delap and Robert Lane Greene of the Economist even claim that the Obama-as-apostate theme “has been notably absent” among Arabic-language columnists and editorialists.

That latter claim is inaccurate, for the topic is indeed discussed. At least one Arabic-language newspaper published Burki’s article. Kuwait’s Al-Watan referred to Obama as “a born Muslim, an apostate, a convert to Christianity.” Writing in the Arab Times, Syrian liberal Nidal Na’isa repeatedly called Obama an “apostate Muslim.”

In sum, Muslims puzzle over Obama’s present religious status. They resist his self-identification as a Christian, while they assume a baby born to a Muslim father and named “Hussein” began life a Muslim.

* Abbas: PA won’t miss chance for peace The Palestinian leadership is not prepared to miss any opportunity and intends to exert every effort to resolve the dispute with Israel.

* Russia recognizes Georgian rebels President Dmitry Medvedev has declared that Russia formally recognises the independence of the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

* Obama through Muslim eyes How do Muslims see Barack Obama? They have three choices: either as he presents himself, as one who has “never been a Muslim” and has “always been a Christian”; or as a fellow Muslim; or as an apostate from Islam.

* U.N. Confirms: Hizbullah Importing Weapons From Syria A United Nations task force assigned to report on weapons smuggling in Lebanon said Monday that Hizbullah has been bringing arms across the Syrian-Lebanese border.

* Hamas smuggling continues ‘rapidly’ While Egyptian efforts to stop weapon smuggling into Gaza have increased in recent weeks, Hamas is still continuing the illegal operations at a rapid pace.

* Beijing swells dollar reserves through stealth China has resorted to stealth intervention in the currency markets to amass US dollars.

* Barak to Rice: Israel won’t accept nuclear Iran Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Monday evening.

* Peace Now: West Bank settlement construction nearly doubled this year More than 2,600 housing units are under construction in West Bank settlements.

* When Hamas and Jordan Talk Jordan is the great survivor in the Arab World, so when it starts shuffling its diplomatic cards, it means there is something going on worth watching.

* Iraqi leader insists on deadline for troop pullout Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki dug in his heels Monday on the future of the US military in Iraq.