Remember that the sensational formulations beloved by headline writers like me (”Dubai hit”) will be translated into the more neutral language of Washington.

What I accurately describe as the Dubai hit can also be described as  a counterterrorism operation against an organization designated as “terrorist.” If there was a U.S. role in the assasssination of Mabhouh–and it would not be surprising if there was given the collaboration of American and U.S. military intelligence organizations in the Middle East–then the Obama administration may have a problem.

Don’t believe the hype: Israel has survived such flaps “with very few repercussions” in the past.

Israel wants to know: What was Mabhouh doing in Dubai? Why not investigate that?

Australia provides ans answer: Because Hamas wasn’t systemically abusing the passport system on which the global security  depends.

Meanwhile: Get your Mossad T-shirt now!

With police investigations already underway in Australia, Ireland, and Germany, the Obama administration is going to deal with this. WashPost and NYT are still playing the story inside, appropriate  in light of the fact that there has been no official U.S. reaction, but that’s not going to last long.

For the Obama administration, this is where the rhetoric of the president’s Cairo address meets the realities of Middle East decisionmaking. Of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, and of course the U.S. assassinates al-Qaeda leaders every day. But the leaders and the publics of Arab countries (like the United Arab Emirates, where the hit took place) that are open to peace with Israel (and some of whom want U.S. help to deter Iran) are not going to be satisfied by the talking points that go over well in Washington and on cable TV.

The pro-American autocracies in the Middle East (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) are especially helped by Israeli tactics. Vulnerable to accusations of being soft on Israel, they will posture about not allowing Israeli intelligence to operate on Arab soil with impunity. Democratic forces in the Arab world are undermined by Israeli’s assertion of its right to attack its foes anywhere. By enabling undemocratic Arab regimes to pander to public opinion without actually sharing power, Israeli actions actually force Obama to subordinate his goal of reaching out to the Muslim world to his consistent defense of Israel.

That’s fine with Israeli public opinion and it will probably go over well in the United States where cultural sympathies for the Jewish state run deep. But Jewish Israelis comprise less than 3 percent of the public in the Middle East. To the vast majority of the democratically inclined people in the Middle East, Obama will be seen as indulging the lawlessness that he denounces when Arabs engage in it.

By contrast, the conservative British news organizations, like the Telegraph. This, of course, will  be chalked up to British anti-semitism but such tired charges cannot explain the continuing interest of the impeccably Zionist Jerusalem Post.

The Brits and the Israelis grasp the implications of a tough question that easygoing American liberals prefer to think about next week:  Is drugging and suffocating a Hamas leader in a Dubai hotel a demonstration of effective counterterror policy, as a lot Israelis think? Or, as a lot of Arabs think it is, a species of gangsterism.

….last year, there were 44 drone attacks, killing only five key Al Qaeda targets but the civilian casualties exceeded 700 Pakistanis. Passionate appeals have been made to all the visitors from the US – Congressmen, officials, military brass and others  that these attacks must stop. Pakistan is absolutely critical for US strategy in the region and its war against terror is solely dependent on Pakistanis’ cooperation. Pakistan must spell out to the Obama Administration that any more cooperation with the US would be subject to US meeting Pakistanis’ concerns.

There’s no evidence that is going to happen. From the point of view of U.S. policymakers, this isn’t a dilemma. In Washington, the answer is equally obvious, though diametrically opposed, to Pakistan’s: the battlefield advantages outweigh the political costs. In the short run, that is surely true. In the long run, it depends on ignoring Pakistani democracy.

Rafik Hariri, Lebanese businessman and political leader, slain in 2005. (Wapedia)

The politics of assassination are a more decisive factor than ever in Middle East politics.

This week thousands commemorated the fifth anniversary of the death of  Lebanese billionaire Rafik Hariri who was killed in a huge bomb blast in Beirut on February 13th, 2005. But the United Nations investigation of the crime has since stalled and the feeling that politics is trumping justice is hard to avoid. Hariri’s assassination gave rise to Lebanon’s so-called March 14th Cedar Revolution which brought Syria’s foes to power. Now the demographic and political realities of Lebanon have thwarted the movement and created a new status quo. Hariri’s son, Saad, who followed his father into politics, is calling for reconciliation with the government of Syria, the prime (but not the only) suspect in his father’s murder. As al Jazeera noted:

Re-emerging Syrian influence, the persistence of Hezbollah’s role and internal divisions have all dealt steady blows to the alliance that was brought together by opposition to Damascus.

Is justice possible?

Syria was immediately suspected  in Hariri’s mudrder because of the sheer size and sophistication of the ambush which destroyed Hariri’s motorcade and killed two dozen people. Only an organization with sophisticated planning and weaponry capabilities could have mounted such an attack.  Syria, whose military forces then occupied the country and dominated its political system, had the most reason to fear the Saudi-backed businessman, who was planning to enter politics with the goal of ending the Syrian occupation. Like its neighbors Israel, Syria also has a history of resorting to assassination to protect its interests. The backlash against Syria after the assassination empowered the pro-Western March 14 movement forced Damascus to withdraw its forces.

The initial findings of a special United Nations tribunal lent credence to the suspicions, and four pro-Syrian Lebanese general were detained in connection with the case. But the first prosecutor left the case  and the suspects have been released. In a piece for the New York Times yesterday, Michael Young, a pro-Western columnist for the Beirut Daily Star, blames the second U.N investigator, and all but recommends abandoning the probe rather than let it drag on. His frustration is understandable but his conclusion seems premature, as the investigation continues and new information has continued to emerge.

In a summary of the case yesterday, LeMonde (in French) reported that while decisive proof is lacking, the U.N. investigators have developed evidence implicating Hezbollah, the political/party militia which represents the country’s Shiite majority. The investigators have traced a network of cell phone used by the bombers to Hezbollah officials, Le Monde said.

The alleged role of Hezbollah, first reported by the German newsweekly Speigel Online, last year, does not preclude a Syrian role, as the Hezbollah has long allied itself with Syria. Hezbollah rejects the allegation. Yesterday, the group’s news site, Al Manar, reported President Obama called for justice in the Hariri case in straightfoward terms. Hezbollah is clearly heartened by Saad Hariri’s opening to Syria and his criticism of  Israel.

In short, Rafik Hariri’s rivals for power have benefited from his violent departure and his assailants elude justice.

More details of the hit from Intelligence Online via Haaretz: ten agents participated including three women, all traveling on European passports.

“It is no secret that America, Israel and European countries are seeking to impede Iran’s nuclear plans, overtly and covertly. Yet the assassination theory was widely dismissed. The professor’s known works on particle and theoretical physics did not seem central to Iran’s nuclear programme. And his name had appeared on a list of Iranian academics favouring Iran’s protest movement. So, ran the prevailing theory, Israel or America had little reason to kill him, though Iranian hardliners may have wanted to do so.

But listen to the whispers of Western spies and diplomats, and the Iranian regime may turn out to be right. Well-placed sources in two Western countries now say the professor was “one of the most important people involved in the programme.”

This is lightly sourced but The Economist is veddy conservative and wouldn’t indict Western powers lightly. This remains a most puzzling case.

Nowhere doss Osama bin Laden enjoy more confidence than here.

Al Jazeera asks the growing question about Nigeria.

Al Jazeera asks the question.

Don’t forget the Pew poll finding I cited the other day that the only geopolitical entity (outside of the Palestinian territories) where Osama bin Laden is fairly popular is…..

Jose Pertierra, a Washington lawyer who represents the Venezuelan government in the case (and full disclosure: a personal friend), describes the latest twists and turns in this long-running saga in Machetera.