Category: Iran

  • HURRIYET ENGLISH:  Foreign minister says Turkey wants to normalize relations with Armenia

    HURRIYET ENGLISH: Foreign minister says Turkey wants to normalize relations with Armenia

    July 25, 2008

     

    Compiled by Sonay Kanber , ATAA Research Associate
    E-mail: [email protected]
     

    HURRIYET ENGLISH:  Foreign minister says Turkey wants to normalize relations with Armenia

    Turkey is willing to normalize its relations with the neighboring Armenia, Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said late on Thursday.

    Turkey wanted to create an atmosphere of dialogue with Armenia, Babacan told a press conference in New York.  

    “Turkish president, prime minister and foreign minister sent letters to their Armenian counterparts after recent elections in Armenia, and these letters aimed to open a new door of dialogue with the new (Armenian) administration,” he was quoted as saying by the Anatolian Agency.

    As a signal of efforts to revive relations between the two countries, Turkish and Armenian officials held a series of secret meetings in the capital of Switzerland on July 8. This meeting Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan’s proposal for “a fresh start” with the goal of normalizing relations with Turkey and opening the border.

    Sargsyan also invited Turkish President Abdullah Gul to watch a football match between the two country’s national teams on Sept 6 to mark “a new symbolic start in the two countries’ relations”. Turkey has been evaluating this invitation.

    Although Turkey is among the first countries that recognized Armenia when it declared its independency, there is no diplomatic relations between two countries as Armenia presses the international community to admit the so-called “genocide” claims instead of accepting Turkey’s call to investigate the allegations, and its invasion of 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory despite U.N. Security Council resolutions on the issue.

    The foreign minister said that Turkey’s aim was to have zero problems with its neighbors. “Naturally, we are also expecting some concrete steps from the other party,” he said. [link to article]
    HURRIYET ENGLISH:  Turkey Lobbies for Council Membership

    He is actually in New York City to lobby for Turkey’s candidacy for a non-permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.

    Turkey would work hard till the last minute to secure a non-permanent seat at the Security Council, Babacan told at the conference, adding there was a lot of hope for Turkey to attain a non-permanent seat at the Council.

    “However, it is important to work hard till the last minute to secure a non-permanent seat,” Babacan said.

    “It is likely that the election for the non-permanent seat at the U.N. Security Council would take place in October 2008. We would attend the U.N. General Assembly meetings in September with Turkish President Abdullah Gul. Both President Gul and I would have many bilateral talks. We would continue lobbying for Turkey’s non-permanent membership in the U.N. Security Council,” Babacan said.

    The U.N. Security Council is composed of five permanent members – China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, and ten non-permanent members. Turkey competes with Austria and Iceland for the term of 2009-2010.

    Ten non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms and are not eligible for immediate re-election. Turkey held a seat in the Security Council in 1951-52, 1954-55 and 1961.

    Turkey would need the votes of 128 countries out of a total of 192 countries in order to be elected as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

    Babacan also said he saw the appointment of Alexander Downer, Australia’s former foreign minister as the new U.N. special representative for Cyprus, as an important signal that the organization would more closely and seriously deal with the Cyprus problem.

    “The U.N. should intervene in settlement of Cyprus problem,” he also said. He added Turkey wished wish that comprehensive talks would be launched in Cyprus soon. [link to article]

    IHT:  Turkey’s broadening crisis

    Turkey is facing a domestic political crisis that not only threatens the country’s internal stability but could weaken its ties to the West and exacerbate instability in the Middle East.

    In February, the Turkish public prosecutor forwarded a 161-page indictment to the Constitutional Court that calls for the governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP, to be closed down and for 71 of its leading politicians, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, to be banned from politics for five years. The indictment charges that the party violated secularism, a fundamental principle enshrined in the Turkish Constitution. The Constitutional Court starts final hearings in the case on Monday.

    While the evidence is flimsy, most Turks, including leading members of the AKP, expect that the Constitutional Court, a bastion of secularism, will vote to close the party. Indeed, the AKP has already begun to make preparations for its dissolution.

    Closing the AKP will not eliminate the party as an important force in Turkish political life. The party will simply re-emerge under a new name, as its predecessors Refah and the Virtue Party did when they were banned. However, closure would likely have a number of damaging side effects.

    One would be in Turkey’s relations with the Middle East. Under the AKP, Turkey has emerged as an important diplomatic actor in the region – as its successful effort to act as a broker in peace talks between Israel and Syria recently underscored. Without the AKP, Turkey’s active diplomatic engagement in the Middle East is likely to diminish and the United States would lose an important partner in trying to stabilize this volatile region.

    Another unwanted side effect would be in Turkey’s relations with its Kurdish minority. The AKP enjoys strong support among the Turkish Kurds. In elections last summer the party doubled its support in the Kurdish areas of the Southeast. If the AKP is closed, the main beneficiary is likely to be the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which has been conducting terrorist attacks against Turkey from sanctuaries in Northern Iraq. Moreover, the main Kurdish party, the Democratic Society Party, is also likely to be closed. Thus the Kurds would have no political vehicle to express their interests except through the PKK.

    In addition, Turkey’s rapprochement with Iraq could lose valuable momentum, while the hand of those forces in Turkey pushing for stronger military action against the PKK in Northern Iraq is likely to be strengthened. This could lead to an escalation of tensions between Turkey and the Kurdistan Regional Government in Northern Iraq, undercutting American efforts to promote better ties between the two entities.

    Finally, closure of the AKP is likely to increase strains in Turkey’s relations with the European Union. Opponents of Ankara’s EU membership will use the closure as a pretext to intensify their opposition, while supporters will find it harder to make the case for Turkish membership.

    At the same time, banning the party could undercut efforts to promote reform and democracy in the Middle East. Many moderate Islamists in the Middle East are likely to see the party’s closure as proof that it is impossible to achieve their political goals by democratic means and could turn to more radical solutions.

    So far the United States has avoided taking sides, expressing support for both secularism and democratic processes. However, given the negative strategic consequences likely to flow from the closure of the AKP, the Bush administration should encourage the Turks to find a compromise before the crisis does untold damage to Turkey’s democratic credibility and international reputation and further complicates Ankara’s prospects for EU membership.

    If, after all that, the AKP is still closed, the United States should avoid taking punitive measures. That would only strengthen the hand of the hard-line nationalists and further weaken Turkey’s ties to the West. Instead, American officials should continue to nudge Turkey toward bolder reforms that will strengthen internal democracy and bolster the qualifications for EU membership. In the long run, this is the best way to ensure the emergence of a stable, democratic Turkey closely anchored to the West.

    F. Stephen Larrabee, co-author of “The Rise of Political Islam in Turkey,” holds the corporate chair in European Security at the RAND Corporation. [link to article]
     
    AFP:  Cyprus leaders discuss peace talks plan

    NICOSIA (AFP) – Rival Cypriot leaders met on Friday aiming to set a date for peace talks to end the island’s 34-year-old divide, with the Turkish Cypriots hoping for a deal by the end of this year.

    President Demetris Christofias, a Greek Cypriot, and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat met at the UN-controlled Nicosia airport in the buffer zone amid hopes both sides will announce a September start for full peace talks.

    On Thursday Talat said he wanted intensive negotiations.

    “Our objective is to reach a settlement in a short time… I believe we can make it by the end of 2008,” he told Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

    “Starting from September, we have four months… This much time is sufficient. It can be extended a little bit if necessary, but resolving the Cyprus question in a short time must be our primary objective.”

    The international community remained cautious ahead of Friday’s meeting, but the United States and Britain have both boosted diplomatic links with the two sides.

    The lack of a Cyprus settlement is viewed as a major stumbling block to Turkey’s European Union ambitions.

    UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon wants direct negotiations to start soon, and he has named Australia’s former foreign minister Alexander Downer as his special envoy for Cyprus.

    Downer, 56, is expected to be present if a renewed peace initiative is launched in earnest.

    An agreement between Christofias and Talat, both regarded by the international community as “pro-settlement,” is seen as the best chance for peace since a failed UN reunification blueprint in April 2004.

    On July 1 they agreed in principle on single citizenship and sovereignty in a reunified island and vowed to meet on July 25 for a “final review” of preparatory negotiations before launching peace talks proper.

    Christofias has warned against outside pressure for a quick-fix settlement, saying it would only backfire, and has refused to accept deadlines or restrictive time frames.

     

    He was elected president in February on a platform of reviving reunification talks which went nowhere under his hardline predecessor Tassos Papadopoulos.

     

    Initial euphoria at the prospects of a settlement dampened as both sides found the going sluggish at the committee level over the sensitive issues of property, territory, sovereignty and security.

     

    Cyprus has been divided since 1974 when Turkish troops occupied its northern third in response to an Athens-engineered Greek Cypriot coup seeking enosis, or union with Greece.

     

    Thousands of Greek Cypriots living in the north fled south and Turkish Cypriots fled north, with both communities abandoning property.

     

    Displaced Greek Cypriots outnumbered Turkish Cypriots by about four to one — roughly the same proportion as the 1974 population.

     

    The Turkish Cypriots nationalised Greek Cypriot land and property and most of it was distributed to Turkish Cypriots displaced from the south and to settlers from Turkey.

     

    The two leaders reached a landmark agreement on March 21 to begin fully fledged peace talks after four years of virtual stalemate following the 2004 rejection of a UN peace plan by the Greek Cypriots.

     

    They met again in May and decided to review progress made by the technical committees.

     

    The Greek Cypriots say real progress at the committee stage must be achieved if face-to-face talks are to have any chance of success, while the Turkish Cypriots say any difficulties can be resolved at the negotiating table. [link to article]

    REUTERS:  Turkish court convicts former Kurd party head- agency
     
    ISTANBUL, July 24 (Reuters) – A military court on Thursday sentenced the former leader of Turkey’s main pro-Kurdish party to one year in jail for evading military service by deception, state-run Anatolian news agency said.

    Nurettin Demirtas had resigned as leader of the Democratic Society Party (DTP) in April to do his military service, which he had previously avoided on health grounds.

    Prosecutors had accused him of using fake health reports to avoid being called up.

    “The air force military court sentenced the former DTP leader Nurettin Demirtas to one year in prison for ‘seeking to avoid military service by deception’,” Anatolian said.

    No further details were immediately available.

    Military service usually lasts about 15 months in Turkey and is obligatory for all able-bodied Turkish men. Turks who dodge military service usually receive stiff punishment.

    Prosecutors, who say the DTP has links with the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) guerrilla group, were seeking a 2-5 year prison sentence for him. He had rejected the charges.

    Demirtas is not a member of parliament but was elected head of the party last November. A new leader has been elected since he stood down in April.

    The DTP is facing a Constitutional Court case brought by prosecutors seeking its closure over alleged links to the PKK. The party rejects the charges.

    The PKK took up arms against the state in 1984 with the aim of creating a Kurdish homeland in southeast Turkey. Some 40,000 people have been killed in the conflict. (Reporting by Daren Butler, editing by Mary Gabriel) [link to article]
     

    AP:  Turkish stretch of railway linking Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan launched
     
    The presidents of Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan have launched the construction of the Turkish stretch of a railway linking their nations.
     
    The US$600 million rail line will connect the Azerbaijani capital, Baku, with the eastern Turkish city of Kars, via the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

    The project is one of several linking oil-rich Azerbaijan and Central Asia with Turkey and European markets while bypassing Russia.

     

    A groundbreaking ceremony in Kars Thursday marked the start of the 50 mile (76 kilometer) Turkish section of the 110 mile (180 kilometer) railroad.

     

    “We are launching the iron Silk Road,” Turkey’s Abdullah Gul said. “It will link China in Asia to London.”

     

    The Silk Road was an ancient Asian trading route. The railway will be operational in 2011. [link to article]

    XINHUA: Turkey’s free trade volume increases in first half of 2008

    ANKARA, July 25 (Xinhua) – Trade volume in Turkey’s free zones increased 12 percent in the first half of 2008 compared with the same period of 2007, the semi-official Anatolia news agency reported on Friday.

    Turkey‘s trade volume reached 13.3 billion U.S. dollars in this period, according to the report.

    The report said that trade volumes in the first half of 2008 were 3.2 billion dollars in Istanbul Leather Free Zone, 2.05 billion dollars in Aegean Free Zone, and 1.9 billion dollars in Istanbul Ataturk Airport.

    According to figures released by Foreign Trade Undersecretariat, trade volume of Istanbul Leather Free Zone was 3.06 billion dollars, while it was 2.1 billion dollars in Aegean Free Zone and 1.6 billion dollars in Istanbul Ataturk Airport in the first six months of 2007.

    Highest trade volume was recorded with OECD and EU countries with 4.9 billion dollars in the first half of 2008.

    Trade volume with 25 EU-states was 4.03 billion dollars, and 932.2 million dollars with OECD countries.

    Free zones take place within borders of a country, but regulations regarding customs, tax, foreign exchange, price, quality and standards are not applied in these zones. [link to article]

    HURRIYET ENGLISH:  Turkey seeks support of UN’s Ban for Council seat

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan asked U.N. Secretary General to support the country’s bid for a non-permanent seat at the Security Council, as he continued his lobby efforts in New York.

    Babacan met Ban in New York late on Wednesday.

     

    The U.N. Security Council is composed of five permanent members – China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, and ten non-permanent members. Turkey competes with Austria and Iceland for the term of 2009-2010.

     

    Ten non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms and are not eligible for immediate re-election. Turkey held a seat in the Security Council in 1951-52, 1954-55 and 1961.
    The two also discussed Cyprus and Iraq in their meeting, as Babacan reiterated Turkey’s parameters for a solution in the Cyprus issue, the state-run Anatolian Agency reported.

     

    Ban said he closely monitored Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Iraq, and added his visit was a successful one.

     

    Erdogan paid earlier this month an official visit to Iraq to boost mutual political and economic relations, as the first Turkish prime minister to visit the neighboring country after 18 years.

     

    Babacan also held talks with the representatives of Jewish establishments in the United States, and informed them on the election procedure on non-permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the agency added. Jewish lobby traditionally are among the biggest supporters of Turkey.

     

    The representatives also told Babacan that they were closely following Turkey’s policies on Iran’s nuclear works.

     

    Turkish foreign minister also had meetings with representatives of Arab League and Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) in New York. The representatives told Babacan that they appreciated Turkey’s efforts for establishment of a prosperous Middle East. [link to article]

    XINHUA:  Iranian president to visit Turkey late August

    ANKARA, July 25 (Xinhua) — Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to pay a visit to Turkey next month at the invitation of his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul, Turkish Daily News reported on Friday.

    Ahmadinejad’s potential visit has been on the agenda for a longtime but could not be finalized due to both the international crisis over Iran’s nuclear program and Turkey’s presidential and general elections that took place last year, according to the report.

    The two neighboring countries have boosted economic, trade, energy and security ties in recent years and the energy ministers of the two sides recently signed a preliminary agreement on transferring Iranian natural gas through Turkish territory and allowing Turkish companies to develop three Iranian natural gas fields in southern Iran.

    A couple of documents focusing on economic relations would be signed during the presidential visit, the report added.

    Turkey‘s close energy and trade ties with Iran are not welcomed by the United States, which argues that they would encourage Iran not to cooperate with the international community to solve the nuclear program issue.

    Turkey, on the other hand, says that its close ties with Iran allow it to dispatch the international community’s message to Tehran as openly as possible.

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said earlier that Turkey has no formal mediation mission but described the country’s role as “one that is, in a sense, consolidating and facilitating” the negotiations between Iran and the six major powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

    Babacan will meet his Iranian counterpart Manuchehr Mottaki next week in Tehran on the eve of the summit of non-aligned countries. [link to article]

     

  • Turkey to mediate Iran-West talks

    Turkey to mediate Iran-West talks

    MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov) – On his way back from the inconclusive Geneva talks between Tehran and the Iran Six over the disputed Iranian nuclear program, Tehran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili stopped in Ankara and held talks with Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babajan.

    Babajan, who also met with his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki that same day, flew to Washington after the talks ended.

    Tehran, which must reply to the Iran Six proposals offering the required amount of enriched uranium and state-of-the-art technology to Iran in exchange for freezing its enrichment activities by August 2, must accept the offer or face all-out political isolation.

    “We are in the strongest possible position to demonstrate that if Iran does not act then it is time to go back to that (sanctions) track,” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in her first comments after Washington broke from its usual policy and joined nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva on Saturday.

    Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly barred President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from making any decisions on the national nuclear program. On July 23 Ahmadinejad, who was obviously taken aback by Western demands, said Iran would not deviate by one inch from its nuclear program.

    It is therefore unclear whether Ankara will manage to save the situation and find a compromise.

    Turkey has already said it would not take part in official talks, and that its main objective was to tone down the negotiators’ positions. It would be an understatement to say that Ankara and Tehran can profit from an alliance.

    Turkey, which is still on track to become a member of the European Union, wants to score additional points, while Iran is playing for time. And no mediator can join the talks overnight.

    Ankara wants Iran to assist in solving the Kurdish problem in Iraq, while Tehran would like to pump natural gas to Europe via Turkey. Moreover, Turkey is ready to mediate peace talks between Israel and Syria. Iran wants to mediate negotiations between Turkey and Armenia and between Armenia and Azerbaijan, another South Caucasian state patronized by Ankara.

    The concerned parties will be unable to compromise on the Iranian nuclear program unless they heed the interests of Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.

    A regional conference could be convened to discuss the Iranian nuclear program, enabling everyone to speak their mind on the issue, while the United States and the EU would deal with Israel.

    Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit recently said Iran would be unable to solve its nuclear problem without the support of regional states, and that Tehran should also pay attention to their interests.

    Each time the international community starts discussing the Iranian nuclear program, the Arab world reiterates its support for Tehran’s right to develop civilian nuclear facilities. This ambiguous stand implies that the Iranian nuclear program may have military implications.

    Washington still prefers to negotiate separately with Arab countries. On July 21, Rice met in the UAE with the foreign ministers and other officials of the six Arab monarchies of the Gulf, namely, Bahrein, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia, as well as Jordan, Egypt and Iraq, briefing them on the nuclear stand-off with Iran.

    Under Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns was scheduled to brief Rice on the results of the July 19 Geneva talks involving chief EU foreign policy negotiator Javier Solana and Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, during her stay in Abu Dhabi and to assess prospects for subsequent negotiations with Tehran.

    Joint U.S.-French-British naval exercises in the region are strong evidence that Iran may face political and economic isolation.

    Washington is now pursuing a more active policy with regard to the Iranian nuclear program, because it does not want the next administration to tackle this issue. Most importantly, major European powers, namely Italy, France, the United Kingdom and Germany, have also started getting tough on this issue.

    Consequently, Ankara will have trouble mediating the talks between Iran and the West. More to the point, the outcome and the long-term situation in Iran will still depend on Tehran.

    The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. 

  • Iran’s nuclear negotiator meets with Turkey’s foreign minister

    Iran’s nuclear negotiator meets with Turkey’s foreign minister

    The Associated Press

    ANKARA, Turkey: Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator met Sunday with Turkey’s foreign minister, who reiterated his country’s position that the Islamic Republic has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

    Saeed Jalili, on his way back to Tehran after attending talks with envoys from the U.S. and five other world powers in Geneva on Saturday, met with Foreign Minister Ali Babacan during a stopover in Istanbul.

    “We believe every sovereign country has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful aims and to have that technology,” Babacan told a joint news conference with Jalili.

    Babacan, who said Turkey is against nuclear weapons, supports diplomacy to resolve the Iran nuclear issue.

    The six world powers — the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany — have called on Iran to freeze uranium enrichment, arguing that it is designed to make nuclear weapons.

    Iran has rejected the demand, as it has repeatedly done in the past. It says its uranium enrichment program is for peaceful purposes.

  • Turkish déjà vu

    Turkish déjà vu

    Friday, July 18, 2008

    If Washington were to pursue a military solution in its efforts to halt the Iranian nuclear program, Turkey – the only NATO country bordering Iran – must be a part of its planning. Likewise, if the United States and its European allies were to implement tighter economic sanctions against Iran, Ankara would have to play a key role because much of Iran’s trade with Europe goes through Turkey.

    On the surface, Turkey seems to be on board with the West regarding Iran. But the Turkish position on Iran today looks much like the Turkish position regarding the buildup to the Iraq war in 2003. The specific factors that led to Ankara’s decision to oppose the war are re-emerging, building opposition to American plans to deal with Iran’s nuclear program, either through sanctions or military measures.

    In 2003, the Turkish public had little awareness about the approaching Iraq war. At that time, the United States was using Turkey’s Incirlik air base to bomb Saddam Hussein’s air defenses. At the same time, Ankara was paralyzed by its internal struggle to preserve secularism within the government. If you read Turkish papers published back then, you would not guess that the United States was about to occupy one of Turkey’s neighbors and forever change their neighborhood.

    Five years later – déjà vu. Turkey is once again stricken with political paralysis over the battle between secularists and the governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP. As a result, there is almost no coverage in the Turkish media on foreign policy issues, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Domestic tensions make it impossible for that issue to penetrate the debate. Perhaps Turks won’t even notice until Iran actually detonates a bomb.

    Another similarity between today and the events of 2003 is that the AKP government is playing both sides to get away with doing nothing. As it negotiated with U.S. diplomats in 2003 about a joint front against Saddam, the AKP voiced antiwar rhetoric at home. Moreover, days before the war began, the AKP’s trade minister went to Baghdad to sign a multibillion-dollar trade deal with Saddam. In the end, the AKP-dominated Turkish Parliament voted to keep Turkey out of the war.

    Now, once again, the AKP is playing both sides to shirk responsibility. While opposing U.S. military action, the party continues to spout its official line: “Turkey wants a nuclear-free Middle East.” Albeit a good start, this policy implies that Israel’s nukes are as much a problem as Iran’s would be – a stance that absolves Ankara from any real political obligations toward Europe and the United States on Iran. Moreover, at a time when the West is imposing sanctions, the AKP has signed a memorandum of understanding to invest $3.5 billion in Iran’s South Pars gas field – a move eerily similar to 2003.

    Another similarity is America’s failure to communicate with the Turks. In 2003, Turkish officials expected, in vain, that Secretary of State Colin Powell would come to Ankara to promise that the war against Saddam would not break up Iraq and create an independent Kurdish state.

    Today, seasoned diplomats in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot tell from one day to the next how America is planning on dealing with Iran. And like in 2003, Ankara is waiting with crossed fingers for a high-level American statesman to explain Washington’s plans.

    There is, however, one difference between 2003 and 2008: the role of the Turkish military. In the run-up to the Iraq war, bickering between the Turkish government and the military complicated matters for the United States. Neither the AKP nor the military wanted to be responsible for making the decision for their country to go to war. This thinking proved to be a fatal mistake for the military, rendering it irrelevant in Washington and powerless in Turkey.

    After dropping out of the foreign policy debate in 2003, the military lost popularity, as was seen in the July, 2007 elections. Today it is in disarray.

    This leaves the AKP in charge of major decisions regarding Iran. The AKP opposes both a military solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as well as non-military measures like strong economic sanctions. As a result of the AKP’s rapprochement with Tehran since 2003, the official line in Ankara is that “Turkey’s economic interests in Iran are too important to sacrifice.”

    The latest American overture to Ankara, supporting Turkish efforts against the Kurdistan Workers Party, has not sufficed to change the government’s attitude. While Washington has allowed Turkey to target PKK terrorist camps in northern Iraq, Tehran, as a favor to Turkey, has upped the ante with Washington by actually bombing such camps.

    If the United States was betting on Turkish cooperation against Iran, it might as well plan to navigate around the looming iceberg. It might already be too little too late for Washington to count on Turkey on Iran.

    Soner Cagaptay, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is the author of “Islam, Secularism and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who is a Turk?”

  • Will Israel and / or the U.S. Attack Iran?

    Will Israel and / or the U.S. Attack Iran?

    By URI AVNERY

    IF YOU want to understand the policy of a country, look at the map – as Napoleon recommended.

    Anyone who wants to guess whether Israel and/or the United States are going to attack Iran should look at the map of the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula.

    Through this narrow waterway, only 34 km wide, pass the ships that carry between a fifth and a third of the world’s oil, including that from Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.

    * * *

    MOST OF the commentators who talk about the inevitable American and Israeli attack on Iran do not take account of this map.

    There is talk about a “sterile”, a “surgical” air strike. The mighty air fleet of the United States will take off from the aircraft carriers already stationed in the Persian Gulf and the American air bases dispersed throughout the region and bomb all the nuclear sites of Iran – and on this happy occasion also bomb government institutions, army installations, industrial centers and anything else they might fancy. They will use bombs that can penetrate deep into the ground.

    Simple, quick and elegant – one blow and bye-bye Iran, bye-bye ayatollahs, bye-bye Ahmadinejad.

    If Israel attacks alone, the blow will be more modest. The most the attackers can hope for is the destruction of the main nuclear sites and a safe return.

    I have a modest request: before you start, please look at the map once more, at the Strait named (probably) after the god of Zarathustra.

    * * *

    THE INEVITABLE reaction to the bombing of Iran will be the blocking of this Strait. That should have been self-evident even without the explicit declaration by one of Iran’s highest ranking generals a few days ago.

    Iran dominates the whole length of the Strait. They can seal it hermetically with their missiles and artillery, both land based and naval.

    If that happens, the price of oil will skyrocket – far beyond the 200 dollars-per-barrel that pessimists dread now. That will cause a chain reaction: a world-wide depression, the collapse of whole industries and a catastrophic rise in unemployment in America, Europe and Japan.

    In order to avert this danger, the Americans would need to conquer parts of Iran – perhaps the whole of this large country. The US does not have at its disposal even a small part of the forces they would need. Practically all their land forces are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The mighty American navy is menacing Iran – but the moment the Strait is closed, it will itself resemble those model ships in bottles. Perhaps it is this danger that made the navy chiefs extricate the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln from the Persian Gulf this week, ostensibly because of the situation in Pakistan.

    This leaves the possibility that the US will act by proxy. Israel will attack, and this will not officially involve the US, which will deny any responsibility.

    Indeed? Iran has already announced that it would consider an Israeli attack as an American operation, and act as if it had been directly attacked by the US. That is logical.

    * * *

    NO ISRAELI government would ever consider the possibility of starting such an operation without the explicit and unreserved agreement of the US. Such a confirmation will not be forthcoming.

    So what are all these exercises, which generate such dramatic headlines in the international media?

    The Israeli Air Force has held exercises at a distance of 1500 km from our shores. The Iranians have responded with test firings of their Shihab missiles, which have a similar range. Once, such activities were called “saber rattling”, nowadays the preferred term is “psychological warfare”. They are good for failed politicians with domestic needs, to divert attention, to scare citizens. They also make excellent television. But simple common sense tells us that whoever plans a surprise strike does not proclaim this from the rooftops. Menachem Begin did not stage public exercises before sending the bombers to destroy the Iraqi reactor, and even Ehud Olmert did not make a speech about his intention to bomb a mysterious building in Syria.

    * * *

    SINCE KING Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire some 2500 years ago, who allowed the Israelite exiles in Babylon to return to Jerusalem and build a temple there, Israeli-Persian relations have their ups and downs.

    Until the Khomeini revolution, there was a close alliance between them. Israel trained the Shah’s dreaded secret police (“Savak”). The Shah was a partner in the Eilat-Ashkelon oil pipeline which was designed to bypass the Suez Canal. (Iran is still trying to enforce payment for the oil it supplied then.)

    The Shah helped to infiltrate Israeli army officers into the Kurdish part of Iraq, where they assisted Mustafa Barzani’s revolt against Saddam Hussein. That operation came to an end when the Shah betrayed the Iraqi Kurds and made a deal with Saddam. But Israeli-Iranian cooperation was almost restored after Saddam attacked Iran. In the course of that long and cruel war (1980-1988), Israel secretly supported the Iran of the ayatollahs. The Irangate affair was only a small part of that story.

    That did not prevent Ariel Sharon from planning to conquer Iran, as I have already disclosed in the past. When I was writing an in-depth article about him in 1981, after his appointment as Minister of Defense, he told me in confidence about this daring idea: after the death of Khomeini, Israel would forestall the Soviet Union in the race to Iran. The Israeli army would occupy Iran in a few days and turn the country over to the much slower Americans, who would have supplied Israel well in advance with large quantities of sophisticated arms for this express purpose.

    He also showed me the maps he intended to take with him to the annual strategic consultations in Washington. They looked very impressive. It seems, however, that the Americans were not so impressed.

    All this indicates that by itself, the idea of an Israeli military intervention in Iran is not so revolutionary. But a prior condition is close cooperation with the US. This will not be forthcoming, because the US would be the primary victim of the consequences.

    * * *

    IRAN IS now a regional power. It makes no sense to deny that.

    The irony of the matter is that for this they must thank their foremost benefactor in recent times: George W. Bush. If they had even a modicum of gratitude, they would erect a statue to him in Tehran’s central square.

    For many generations, Iraq was the gatekeeper of the Arab region. It was the wall of the Arab world against the Persian Shiites. It should be remembered that during the Iraqi-Iranian war, Arab Shiite Iraqis fought with great enthusiasm against Persian Shiite Iranians.

    When President Bush invaded Iraq and destroyed it, he opened the whole region to the growing might of Iran. In future generations, historians will wonder about this action, which deserves a chapter to itself in “The March of Folly”.

    Today it is already clear that the real American aim (as I have asserted in this column right from the beginning) was to take possession of the Caspian Sea/Persian Gulf oil region and station a permanent American garrison at its center. This aim was indeed achieved – the Americans are now talking about their forces remaining in Iraq “for a hundred years”, and they are now busily engaged in dividing Iraq’s huge oil reserves among the four or five giant American oil companies.

    But this war was started without wider strategic thinking and without looking at the geopolitical map. It was not decided who is the main enemy of the US in the region, neither was it clear where the main effort should be. The advantage of dominating Iraq may well be outweighed by the rise of Iran as a nuclear, military and political power that will overshadow America’s allies in the Arab world.

    * * *

    WHERE DO we Israelis stand in this game?

    For years now, we have been bombarded by a propaganda campaign that depicts the Iranian nuclear effort as an existential threat to Israel. Forget the Palestinians, forget Hamas and Hizbullah, forget Syria – the sole danger that threatens the very existence of the State of Israel is the Iranian nuclear bomb.

    I repeat what I have said before: I am not prey to this existential Angst. True, life is more pleasant without an Iranian nuclear bomb, and Ahmadinejad is not very nice either. But if the worst comes to the worst, we will have a “balance of terror” between the two nations, much like the American-Soviet balance of terror that saved mankind from World War III, or the Indian-Pakistani balance of terror that provides a framework for a rapprochement between those two countries that hate each other’s guts.

    * * *

    ON THE basis of all these considerations, I dare to predict that there will be no military attack on Iran this year – not by the Americans, not by the Israelis.

    As I write these lines, a little red light turns on in my head. It is related to a memory: in my youth I was an avid reader of Vladimir Jabotinsky’s weekly articles, which impressed me with their cold logic and clear style. In August 1939, Jabotinsky wrote an article in which he asserted categorically that no war would break out, in spite of all the rumors to the contrary. His reasoning: modern weapons are so terrible, that no country would dare to start a war.

    A few days later Germany invaded Poland, starting the most terrible war in human history (until now), which ended with the Americans dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, for 63 years, nobody has used nuclear weapons in a war.

    President Bush is about to end his career in disgrace. The same fate is waiting impatiently for Ehud Olmert. For politicians of this kind, it is easy to be tempted by a last adventure, a last chance for a decent place in history after all.

    All the same, I stick to my prognosis: it will not happen.

    Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, member of Gush Shalom and contributor to The Politics of Anti-Semitism (AK / CounterPunch).

    Source: www.counterpunch.org, July 14, 2008

  • ‘Iran is friends with Israeli people’: Ahmadinejad aide

    ‘Iran is friends with Israeli people’: Ahmadinejad aide

    TEHRAN (AFP) — Iran is “friends with the Israeli people”, a deputy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, in stark contrast to Tehran’s usual verbal assaults against the Jewish state, local media reported on Sunday.

    Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, vice president in charge of tourism and one of Ahmadinejad’s closest confidants, also described the people of Iran’s arch-enemy the United States as “one of the best nations in the world”.

    “Today, Iran is friends with the American and Israeli people. No nation in the world is our enemy, this is an honour,” Rahim Mashaie said, according to the Fars news agency and Etemad newspaper.

    “Of course we have enemies and the most unfair hostilities are committed against the Iranian people,” he said on the sidelines of a tourism congress in Tehran.

    “We regard the American people as one of the best nations in the world.”

    Ahmadinejad has earned international notoriety for his frequent verbal assaults against Israel, which he has described as a “stinking corpse” and predicted is doomed to disappear.

    Rahim Mashaie is one of the figures closest to the president in the Iranian government. This was emphasised earlier this year when his daughter married Ahmadinejad’s son.

    Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that Iran is ready to talk to all countries except the “Zionist regime”, Tehran’s usual description for Israel.

    “An unexpected statement: Mashaie talks about friendship with the people of Israel?!” was the headline on the conservative Tabnak news website.

    The website said it was all the more surprising he had made the comment when much of Ahmadinejad’s popularity in the Arab world stems from his hostility towards Israel and the United States.

    This is not the first time Rahim Mashaie has been involved in controversy. He was sharply criticised by MPs for allegedly watching a Turkish woman dance while at a tourism congress in Turkey.

    The Islamic republic has repeatedly vowed never to recognise Israel, which was an ally of pro-US shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ousted by the 1979 Islamic revolution.

    Source: AFP, 20 July 2008