Turkish Forum

Category: Iran

  • Karzai Opposes US Use of Afghan Soil Against Iran

    Karzai Opposes US Use of Afghan Soil Against Iran

    News

    Karzai Opposes US Use of Afghan Soil Against Iran

    Monday 14 July 2008

    »

    by: Sayed Salahuddin, Reuters UK

    According to Afghan president Hamid Karzai, his government wants to maintain peaceful relations with Iran and would be against the US stationing troops in Afghanistan to attack that country.
    (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)

        Kabul – Afghanistan opposes U.S. use of its territory for launching a possible attack against neighbouring Iran, President Hamid Karzai said in an interview broadcast on Monday.

        Iran has threatened to target Israel and U.S. interests in the region in the event of an attack against the Islamic Republic which is locked in a dispute with the West over its nuclear programme.

        Karzai said his government, which came to power after U.S.-led and Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban in 2001, had always tried to “keep the balance between the powers”.

        “We are attentive to the dangers,” Karzai told Radio Liberty when asked about the possible repercussions of a conflict between Iran and the United States.

        “Afghanistan should not become the battleground of differences of any country,” he said in a wide-ranging interview. “Afghanistan does not want its soil to be used against any country and Afghanistan wants to be a friend of Iran as a neighbour which shares the same language and religion.”

        Karzai said his government had facilitated talks between Tehran and Washington, and had also served as a messenger between both in the past.

        Washington, which has some 32,000 troops in Afghanistan and is the biggest aid donor to Kabul, has not ruled out military force against Iran.

        Meanwhile, Karzai said foreign troops had ignored his repeated calls to coordinate operations with Afghan forces to avoid civilian casualties.

        Nearly 700 Afghan civilians have been killed in the first six months of 2008, the United Nations says, 255 of them by Afghan and international forces.

        “This in reality is a disaster … many innocent people have been killed in the bombardment. For five years, routinely, I have been trying to prevent foreign forces from possibly harming our nation. Unfortunately, this effort has not had outcome I wanted, and as the nation expects,” Karzai said.

        Karzai brushed aside reports about a possible postponement of next year’s presidential election due to rising violence.

        He said Afghanistan favoured good ties with its other large neighbour, Pakistan, but said there were “elements in Pakistan’s intelligence and Pakistan’s army” who did not want a stable Afghanistan.

        ——–

        Editing by Jeremy Laurence.

  • Iran vs. the West

    Iran vs. the West

    Iran vs. the West

    Source: Aljazeera.net
  • The Turkish Dictionary

    The Turkish Dictionary

    Ghassan Charbel, Al-Hayat – 11/07/08

    The world lives in rhythm with Iranian blasts. When President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad does not issue his threats, Revolutionary Guard generals take over. The menu of threats is all too known: closing the Strait of Hormuz; targeting American ships; setting the Great Satan’s interests on fire; unavoidably abolishing Israel; eradicating the cancerous tumor and burning down Tel Aviv. With threats, come maneuvers, and when necessary, Iran announces testing a new generation of missiles. The message is clear: Iran has the means to translate its threats to actions and set fire to the region.

    The world was preoccupied with the Iranian missile serial, while Baghdad received Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on a visit both sides agreed on dubbing “historical”. Erdogan brought a message of hope to the Iraqis. He addressed them saying: “Be optimistic to cross this difficult phase and you will always find me by your side, God willing. The Turkish government and people will be standing by you.”

    It was remarkable to see, at the end of the talks,that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced the formation of the Higher council for Strategic Cooperation, aimed at organizing cooperation on all economic levels, combating terrorism, and handling water issues. Erdogan also added that both nations are working to let commercial exchange figures reach $25 billion. It was all talk of cooperation, investment and numbers. The Turkish prime minister also declared that he has received support from al-Maliki’s government and the Kurdistan Regional Government against the fighters of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has resumed its violent activities inside Turkey.

    There is no doubt that the future of the Iraqi situation is a matter of concern for Turkey, with regards to its security and stability. It is likely that Turkey will be the biggest loser, in case Iraq slips into chaos. The reason is that a united Iraq guarantees confining the Kurdish dream within the Iraqi Kurdistan borders, whereas an Iraqi outburst would inevitably lead to the independence of this region and to turning it into a center that attracts Turkish Kurds. In this sense, it is worth noting that Ankara has a lot to gain from a united Iraq, whereas the Iranian role can only grow in a troubled Iraq, since the balances within a united Iraq prevent Tehran from pulling Iraqi strings at will.

    Turkey has no interest in a troubled Iraq, in which al-Qaeda settles to breed new generations of suicide bombers in certain parts of the country. It also has no interest in an Iraq, whose government does not exercise full control over its territories, which forces Turkey to occasionally organize disciplinary campaigns inside the Iraqi borders. Similarly, Turkey has no interest in an Iraq dominated by Iran, because that would disturb regional balances right at its borders. In this context, the visit can be viewed as an expansion of the scope of regional recognition that al-Maliki’s government enjoys, and also as an encouragement for it to adopt a national reconciliation policy that will enlarge, most of all, its scope of recognition among Arabs.

    In one of its facets, Erdogan’s visit to Iraq represents another step in Turkey’s efforts to contain the rising Iranian power in the region, efforts that are both calm and wise as they are carried out away from noise and emotional outbursts. This is evident from the fact that Turkey has not panicked or lost its nerve in front of its Iranian neighbor’s exercise of muscles, including its battle with the west over uranium enrichment.

    Turkey also assumes a more important role on another front. Erdogan’s government is playing a prominent role in hosting and mediating indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel on its territories. One can say that the successful transformation of these negotiations into direct talks sponsored by the US will represent a very serious attempt to establish peace in the Middle East and to contain the Iranian influence, which is reinforced by the atmospheres of confrontation. Of course, it is too premature to speak of an overt and explicit split between Syrian and Iranian calculations. However, the role Turkey is playing in the progress of the Syrian position is extremely important, given Turkey’s nature and its international alliances.

    From military participation in Afghanistan, to participating in the international forces in South Lebanon, to encouraging Syria to negotiate with Israel and support al-Maliki’s government, the gap between the Turkish and Iranian dictionaries seems vast. Resting on its Islamic roots and wearing Ataturk’s hat, Erdogan’s Turkey speaks the language of interests, figures, international law and realism, whereas Ahmedinejad scoops up firebrands from both the revolution and the dictionary of confrontation, while addressing the world with missiles.

    Source: Al-Hayat, 11/07/08

  • Stratfor – Is War With Iran Coming?

    Stratfor – Is War With Iran Coming?

    Stratfor

    Geopolitical Diary: A U.S.-Iranian Dance of Diplomacy

    The United States has raised the possibility of opening a diplomatic interests section in Iran. To avoid giving the impression that the idea was an unqualified U.S. position, State Department officials carefully leaked word of an ongoing debate about the plan to the press. But the news was not met with immediate denial by U.S. officials. In fact, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused to rule the idea out — instead Rice said she preferred not to comment on internal U.S. deliberations.

    Hours after her statement, the official Iranian news agency said Iran was prepared, in principle, to consider the request if it is officially made by the United States. So, a week after word was leaked to The New York Times of Israeli maneuvers in preparation for a possible air strike on Iran, the Administration has opened a diplomatic door. 

    Currently, American affairs in Iran are handled by the Swiss Embassy, without U.S. diplomats present. Under full diplomatic relations, which this new deal still would not be, the United States would have an embassy and ambassador in Tehran, and the Iranians would have one in Washington. This is a step short of diplomatic recognition. U.S. diplomats would be present in Tehran — and Iranians in Washington — but likely working under the auspices of the Swiss and Pakistani Embassies, which house their respective interest sections presently. The United States has this sort of arrangement with Cuba. It allows diplomatic presence and representation without full recognition.

    Cuba is hardly a model of international warmth for the United States, but the question is trajectory. At the moment, there is no formal diplomatic presence in Iran. There would be if this were to happen. And that would obviously represent a major psychological shift in U.S.-Iranian relations. It is not that the Americans and Iranians don’t talk. Apart from direct meetings in Baghdad, the Iranians have high-level diplomats in New York. There have also been meetings, varying in degrees of formality, in Switzerland and other venues. In fact, the Americans and Iranians talk all the time, directly, indirectly and sometimes it appears in Haiku poetry. The idea that the United States and Iran don’t talk just isn’t true.

    The importance of this offer is not what it would yield, but that it was made. The United States took the first step, even if it did not take it irrevocably and no formal offer was made. The administration is being cautious. The Americans still recall how in 2003 they were embarrassed by the Iranians who rebuffed an offer by the United States to send help and a visit by a high-level U.S. delegation, including the elder George Bush, to the earthquake-ravaged city of Bam.

    Today the United States is not offering diplomatic exchanges. While it said it might offer them, the United States emphasized its division on the subject. U.S. diplomatic translation: “We’d like to exchange diplomats but if you say no, we never asked.” The Iranians quickly replied that if asked, they might agree. Iranian diplomatic translation: “Ask and we’ll say yes.” The speed of the Iranian response is telling. They were not surprised by the request. Their answer was ready. Which means, as one would expect, they were sounded out before.

    So on Friday it appeared that the world was on the verge of war between Israel and Iran, with the United States supporting Israel. By late Monday, the United States was proposing raising the level of diplomatic relations and the Iranians were indicating that they were open to it. In our mind this reinforces the idea that the careful leaking of putative Israeli war games was part of a “bad cop, somewhat better cop” routine, designed to work the Iranians psychologically. They were offered the choice between Israeli air strikes or improving diplomatic relations. The second offer sounded much better than the first.

    Setting aside the purple rhetoric on all sides, we have long believed that the Americans and Iranians were talking and actually working together in Iraq. The massive decline in casualties in Iraq is not simply due to U.S. military operations. The decision by the Iranians to rein in Shiite Iraqi militias had a significant impact on it. Indeed, in our view, the Iraq issue has always been more important to both countries than the nuclear weapon issue, and in Iraq, there has been progress.

    Both governments are urgently concerned with face. Neither wants to appear to be conceding anything to the other. When the Great Satan meets the Axis of Evil, no public compromise is possible. So all compromising is done privately. And that’s what makes this important. The tentative offer is very public and comes from the highest levels of government. It has been acknowledged officially. Now, this is the United States and Iran so anything public can collapse quickly. But the offer itself, no matter how it was couched, is extremely significant as is the response. In many ways we regard this as more significant than the Israeli exercises. 

  • A U.S.-Iranian Dance of Diplomacy – IS WAR COMING?

    A U.S.-Iranian Dance of Diplomacy – IS WAR COMING?

    STRATFOR Geopolitical Diary:

    The United States has raised the possibility of opening a diplomatic interests section in Iran. To avoid giving the impression that the idea was an unqualified U.S. position, State Department officials carefully leaked word of an ongoing debate about the plan to the press. But the news was not met with immediate denial by U.S. officials. In fact, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused to rule the idea out — instead Rice said she preferred not to comment on internal U.S. deliberations.

    Hours after her statement, the official Iranian news agency said Iran was prepared, in principle, to consider the request if it is officially made by the United States. So, a week after word was leaked to The New York Times of Israeli maneuvers in preparation for a possible air strike on Iran, the Administration has opened a diplomatic door. 

    Currently, American affairs in Iran are handled by the Swiss Embassy, without U.S. diplomats present. Under full diplomatic relations, which this new deal still would not be, the United States would have an embassy and ambassador in Tehran, and the Iranians would have one in Washington. This is a step short of diplomatic recognition. U.S. diplomats would be present in Tehran — and Iranians in Washington — but likely working under the auspices of the Swiss and Pakistani Embassies, which house their respective interest sections presently. The United States has this sort of arrangement with Cuba. It allows diplomatic presence and representation without full recognition.

    Cuba is hardly a model of international warmth for the United States, but the question is trajectory. At the moment, there is no formal diplomatic presence in Iran. There would be if this were to happen. And that would obviously represent a major psychological shift in U.S.-Iranian relations. It is not that the Americans and Iranians don’t talk. Apart from direct meetings in Baghdad, the Iranians have high-level diplomats in New York. There have also been meetings, varying in degrees of formality, in Switzerland and other venues. In fact, the Americans and Iranians talk all the time, directly, indirectly and sometimes it appears in Haiku poetry. The idea that the United States and Iran don’t talk just isn’t true.

    The importance of this offer is not what it would yield, but that it was made. The United States took the first step, even if it did not take it irrevocably and no formal offer was made. The administration is being cautious. The Americans still recall how in 2003 they were embarrassed by the Iranians who rebuffed an offer by the United States to send help and a visit by a high-level U.S. delegation, including the elder George Bush, to the earthquake-ravaged city of Bam.

    Today the United States is not offering diplomatic exchanges. While it said it might offer them, the United States emphasized its division on the subject. U.S. diplomatic translation: “We’d like to exchange diplomats but if you say no, we never asked.” The Iranians quickly replied that if asked, they might agree. Iranian diplomatic translation: “Ask and we’ll say yes.” The speed of the Iranian response is telling. They were not surprised by the request. Their answer was ready. Which means, as one would expect, they were sounded out before.

    So on Friday it appeared that the world was on the verge of war between Israel and Iran, with the United States supporting Israel. By late Monday, the United States was proposing raising the level of diplomatic relations and the Iranians were indicating that they were open to it. In our mind this reinforces the idea that the careful leaking of putative Israeli war games was part of a “bad cop, somewhat better cop” routine, designed to work the Iranians psychologically. They were offered the choice between Israeli air strikes or improving diplomatic relations. The second offer sounded much better than the first.

    Setting aside the purple rhetoric on all sides, we have long believed that the Americans and Iranians were talking and actually working together in Iraq. The massive decline in casualties in Iraq is not simply due to U.S. military operations. The decision by the Iranians to rein in Shiite Iraqi militias had a significant impact on it. Indeed, in our view, the Iraq issue has always been more important to both countries than the nuclear weapon issue, and in Iraq, there has been progress.

    Both governments are urgently concerned with face. Neither wants to appear to be conceding anything to the other. When the Great Satan meets the Axis of Evil, no public compromise is possible. So all compromising is done privately. And that’s what makes this important. The tentative offer is very public and comes from the highest levels of government. It has been acknowledged officially. Now, this is the United States and Iran so anything public can collapse quickly. But the offer itself, no matter how it was couched, is extremely significant as is the response. In many ways we regard this as more significant than the Israeli exercises.