Category: Iran

  • Israel Matzav: Turkey let nuclear weapons related material into Iran?

    Israel Matzav: Turkey let nuclear weapons related material into Iran?

    Yet another Wikileaks document reports that Israel accused Turkey of allowing weapons and material for Iran’s nuclear program to be shipped across Turkey long before anyone had ever heard of the Mavi Marmara.

    The materials were allowed through Turkey “with Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan’s full knowledge,” wrote Frederic Bereyziat, a senior French Foreign Ministry official for Israel and the peace process, who took notes on the second annual Franco-Israeli Strategic Dialogue in October 2009.

    According to the leaked cable, the French replied that Israel would need to have clear and concrete proof of such activity before leveling accusations against Turkey. The Israelis replied that they were collecting evidence that they would eventually publicize.

    The “five to six hours” of talks between delegations led by Pierre Sellal, director-general of the French Foreign Ministry, and Yossi Gal, director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, covered a wide range of issues, including the Middle East peace process, Turkey, Syria and Iran, according to Bereyziat.

    The French official said the Israelis explained that they would not take strong public positions condemning what they perceived as Turkey’s recent “strategic shift away from Western positions on the peace process, Iran and Israel’s nuclear program.”

    Erdoğan’s public comments about Israel’s nuclear weapons had particularly irked the Israelis, Bereyziat said, describing the prime minister’s remarks as unprecedented by a Turkish leader.

    Given that Turkey has announced that they support Hezbullah and that they do not want NATO to station missiles on their territory because they are afraid that those missiles will be used to defend Israel against Iran, I don’t doubt that the Turks are helping Iran’s nuclear program.

    via Israel Matzav: Turkey let nuclear weapons related material into Iran?.

  • WikiLeaks: Clear Messages from Turkey, Syria and China Opposing Military Action Against Iran

    WikiLeaks: Clear Messages from Turkey, Syria and China Opposing Military Action Against Iran

    Eli Clifton

    Iran hawks have been having a feeding frenzy with the WikiLeaks revelations that Arab leaders have made statements which could be interpreted as endorsing a military strike on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons facilities. As discussed by Jim and Ali in their article yesterday, Arab leaders are clearly concerned about a nuclear weapons possessing Iran. But, other than infusing their statements of concern with some vivid hyperbole, these leaders don’t come across as explicitly endorsing U.S. or Israeli military action against Iran.

    A closer reading of the WikiLeaks finds very clear and succinct statements from Arab, Turkish and Chinese diplomats and leaders about the dangers of a military strike on Iran.

    A January 26, 2010 cable, titled “SECRETARY GATES’ TURKEY BILATERAL VISIT,” reads:

    [Turkish civilian and military officials] believe international pressure against Iran only helps to strengthen Ahmadinejad and the hard-liners.

    The cable also indicated that Turkey had been supportive of efforts to broker a fuel swap deal with the P5+1.

    It reads:

    Turkey did press Iran (albeit quietly) to accept the P5 plus 1 Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) offer and FM Davutoglu had been personally engaged in trying to rescue the TRR deal, which would have removed a significant portion of Iran’s lowly-enriched uranium stockpile.

    A January 4, 2010 cable, which summarized a congressional delegation’s meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Asad, reads:

    Asad said he believed Iran was not interested in pursuing a nuclear weapon, but warned that an Israeli

    military strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would fail to disable the program and would only increase Iran’s determination.

    And, in a summary of a December 9, 2009 meeting between Under Secretary of State William Burns and Director of the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee International Liaison Department (CCID) Wang Jiarui, the Chinese position on a U.S. or Israeli military strike was made clear.

    Wang acknowledged that there was a potential for an Israeli military strike were the situation not handled properly, which was of grave concern to China, but insisted that harsh actions were not yet warranted. Recent U.S. experience with a military option, he said, should teach some lessons, and the outcome of tougher sanctions was also unpredictable.

    And

    Wang noted that in his several recent visits to Iran anti-American sentiment was strong, everywhere, and palpable, which, he said, was not conducive to resolving the issue.

    There’s no shortage of reports from Israel which indicate Israeli officials are constantly reminding U.S. diplomats that the military options is “on the table.” And, as hawks have been quick to point out, there’s plenty of evidence that Arab states are concerned about the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

    Missing is a clear endorsement of the “military option” from other important U.S. allies. Indeed, U.S. relations with Turkey, Syria and China have been strained over Iran. But it’s worth noting that diplomats and leaders from these countries are clearly opposed to a military strike on Iran. Unlike the comments from Arab leaders which supposedly endorse such an attack, the statements opposing military action are clear and not open to multiple interpretations.

    via WikiLeaks: Clear Messages from Turkey, Syria and China Opposing Military Action Against Iran « LobeLog.com.

  • Israelis allege Turkey allowed arms into Iran

    Israelis allege Turkey allowed arms into Iran

    ISTANBUL – Hürriyet Daily News

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. AP photo

    israelis claim turks allow materials for iran8217s nuke program 2010 11 30 l

    Israeli participants in an October 2009 meeting claimed Turks had allowed weapons-related material for Iran’s nuclear program to transit Turkey, according to one of the diplomatic documents released by WikiLeaks.

    The materials were allowed through Turkey “with Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan’s full knowledge,” wrote Frederic Bereyziat, a senior French Foreign Ministry official for Israel and the peace process, who took notes on the second annual Franco-Israeli Strategic Dialogue in October 2009.

    According to the leaked cable, the French replied that Israel would need to have clear and concrete proof of such activity before leveling accusations against Turkey. The Israelis replied that they were collecting evidence that they would eventually publicize.

    The “five to six hours” of talks between delegations led by Pierre Sellal, director-general of the French Foreign Ministry, and Yossi Gal, director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, covered a wide range of issues, including the Middle East peace process, Turkey, Syria and Iran, according to Bereyziat.

    The French official said the Israelis explained that they would not take strong public positions condemning what they perceived as Turkey’s recent “strategic shift away from Western positions on the peace process, Iran and Israel’s nuclear program.”

    Erdoğan’s public comments about Israel’s nuclear weapons had particularly irked the Israelis, Bereyziat said, describing the prime minister’s remarks as unprecedented by a Turkish leader.

    The Israelis moreover blamed the Europeans, and especially France, for the shift in Turkey’s policy, saying that if Europe had more warmly embraced Turkey, the Turks would not be taking steps to earn approval in the Arab and Muslim world at the expense of Israel.

    Responding to this accusation, the French, “begged to differ,” Bereyziat noted as a follow up.

  • Iranian, Turkish children’s friendship festival opens in Istanbul

    Iranian, Turkish children’s friendship festival opens in Istanbul

    Tehran Times Culture Desk

    TEHRAN — Iranian and Turkish children’s friendship festival was inaugurated on Monday in Istanbul.

    The five-day event is held by the Iran’s Institute for Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults (IIDCYA).

    Over 190 books published by IIDCYA in Persian and English, some instructional books for learning Persian and 41 games and Iran’s national dolls Dara and Sara are on display at the event.

    Paintings created by 30 children who are members of IIDCYA and 28 photos from previous exhibits held by IIDCYA are on display during the showcase.

    IIDCYA instructors from Ardebil Province branch are also holding animation, painting and handicraft workshops for Turkish children.

    Mahin Javaherian’s “It’s Raining Cats and Dogs” and Hossein Hazrati’s “Glory of Persepolis” are going on screen at the event.

    via tehran times : Iranian, Turkish children’s friendship festival opens in Istanbul.

  • Islamist Turkey vs. Secular Iran?

    Islamist Turkey vs. Secular Iran?

    Early in the sixteenth century, as the Ottoman and Safavid empires fought for control of the Middle East, Selim the Grim ruling from Istanbul indulged his artistic side by composing distinguished poetry in Persian, then the Middle East’s language of high culture. Simultaneously, Ismail I ruling from Isfahan wrote poetry in Turkish, his ancestral language.

    1312Selim the Grim (r. 1512-20) wrote poetry under the name Mahlas Selimi; his arch-rival Ismail I (r. 1501-24) wrote poetry as Khata’i.

    This juxtaposition comes to mind as the populations of Turkey and Iran now engage in another exchange. As the secular Turkey founded by Atatürk threatens to disappear under a wave of Islamism, the Islamist Iranian state founded by Khomeini apparently teeters, on the brink of secularism. Turks wish to live like Iranians, ironically, and Iranians like Turks.

    Turkey and Iran are large, influential, and relatively advanced Muslim-majority countries, historically central, strategically placed, and widely watched; as they cross paths, I predicted back in 1994, racing in opposite directions, their destinies will affect not just the future of the Middle East but potentially the entire Muslim world.

    That is now happening. Let’s review each country’s evolution:

    Turkey: Atatürk nearly removed Islam from public life in the period 1923-38. Over the decades, however, Islamists fought back and by the 1970s they formed part of a ruling coalition; in 1996-97, they even headed a government. Islamists took power following the strange elections of 2002, when winning a third of the vote secured them two-thirds of the parliamentary seats. Ruling with caution and competence, they got nearly half the vote in 2007, at which point their gloves came off and the bullying began, from a wildly excessive fine levied against a media critic to hare-brained conspiracy theories against the armed forces. Islamists won 58 percent of the vote in a September referendum and appear set to win the next parliamentary election, due by June 2011.

    1313Atatürk excluded Islam from Turkey’s public life and Khomeini made it central in Iran’s.

    Should Islamists win the next election, that will likely establish the premise for them to remain enduringly in power, during which they will bend the country to fit their will, instituting Islamic law (the Sharia), and building an Islamic order resembling Khomeini’s idealized polity.

    Iran: Khomeini did the opposite of Atatürk, making Islam politically dominant during his reign, 1979-89, but it soon thereafter began to falter, with discordant factions emerging, the economy failing, and the populace distancing itself from the regime’s extremist rule. By the 1990s, foreign observers expected the regime soon to fail. Despite their populace’s growing disillusionment, the increased sway of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and the coming to power of hardened veterans of the Iran-Iraq war, as symbolized by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, imbued it with a second wind.

    This reassertion of Islamist goals also increased the people’s alienation from the regime, including a turn away from Islamic practices and toward secularism. The country’s growing pathologies, including rampantdrug-takingpornography, and prostitution point to the depths of its problems. Alienation sparked anti-regime demonstrations in the aftermath of fraudulent elections in June 2009. The repression that followed spurred yet more anger at the authorities.

    A race is underway. Except it is not an even competition, given that Islamists currently rule in both capitals, Ankara and Tehran.

    1314Erdoğan and Ahmadinejad, in sync at last.

    Looking ahead, Iran represents the Middle East’s greatest danger and its greatest hope. Its nuclear buildup, terrorism, ideological aggressiveness, and formation of a “resistance bloc” present a truly global threat, ranging from jumping the price of oil and gas to an electro-magnetic pulse attackon the United States. But if these dangers can be navigated, controlled, and subdued, Iran has a unique potential to lead Muslims out of the dark night of Islamism toward a more modern, moderate, and good neighborly form of Islam. As in 1979, that achievement will likely affect Muslims far and wide.

    Contrarily, while the Turkish government presents few immediate dangers, its more subtle application of Islamism’s hideous principles makes it loom large as future threat. Long after Khomeini and Osama bin Laden are forgotten, I venture, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his colleagues will be remembered as the inventors of a more lasting and insidious form of Islamism.

    Thus may today’s most urgent Middle Eastern problem country become tomorrow’s leader of sanity and creativity while the West’s most stalwart Muslim ally over five decades turn into the greatest source of hostility and reaction. Extrapolation is a mug’s game, the wheel turns, and history springs surprises.

    Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

    Nov. 30, 2010 updates: Two points that did not fit in the main body of my column

    (1) Ankara and Tehran work together ever closely these days but I predict that they will soon be rivals for Islamist leadership. Historical pride, sectarian ambition, and geo-strategic competition all suggest that the current moment of harmony will not last long Look for the Turks to dispute Iranian leadership in such arenas as commercial prowess, military power, and religious potency.

    (2) I sketched out this rivalry in a 1994 article in the National Interest, “[Turkey vs. Iran and] Islam’s Intramural Struggle,” in which I noted “a long, deep, and difficult fight” likely brewing “between two of the great countries of the Middle East, Turkey and Iran.” Turks , I wrote, “seem not yet to realize what the mullahs know: that fundamentalist Islam will rise or fall depending on what Turks do, and that Iran and Turkey are therefore engaged in a mortal combat. Will Turks wake up in time to hold their own? Much hinges on the result.”

    by Daniel Pipes
    The Washington Times
    November 30, 2010

    https://www.danielpipes.org/9123/islamist-turkey-secular-iran

    ataturk khomeini

  • US embassy cables: US fails to dissuade Turkey from Iran ‘meddling’

    US embassy cables: US fails to dissuade Turkey from Iran ‘meddling’

    Tuesday, 17 November 2009, 17:08

    S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 001654

    SIPDIS

    DEPARTMENT ALSO FOR EUR/SE

    EO 12958 DECL: 11/17/2019

    TAGS KNNP, PREL, TU, IR

    SUBJECT: TURKEY: A/S GORDON PRESSES FM DAVUTOGLU ON IRAN

    REF: ANKARA 1626

    Classified By: Ambassador James Jeffrey, for reasons 1.4(b,d)

    Summary

    In a clearly difficult meeting, senior US diplomat Philip Gordon tries to persuade the Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, that his efforts to mediate a compromise over Iran’s nuclear programme may not be entirely helpful or wise – and are effectively enabling the Iranians to play for time without serious negotiations. Gordon’s efforts do not meet with success. Key passage highlighted in yellow.

    Read related article

    1. (S) Iran dominated A/S Gordon’s 40-minute meeting November 12 with Foreign Minister Davutoglu. The FM had just gotten off the phone with El-Baradei and had discussed in detail the IAEA proposal to send Iran’s low enriched uranium to Turkey. El-Baradei had said he would “call Washington” that same morning. This had followed two long “harsh” sessions with the Iranians in Istanbul on Sunday evening. The Iranians have said they are willing to meet with Solana, but have told the Turks that they have serious problems with Cooper and the British. They have “more trust” in the U.S. The Iranians would also prefer to get fuel from the U.S. rather than the Russians.

    2. (S) Davutoglu said the Iranians: a) are ready to send a delegation to Vienna to work out the specifics on this proposal; b) have given their “full trust” to Turkey; c) continue to face serious domestic problems inside Iran. He said the Turks actually see Ahmadinejad as “more flexible” than others who are inside the Iranian Government. Ahmadinejad is facing “huge pressure” after statements from some P5 members to the effect that a nuclear deal would succeed in weakening Iran,s nuclear capability — which is interpreted by some circles in Iran as a virtual defeat.

    3. (S) Given this context, the Turks had asked Ahmadinejad if the core of the issue is psychological rather than substance. Ahmadinejad had said “yes,” that the Iranians agree to the proposal but need to manage the public perception. Accordingly, the Iranians are proposing that the first 400 kilos be transferred to Kish Island — thereby keeping it on Iranian soil — and would receive right away an equivalent amount (30-50 kilos) of enriched fuel. The second stage would focus on the management of Iranian public opinion, after which Tehran would proceed with the Turkey option for the remaining 800 kilos, probably in two tranches. Davutoglu said Baradei agreed to consider this.

    4. (S) Davutoglu noted that he had spoken to NSA General Jones Wednesday, who had said that we should perhaps suggest to the Iranians that they transfer 600 kilos to Kish Island and 600 kilos to Turkey simultaneously. A/S Gordon said he could not give an official response to the proposal as this is the first time we heard it, but that he anticipates much skepticism about providing fuel to Iran before all the LEU has been taken out. It would be better to get all 1200 kilos out right away.

    5. (C) Davutoglu noted that these are two different proposals. The first is Iran’s request for fuel for its nuclear reactor. Even if this takes place, he said, we still need to work on limiting Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability. If we succeed with this proposal, he said, it will create “confidence” and a “new momentum” and would allow room for negotiation.

    6. (C) Noting that Davutoglu had only addressed the negative consequences of sanctions or the use of military force, Gordon pressed Davutoglu on Ankara’s assessment of the consequences if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. Davutoglu gave a spirited reply, that “of course” Turkey was aware of this risk. This is precisely why Turkey is working so hard with the Iranians. President Gul himself had spent two hours Sunday with Ahmadinejad in Istanbul.

    7. (C) Gordon noted that while we acknowledge that Turkey can be helpful as a mediator, some of the Prime Minister’s recent public comments raise questions about how Turkey sees this issue. Davutoglu said he is aware of these concerns, but contended that the Guardian newspaper had not accurately presented its recent interview with the Prime Minister. The PM’s comments had been taken out of context. Erdogan had been asked if he views Iran as a friend. If he had said “no,” it would not have been possible to convince Tehran to cooperate on this latest proposal. Only Turkey can speak bluntly and critically to the Iranians, Davutoglu contended, but only because Ankara is showing public messages of friendship.

    8. (C) Gordon pushed back that Ankara should give a stern public message about the consequences if UN resolutions are ignored. Davutoglu countered that Erdogan had given just such a statement in Tehran when he visited. He emphasized that Turkey’s foreign policy is giving a “sense of justice” and a “sense of vision” to the region. Turkey has provided a “third option” in addition to Iran and the Saudis (who he contended are viewed as “puppets” of the US). The result, he said, is that we “limit Iranian influence in the region.” We

    ANKARA 00001654 002 OF 002

    need a “pro-Western approach AND a sense of justice.”

    9. (C) A/S Gordon has cleared this cable.

    JEFFREY

    “Visit Ankara’s Classified Web Site at gov.gov/wiki/Portal:Turkey”

    via US embassy cables: US fails to dissuade Turkey from Iran ‘meddling’ | World news | guardian.co.uk.