Category: Iran

  • Was the Obama Administration involved in the Planning of the Israeli Attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla?

    Was the Obama Administration involved in the Planning of the Israeli Attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla?

    The Broader Military Agenda

    by Michel Chossudovsky

    Global Research, June 6, 2010

    The Israeli Naval Commando had prior knowledge of who was on the Turkish ship including where passengers were residing in terms of cabin layout. According to Swedish author Henning Mankell, who was on board the Marmara , “the Israeli forces attacked sleeping civilians.”

    These were targeted assassinations. Specific individuals were targeted. Journalists were targeted with a view to confiscating their audio and video recording equipment and tapes.

    “We were witnesses to premeditated murders,” said historian Mattias Gardell who was on the Mavi Marmara.

    “…Asked about why activists on the Turkish ship had attacked the Israeli soldiers, Gardell stressed “it is not as if Israel is a police officer whom no human being has the legitimate right to defend him or herself against”:

    “If you are attacked by commando troops you of course must have the right to defend yourself … Many people on this ship thought they were going to kill everyone. They were very frightened … It’s strange if people think one should not defend oneself. Should you just sit there and say: ‘Kill me’?” he said.” (See Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Detailed Compiled Eyewitness Accounts Confirm Cold-Blooded Murder and Executions by Israeli Military, Global Research, June 1, 2010)

    “They even shot those who surrendered. Many of our friends saw this. They told me that there were handcuffed people who were shot,” (quoted by Press TV)

    The Israeli Commando had an explicit order to kill.

    What was the role of the United States?

    The raids on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, bear the mark of  previous Israeli operations directed against unarmed civilians. It is a well established modus operandi of Israeli military-intelligence operations, which is tacitly supported by the US administration.

    The killing of civilians is intended to trigger a response by Palestinian resistance forces, which in turn justifies Israeli retaliation (on “humanitarian” grounds) as well as a process of military escalation. The logic of this process was contained in Ariel Sharon`s “Operation Justified Vengeance” initiated at the outset the Sharon government in 2001. This Operation was intent upon destroying the Palestinian Authority and transforming Gaza into an urban prison. (See Michel Chossudovsky, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: Israeli Strike on Freedom Flotilla to Gaza is Part of a Broader Military Agenda, Global Research, June 1, 2010).

    The Israeli attack of the Flotilla bears the fingerprints of a military intelligence operation coordinated by the IDF and Mossad, which is headed by Meir Dagan. It is worth recalling that as a young Coronel, Dagan worked closely with then defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on the Palestinian settlements of Sabra and Shatilla in Beirut in 1982.

    There are indications that the US was consulted at the highest levels regarding the nature of this military operation. Moreover, in the wake of the attacks, both the US and the UK have unequivocally reaffirmed their support to Israel.

    There are longstanding and ongoing military and intelligence relations between the US and Israel including close working ties between various agencies of government: Pentagon, National Intelligence Council, State Department, Homeland Security and their respective Israeli counterparts.

    These various agencies of government are involved in routine liaison and consultations, usually directly as well as through the US Embassy in Israel, involving frequent shuttles of officials between Washington and Tel Aviv as well as exchange of personnel. Moreover, the US as well as Canada have public security cooperation agreements with Israel pertaining to the policing of international borders, including maritime borders. (See Israel-USA Homeland Security Cooperation, See also Michel Chossudovsky, The Canada-Israel “Public Security” Agreement, Global Research, 2 April 2008)

    The Role of Rahm Emmanuel

    Several high level US-Israel meetings were held in the months prior to the May 31st attacks.

    Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s White House chief of Staff was in Tel Aviv a week prior to the attacks. Confirmed by press reports, he had meetings behind closed doors with Prime Minister Netanyahu (May 26) as well as a private visit with President Shimon Peres on May 27.

    rahm emanuel1rahm emanuel2

    rahm emanuel3
    May 26 meeting between Rahm Emmanuel and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu

    Official statements do not indicate whether other officials including cabinet ministers or IDF and Mossad officials were present at the Rahm Emmanuel-Netanyahu meeting. The Israeli press confirmed that Rahm Emmanuel had a meeting with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, whose Ministry was responsible for overseeing the Commando attack on the Flotilla. (Rahm Emanuel visits Israel to celebrate son’s bar mitzvah – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News, 23 May 2010). The White House also confirmed that Rahm Emmanuel was to meet other high-ranking Israeli officials, without providing further details. (Rahm Emanuel in Israel for Son’s Bar Mitzvah, May Meet With Officials)

    “Our Man in the White House”

    While born in the US, Rahm Emmanuel also holds Israeli citizenship and has served in the Israeli military during the First Gulf War (1991).

    Rahm is also known for his connections to the pro-Israeli lobby in the US.  The Israeli newspaper Maariv calls him “Our Man in the White House” (quoted in Irish Times, March 13, 2010). Rahm Emmanuel gave his support to Obama in the November 2008 presidential elections following Obama`s address to the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC.

    At the time of Rahm Emmanuel’s confirmation as White House chief of staff, there were reports in the Middle East media of Rahm Emanuel’s connections to Israeli intelligence.

    The exact nature of Rahm Emmanuel’s ties to the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus, however, is not the main issue. What we are dealing with is a broad process of bilateral coordination and decision-making between the two governments in the areas of foreign policy, intelligence and military planning, which has been ongoing for more than 50 years. In this regard, Israel, although exercising a certain degree of autonomy in military and strategic decisions, will not act unilaterally, without receiving the “green light” from Washington. Rahm Emmanuel`s meetings with the prime minister and Israeli officials are part of this ongoing process.

    Rahm Emmanuel’s meetings in Tel Aviv on May 26 were a routine follow-up to visits to Washington by Prime Minister Netanyahu in March and by Minister of Defense Ehud Barak in late April. In these various bilateral US-Israel encounters at the White House, the state Department and the Pentagon, Rahm Emmanuel invariably plays a key role.

    While the pro-Israeli lobby in the US influences party politics in America, Washington also influences the direction of Israeli politics. There have been reports to the effect that Rahm Emmanuel  would “lead a team of high octane Democratic party pro-Israel political operatives to run the campaign for the Defense Minister Ehud Barak” against Netanyahu in the next Israeli election. (Ira Glunts, Could Rahm Emanuel Help Barak Unseat Netanyahu? Palestine Chronicle, June 2, 2010)

    The April 27 meeting between US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Defense Minister Barak pertained to “a range of important defense issues” directly or indirectly related to the status of the Palestinian territories under Israeli occupation:

    “As President Obama has affirmed, the United States commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable, and our defense relationship is stronger than ever, to the mutual benefit of both nations. The United States and our ally Israel share many of the same security challenges, from combating terrorism to confronting the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.

    For years, the United States and Israel have worked together to prepare our armed forces to meet these and other challenges, a recent major example being the Juniper Cobra joint exercise held last October. Our work together on missile-defense technology is ongoing, and the United States will continue to ensure that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.” (Press Conference with Secretary Gates and Israeli Defense Minister Barak, April 2010 – Council on Foreign Relations April 27, 2010)

    These consultations pertained to ongoing military preparations regarding Iran. Both Israel and the US have recently announced that a pre-emptive attack against Iran has been contemplated.

    Washington views Israel as being “‘integrated into America’s military architecture,’ especially in the missile defense sphere.” (quoted in Emanuel to rabbis: US ‘screwed up’ Jerusalem Post, statement of Dennis Ross, who is in charge of the US administration’s Iran policy in the White House, May 16, 2010).

    Targeting Iran

    The attack on the Freedom Flotilla, might appear as a separate and distinct humanitiarian issue, unrelated to US-Israeli war plans. But from the standpoint of both Tel Aviv and Washington, it is part of the broader military agenda. It is intended to create conditions favoring an atmosphere of confrontation and escalation in the Middle East war theater;

    “All the signs are that Israel has been stepping up its provocations to engineer a casus belli for a war against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Tel Aviv sees as unfinished business its inconclusive wars: the first in Lebanon in 2006, and the second in Gaza in 2008-09.” (Jean Shaoul Washington Comes to the Aid of Israel over Gaza Convoy Massacre, Global Research, June 4, 2010)

    Following Israel’s illegal assault in international waters, Netanyahu stated emphatically “Israel will continue to exercise its right to self defence. We will not allow the establishment of an Iranian port in Gaza,” suggesting that the Gaza blockade was part of the pre-emptive war agenda directed against Iran, Syria and Lebanon. (Israeli forces board Gaza aid ship the Rachel Corrie – Telegraph, June 5, 2010, emphasis added) .

    Moreover, the raid on the Flotilla coincided with NATO-Israel war games directed against Iran. According to the Sunday Times, “three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.” (Israel Deploys Three Nuclear Cruise Missile-Armed Subs Along Iranian Coastline).

    While Israeli naval deployments were underway in the Persian Gulf, Israel was also involved in war games in the Mediterranean. The war game codenamed “MINOAS 2010” was carried out at a Greek air base in Souda Bay, on the island of Crete. Earlier in February, The Israeli air force “practiced simulated strikes at Iran’s nuclear facilities using airspace of two Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, which are close territorially with the Islamic republic and cooperate with Israel on this issue.” Ria Novosti,War Games: Israel gets ready to Strike at Iran’s Nuclear Sites,, March 29, 2010)

    Also, in the wake of the final resolution of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation directed against Israel’s nuclear weapons program, the White House has reaffirmed its endorsement of Israel’s nuclear weapons capabilities. Washington’s statement issued one day before the raid on the flotilla points to unbending US support to “Israel’s strategic and deterrence capabilities”, which also include the launching of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran:

    “a senior political source in Jerusalem said Sunday that Israel received guarantees from U.S. President Barack Obama that the U.S. would maintain and improve Israel’s strategic and deterrence capabilities.

    According to the source, “Obama gave [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu unequivocal guarantees that include a substantial upgrade in Israel-U.S. relations.”

    Obama promised that no decision taken during the recent 189-nation conference to review and strengthen the 40-year-old Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty “would be allowed to harm Israel’s vital interests,” the sources said.  Obama promised to bolster Israel’s strategic capabilities, Jerusalem officials say – Haaretz Daily Newspaper)

    RobertGatesEhudBarak
    Robert Gates and Israel's Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, Press Conference, April 27, 2010

    The Turkey-Israel Relationship in Jeopardy?

    The actions of Israel against the Freedom Flotilla have important ramifications. Israel’s criminal actions in international waters has contributed to weakening the US-NATO-Israel military alliance.

    The bilateral Israel-Turkey alliance in military, intelligence, joint military production is potentially in jeopardy. Ankara has already announced that three planned military exercises with Israel have been cancelled. “The government announced it was considering reducing its relations with Israel to a minimum.”

    It should be understood that Israel and Turkey are partners and major actors in the US-NATO planned aerial attacks on Iran, which have been in the pipeline since mid-2005. The rift between Turkey and Israel has a direct bearing on NATO as a military alliance. Turkey is one of the more powerful NATO member states with regard to its conventional forces. The rift with Israel breaks a consensus within the Atlantic Alliance. It also undermines ongoing US-NATO-Israel pre-emptive war plans directed against Iran, which until recently were endorsed by the Turkish military.

    From the outset in 1992, the Israeli-Turkish military alliance was directed against Syria, as well as Iran and Iraq. (For details see See Michel Chossudovsky, “Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, Global Research, 2006)

    In 1997, Israel and Turkey launched “A Strategic Dialogue” involving a bi-annual process of high level military consultations by the respective deputy chiefs of staff. (Milliyet, Istanbul, in Turkish 14 July 2006).

    During the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This “triple alliance”, which in practice is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara.

    Starting in 2005, Israel has become a de facto member of NATO. The triple alliance was coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which included “many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” (“Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon).

    The Issue of Territorial Waters

    Israel’s blockade of Gaza is in large part motivated by the broader issue of control of  Gaza’s territorial waters, which contain significant reserves of natural gas. What is at stake is the confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral de facto declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas. If the blockade were to be broken, Israel’s de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves would be jeopardy. (See Michel Chossudovsky,War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields, Global Research, January 8, 2009. See also Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)

    gazagasmap2gazagasmap

    , 6.6.2010

  • Turkey Prioritizes Independent Regional Policies in the Middle East and the South Caucasus

    Turkey Prioritizes Independent Regional Policies in the Middle East and the South Caucasus

    Turkey Prioritizes Independent Regional Policies in the Middle East and the South Caucasus

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 105

    June 1, 2010

    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkey continued its regional diplomacy, following the historic visit by Russian President Medvedev to Ankara (EDM, May 20). Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan paid back-to-back trips to Greece, Iran and Azerbaijan, which underscored Turkey’s rising activism in its neighborhood, as well as highlighting divergence with the United States.

    The most controversial development was the deal Turkey brokered jointly with Brazil regarding the Iranian nuclear issue. Building on the groundwork laid by their foreign ministers, Turkish and Brazilian leaders convinced their Iranian counterpart to agree on a proposal made earlier by the international community, under which it would swap its low-enriched uranium with enriched rods for a medical research reactor. The exchange will take place in Turkey.

    Turkey portrayed the agreement as a historic achievement that would end the stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program, and bring peace to the Middle East, emphasizing that Iran agreed to sign a document stipulating concrete obligations (www.cnnturk.com, May 17). However, the reactions to the deal from the United States and Western powers put Turkey in a rather controversial position rather than to earn the sort of praise it was anticipating. Since the deal came amidst news that the United States succeeded in getting other permanent members of the UN Security Council agree on new sanctions, this development increasingly pit Ankara and Washington against each other.

    From an American perspective, the deal was not satisfactory because Iran agreed to the conditions proposed back in October 2009 while it did not commit to end its nuclear program. In particular it is emphasized that while the amount of fuel Iran agrees to return, 1,200 kilograms, was significant at the time it was first proposed, since then Iran is likely to have expanded its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is not under inspection. Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, remained defiant. Arguing that the United States was kept informed about the negotiations with Iran, Davutoglu contended that Iran’s promises were satisfactory and should be the basis of efforts to solve the diplomatic standoff (Today’s Zaman, May 20). Meanwhile, a recent development somehow adds credibility to Turkey’s arguments. Reportedly, Obama sent a letter to Brazilian President in April wherein he urged him to pursue the efforts to convince Iran to accept the exchange the 1,200 kilograms of uranium on Turkish territory, though noting that the US would also pursue the sanctions path (letter available at:www.politicaexterna.com/archives/11023.

    Amid statements coming from the United States and other powers that concerns over Iran’s nuclear program did not disappear, Erdogan sought to mobilize the international community behind the deal with Iran. He telephoned President Barack Obama, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and many other leaders, as well as sending letters to many others, asking them to prevent sanctions against Iran and give diplomacy a chance. Although Obama appreciated Turkish efforts, he underlined that they would expect to see Iran’s interpretation of the deal, and kept the option for sanctions open (Anadolu Ajansi, May 20, May 22).

    Iran sent a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Monday explaining the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil in detail. As anticipated, while the United States did not find Iran’s commitments satisfactory, Turkey insisted on its earlier position. Meanwhile, Erdogan started his historic tour of South America. Speaking in Brazil, he reiterated in strong words that the deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey was a historical breakthrough, and they would continue to work toward a nuclear free world (www.haberturk.com, May 28).

    The challenges posed by Iran’s nuclear program are unlikely to subdue, as Iran remains committed to continue with its program. Turkey’s policy so far demonstrates that it is increasingly self-confident in undertaking foreign policy initiatives in its region and toward that end it could even risk confrontation with the United States. Especially the fact that Turkey went ahead with these efforts despite the news about a new draft UN Security Council being prepared is worth mentioning here. Turkey has made clear on many occasions that it would not approve tougher measures against Iran considering the negative repercussions of such a move (EDM, March 20). Reiterating this position on several regional and international platforms, Davutoglu invested much of his time on this issue over the last couple of months, as he and his team held numerous meetings with their Iranian counterparts to find a negotiated solution. Therefore, Turkish leaders would not like to see all their efforts go in vain as a result of a new round of sanctions, which would pose a serious blow to their credibility in the region and at home.

    Overall, the Turkish leaders seem to assume good will on Iran’s part and do not seriously consider the possibility that Iran might be manipulating their willingness to mediate in this crisis to undermine the quasi-coalition the United States has delicately managed to form. Given Iran’s track record, the United States is increasingly concerned that Iran might not be acting in good faith and is using such last-minute deals to avoid tougher reactions (Today’s Zaman, May 24). Given these conflict interpretations of Iran’s nuclear program, we might observe growing divergence of opinions between Ankara and Washington.

    Erdogan also paid a visit to Baku and Tbilisi, following his trip to Tehran, which also underscored another dimension of Ankara’s regional policies, conducted independently of Washington’s priorities. After the normalization with Armenia, which was promoted by Washington, hit an apparent deadlock, Erdogan’s trip to Baku served as yet another affirmation of Ankara’s determination to keep Baku at the center of its Caucasus policy. Erdogan reiterated support for the Azeri position on Karabakh, which seemed to go a long way toward repairing the damage caused by Turkey’s efforts to achieve a rapprochement with Armenia.

    As a concrete indication of such a thaw, it is expected that Azerbaijani leader Ilham Aliyev will visit Turkey in early June. Aliyev had avoided visiting Turkey in apparent protest of Turkish-Armenian normalization and Turkey’s position on the natural gas negotiations (EDM, October 21, 2009). A deal recently reached between the two countries would bring an end to the negotiations concerning the price for Turkey’s purchases from Azerbaijan and conditions for the passage of Azeri gas to Europe through Turkish territory. Although the agreement was expected to be signed during Erdogan’s visit, it is postponed for Aliyev’s visit by which time the two parties will also finalize the remaining details. While saying that they “will crown the agreement during Mr. President’s visit,” Erdogan perhaps expressed how much he attaches significance to Aliyev’s upcoming trip (Hurriyet, May 17).

  • U.S., Israeli ties just got more complicated

    U.S., Israeli ties just got more complicated

    Raid on Gaza flotilla could also take momentum away from Iran pressure

     
    Slideshow
     
    Anger spreads Israel's raid of the aid flotilla sparked protests in several countries.
    more photos
     
    Mideast/North Africa video
    MORE VIDEO
    Israel detains activists, ships from flotilla While the U.N. condemns Israel’s deadly raid on a flotilla carrying aid to Gaza, the intercepted ships and the pro-Palestinian activists aboard are being held in an Israeli port. NBC’s Tom Aspell reports.
    By Glenn Kessler
    updated 12:26 a.m. ET June 1, 2010
    The worldwide condemnation of the deadly Israeli assault on the Gaza aid flotilla will complicate the Obama administration's efforts to improve its tense relations with Jerusalem and will probably distract from the push to sanction Iran over its nuclear program. The timing of the incident is remarkably bad for Israel and the United States. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and President Obama were scheduled to meet Tuesday in Washington as part of a "kiss and make up" session. The United Nations, meanwhile, was set to begin final deliberations on Iran in the weeks ahead. Now the White House talks have been scrubbed, Israel's actions were the subject of an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting Monday and the administration increasingly faces a difficult balancing act as Israel's diplomatic isolation deepens. In contrast with forceful statements from European, Arab and U.N. officials — and impromptu demonstrations from Athens to Baghdad — the White House responded to the assault Monday by saying only that Obama had held a phone conversation with Netanyahu in which the prime minister expressed "deep regret at the loss of life" and "the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning's tragic events." Hours later, the State Department issued a statement saying that the United States remains "deeply concerned by the suffering of civilians in Gaza" and "will continue to engage the Israelis on a daily basis to expand the scope and type of goods allowed into Gaza." Even before Monday's incident, Israel was on shaky diplomatic ground. After the government was accused of using forged foreign passports in the assassination of a Palestinian militant in Dubai, Britain expelled an Israeli diplomat in March. Australia did the same last week. 'Terrible for Israel-Turkey relations' The latest furor may have caused irreparable harm to Israel's relations with Turkey — a Muslim state with which Israel has long had close ties — because so many of those onboard were Turkish. At the United Nations, Turkey's foreign minister urged the Security Council to condemn Israel's raid and set up a formal inquiry to hold those responsible for it accountable.
    Video
    Video of raid May 31: Israeli commandos rappelled from helicopters onto the lead boat, a Turkish cruise liner carrying hundreds of activists. NBC's Stephanie Gosk reports.
    Nightly News
    "This is terrible for Israel-Turkey relations," Namik Tan, the Turkish ambassador to the United States, said in an interview. "I am really saddened by it." Tan, who served as ambassador to Israel from 2007 through 2009, said Israel's actions demand condemnation from every country because the flotilla incident took place in international waters and involved civilians on a humanitarian mission. But he said the Obama administration's initial statement was wanting. "We would have expected a much stronger reaction than this," he said. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu will be in Washington on Tuesday to discuss Iran with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, but Turkey's fury over the Gaza incident will inevitably top the agenda. Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator now at the New America Foundation in Washington, said it's not the first time Israel has done itself a disservice. "Israel constantly claims it wants the world to focus on Iran, but then it ends up doing something that gets everyone to focus on itself," he said. Focus on humanitarian situation Apart from the raid, attention is likely to fall on the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, which has faced an Israeli blockade since the Hamas militant group seized power three years ago. Although the Obama administration has pressed quietly for less onerous restrictions on trade, it has not questioned Israeli policies. Special envoy George J. Mitchell has never visited Gaza in about a dozen trips to Israel and the Palestinian territories. Without high-level attention, the situation in Gaza — a narrow coastal area with 1.5 million people — has faded from view. Now that might change. Robert Malley, Middle East director for the International Crisis Group, said Monday's deaths were a consequence of ignoring the "unhealed wound that is Gaza." In condemning Israel's actions Monday, European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton signaled that the European Union would press anew for a shift in policy. "The E.U. does not accept the continued policy of closure," she said in a statement. "It is unacceptable and politically counterproductive. We need to urgently achieve a durable solution to the situation in Gaza."
    Click for related content
    Arab countries want tough U.N. response Bloody Israeli raid on flotilla sparks crisis Israeli commandos describe raid Newsweek: Raid highlights failure of blockade Newsweek: Turkish anger a problem for Israel
    'High on Obama's agenda' Malley said U.S. officials have told him that the situation in Gaza "is very high on Obama's agenda." Obama highlighted Gaza in his Cairo speech a year ago, saying, "Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security." In that speech, Obama appeared to appeal to Palestinians to undertake acts of civil disobedience rather than violence, saying that it was "not violence that won full and equal rights" for African Americans but "a peaceful and determined insistence." Whether the flotilla was an act of civil disobedience remains up for debate. Its organizers said it was, but Israeli officials said members of the Israel Defense Forces were met with violence when they boarded the ships. Not only has the incident strengthened the Islamist Hamas, it has probably weakened the secular Palestinian leadership on the West Bank. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas quickly condemned the attack as a "massacre," but he will probably face new pressure to abandon indirect talks with Israel. Iran, whose nuclear ambitions deeply concern Israeli leaders, also is a beneficiary. Turkey holds one of the rotating seats on the U.N. Security Council and was already deeply skeptical of the U.S.-led push to impose new sanctions on the Islamic republic. But now the council's attention will be diverted by the Israeli assault.
    More from msnbc.com
    Workplace suicides in the U.S. on the rise Teen sensation helps Germans shed 'dull' image Cosmic Log: Satellites track spill's growth Got a tip about the oil spill investigation? Follow BreakingNews on Facebook | Twitter
    © 2010 The Washington Post Company

  • Turkish PM: Critics of Iran should get rid of nukes

    Turkish PM: Critics of Iran should get rid of nukes

    By MARCO SIBAJA (AP)

    Ki Moon+daSilva+Erdogan
    U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, left, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, center, and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan attend the Third Forum of the Alliance of Civilizations in Rio de Janeiro, Friday, May 28, 2010. The AoC is a high-level group of experts that explore the roots of polarization between societies and cultures today and recommend a practical program of action to address the issue. (AP Photo/Silvia Izquierdo

    RIO DE JANEIRO — Nations criticizing an Iranian nuclear fuel-swap deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey should eliminate their own nuclear weapon stockpiles, Turkey’s leader said Friday.

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan made the comments just hours after claiming that the West was “envious” of Brazil and Turkey’s achievement in getting Iran to agree to the deal. U.S. officials have criticized the agreement, in part because it does not stop Iran from continuing to enrich uranium. The U.S. also says the deal is a ploy by Iran to delay new international sanctions.

    “Those who speak to this issue should eliminate nuclear weapons from their own country and they should bear the good news to all mankind by doing that,” Erdogan said while attending a U.N. conference in Rio de Janeiro.

    His comments were aimed at the U.S. and its massive nuclear stockpile.

    On Thursday, he remarked that “Those who criticize the accord are envious.”

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Washington on Thursday that the U.S. has “very serious disagreements with Brazil’s diplomacy vis-a-vis Iran.”

    “We think buying time for Iran, enabling Iran to avoid international unity with respect to their nuclear program, makes the world more dangerous, not less,” Clinton said during a talk at the Brookings Institution. “They have a different perspective on what they see they’re doing.”

    Clinton said one of the U.S. government’s main concern is that despite the fuel-swap deal, Iran is insisting on continuing to enrich uranium at a high level.

    Both Erdogan and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva say they do not see the nuclear fuel-swap deal as a solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff, but as a starting point to get Iran back to the negotiations.

    Under the deal, submitted this week to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran agrees to ship 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of uranium to Turkey, where it will be stored. In exchange, Iran would get fuel rods made from 20-percent enriched uranium; that level of enrichment is high enough for use in research reactors but too low for nuclear weapons.

    Among concerns by opponents of the deal is that Iran has continued to churn out low-enriched material and is running a pilot program of enriching to higher levels, near 20 percent.

    Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim told reporters in Rio the fuel swap deal contains all the elements that the U.S. and other nations were seeking in similar agreement last year.

    “We are not defenders of Iran. We are trying to help peace,” Amorim said. “The agreement contains all that which was proposed by the Group of Vienna, especially by Russia, the United States and France, and now we need time to see if it will bear results.”

    Silva said that the deal was meant to resolve “a conflict that threatens much more than the stability of an important region of the planet.”

    The world needs a peaceful Middle East.”

    Last month, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a new arms-control treaty that would limit each country’s stockpile of nuclear warheads to 1,550, down from the current level of 2,200 — bringing the arsenals to a level last seen in the 1950s. It replaces the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START I, which expired in December.

    The treaty must be ratified by both the Russian parliament and the U.S. Congress.

    Associated Press Writers Bradley Brooks in Rio de Janeiro, Stan Lehman in Sao Paulo, and George Jahn in Vienna contributed to this report.

    , 28 May 2010

  • Denmark: European children fighting for PKK, claims former ROJ TV chief

    Denmark: European children fighting for PKK, claims former ROJ TV chief

    Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende continues to publish more information about ROJ TV and the PKK. Their most recent report reveals that the PKK is using children-fighters. Pictures taken by former ROJ-TV director, Manouchehr Zonoozi, show youth, the youngest of which is supposedly 14-16, and Zonoozi claims, he saw children in the camps as young as 8-9.
    Putting aside the issue of using children as soldiers, Zonoozi makes another very interesting claim. He says that most children in the camps come from Iran or Europe, and don’t have their parents with them.

    The youngest get school education, the older ones are trained in using weapons, fighting and Kurdish history, with emphasis on the PKK and the movement’s founder, Abdullah Öcalan.

    “In an asylum camp in Iraq, I met a Syrian-origin Kurdish family. They were looking for their daughter, who fled to the PKK. But the PKK didn’t want to give her back to the family. I was really upset at that,” says Manouchehr Zonoozi.

    Berlingske Tidende (Danish)

    IIE

  • Filmmaker Jafar Panahi will be freed on bail late today

    Filmmaker Jafar Panahi will be freed on bail late today

    By Ladane Nasseri

    May 25 (Bloomberg) — Iranian filmmaker and opposition supporter Jafar Panahi, who was invited to be a juror at the Cannes film festival, will be freed on bail late today, weeks after directors including Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese called for his release.

    A bail equivalent to $200,000 was posted, Panahi’s wife, Tahereh Saeedi, told the Iranian Labour News Agency today. “Based on what we are told, he will be released tonight between 7 and 11 p.m.” Iran time.

    “It has been agreed for him to be released on bail and the legal process and the judicial steps are being followed,” Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari-Dolatabadi was quoted as saying yesterday by the state-run Iranian Students News Agency. He didn’t say when the release or further court proceedings in the case would take place.

    Panahi, a backer of the movement that grew out of protests against last year’s disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was detained on March 2. Charges against him include making a movie without a permit and wearing a green scarf, a symbol of the opposition, at a film festival abroad, his wife said last month.

    Saeedi, who was detained with Panahi and later released, has said he was planning to direct a film about the problems of a family of four amid the political unrest prompted by Ahmadinejad’s victory in the June 12 vote.

    Spielberg, Coppola and Scorsese were among directors who signed a petition last month urging the Iranian government to release Panahi, saying filmmakers in Iran “should be celebrated, not censored, repressed and imprisoned.”

    ‘Attack on Art’

    Fellow Iranian film director Abbas Kiarostami, whose film “Certified Copy” premiered at the Cannes film festival, also made an appeal at the event last week for Panahi’s release, the U.K.’s Guardian reported.

    “When a filmmaker is imprisoned, it is an attack on art as a whole,” Kiarostami told reporters, according to the newspaper. “We need explanations. I don’t understand how a film can be a crime, particularly when that film has not been made.”

    French actress Juliette Binoche, who starred in Kiarostami’s film and won the best actress award for the role at Cannes, wept when she heard that Panahi started a hunger strike on May 16, Agence France-Presse reported. Binoche brandished a sign with the name of Panahi as she faced the audience after receiving her award, AFP said on May 23.

    Several of Panahi’s films have been banned in Iran, including “Crimson Gold,” which looks at the privileges of Iran’s upper class through the eyes of a pizza-delivery man and won the Prix Un Certain Regard at Cannes in 2003. Also banned is “The Circle,” which portrays the harsh aspects of life for several women in the Islamic nation. It won the Golden Lion award at the 2000 Venice film festival.

    More recently, Panahi won the second-highest award at the 2006 Berlin film festival with “Offside,” a comic tale about a government ban on women and girls attending soccer games.

    –Editors: Philip Sanders, Heather Langan

    To contact the reporter on this story: Ladane Nasseri in Beirut at lnasseri@bloomberg.net.

    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Peter Hirschberg at phirschberg@bloomberg.net.

    The Bloomberg