Category: Iran

  • IRAN: NUCLEAR BOMBS ARE ILLICIT

    IRAN: NUCLEAR BOMBS ARE ILLICIT

    Salihi said; “I am declaring this to the beloved Turkish nation that I do love dearly with all my sincerity. We are not producing nuclear bombs because that is illicit and is not to our benefit.”
    A16

    LET US SUPPOSE THAT WE DO HAVE A BOMB WHERE ARE WE TO USE IT

    It is profoundly illogical for Iran to produce a nuclear bomb.  I am saying this very openly, without any hesitation: If Iran were to believe that producing a nuclear bomb would be to its benefit, it would produce it and would never keep it a secret. Iran would not be ashamed of that. But we have decided that it does not comply with the defence doctrine of our country.  Let us assume that we do have a nuclear bomb,  please recount to us where are we to use it? Are we going to go and hit Israel with it? Israel simlply means the USA. Who would be able to cope with the nuclear power of the USA? We are utterly reasonable people.

    In Turkish;
    [ İran’ın nükleer programının asli sorumlusu, İran Atom Ajansı’nın (AEOI) yeni başkanı Dr. Ali Ekber Salihi, nükleer programla ilgili bütün iddialara cevap verdi. Salihi, “Çok sevdiğim Türk halkına bütün samimiyetimle açıklıyorum. Nükleer bomba üretmiyoruz çünkü hem haramdır hem de menfaatimize değildir” diye konuştu. ]

    [ DİYELİM Kİ BOMBAMIZ VAR NEREDE KULLANACAĞIZ

    *  İkinci sebep nedir?
    –  İran’ın bir nükleer bomba üretmesinin son derece mantıksız olması. Çok açıkça, hiç çekinmeden söylüyorum: Eğer İran, nükleer bomba üretmenin ülkenin menfaatine olduğuna inansaydı bunu üretir ve katiyen saklamazdı. Bundan utanmazdı. Ama bunun ülkemizin savunma doktrinine uymayacağına karar verdik. Diyelim ki bir nükleer bombamız var, o bombayı nerede kullanacağız söyler misiniz? İsrail’i mi vuracağız? İsrail demek ABD demek.  ABD’nin nükleer gücüyle kim baş edebilir? Biz son derece akıllı insanlarız. ]

    Hürriyet

     

    Link: https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/2009/10/26/nukleer-bomba-hem-haram-hem-de-menfaatimize-aykiri/

  • Between the Hammer and the Anvil: An Exclusive Interview with PJAK’s Agiri Rojhilat

    Between the Hammer and the Anvil: An Exclusive Interview with PJAK’s Agiri Rojhilat

    Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 31

    October 23, 2009 11:46 AM Age: 3 days

    Featured By: Derek Henry Flood

    Agiri Rojhilat

     

    Agiri Rojhilat is one of the top seven members of the Partiya Jiyana Azad a Kurdistane (PJAK) which is a part of the larger umbrella organization Koma Civaken Kurdistan (KCK) that includes the PKK. The Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan portrays itself to be more of an armed democratization movement rather than a traditional national liberation movement for Kurdish sovereignty. PJAK says it is taking a stand in the name of all of Iran’s ethnic and religious minorities and it is much more than a Kurdish ethno-nationalist organization. Its expressed aim is to change the regime of the Iranian Ayatollahs to form an inclusive, multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic participatory, federalized democracy in Tehran. Jamestown spoke to Rojhilat at the PJAK base in Qandil, northern Iraq.

    JT: Can you tell our readers about PJAK’s internal political framework?

    AR: Every four years we will have a congress that is made up of two-hundred delegates that from come from within our organization representing our women’s wing, youth wing and armed wing. This congress assembles itself in secret in Kurdistan. Because of the situation for Kurds in Iran, the elections for our congress cannot be held in the open. From the 200 assembled delegates, a thirty-person parliament is elected. Of those thirty elected, seven are chosen to form the coordination board of PJAK.

    JT: How precisely are these elections conducted? Since your organization is not a legal party in Iran, they must be done clandestinely, no?

    AR: The elections are done secretly. I want to let you know that we have over a million supporters inside Iran today. There is a lot of support for PJAK. But these elections cannot be perfectly [democratic] but of the secrecy in which they must be conducted.

    JT: It has been reported that PJAK is very concerned about women’s issues and gender equality. What can you tell us about this aspect of your organization?

    AR: I want to emphasize that women’s issues and women’s rights are paramount to our organization and we have a quota for female PJAK membership. Women are active at all levels of our organization. From the delegates to the parliament to the coordination board, we require a forty percent quota for females in PJAK. From top to bottom, we stress female participation in PJAK.

    JT: Even participating in guerrilla attacks?

    AR: Even fighting, yes.

    JT: Do the PKK and PJAK conduct joint military operations or are their kinetic activities totally isolated from one another?

    AR: What the PKK and PJAK have in common is that we both follow the ideology and philosophy of [imprisoned PKK leader] Abdullah Ocalan and we are both Kurdish parties. Let me explain this; there are four parts of Kurdistan since it was divided. Within both the PKK and the PJAK, there are Kurds from the different parts of Kurdistan. So within the PKK, there are Iranian Kurds and there are Germans and within PJAK there are Kurds from other parts of Kurdistan, but the PKK and PJAK are different groups with different political objectives.

    JT: You are referring to diaspora Kurds from Germany or European Germans?

    AR: Both. Let me explain; there are Kurds from all four parts of Kurdistan participating in the PKK, diaspora Kurds as well as some Germans. All of these types of Kurds are also participating in PJAK as well but I want to stress that the PKK and PJAK are two different organizations with different aims and objectives.

    I want to add something else. If the regime in Syria attacks Syrian Kurds, PJAK is obligated to have a reaction to such behavior. Despite the fact that PJAK operates primarily in Iranian Kurdistan, we feel we have a responsibility to protect Kurds from the other sectors of Kurdistan as well. There are not different kinds of Kurds. There is one Kurdistan and one Kurdish people.

    JT: Is PJAK a purely Kurdish liberation movement or is its appeal more broad based within Iran?

    AR: In our movement, there are several nationalities. We have Azeris, Baluchis as well as ethnic Persians fighting.

    JT: What is the geographical scope of the insurgency you are mounting?

    AR: We have guerrillas in place from Maku all the way to Kermanshah. Throughout Iranian Kurdistan we have over one million sympathizers.

    JT: What is the size of PJAK’s current military force?

    AR: Until now, we do not like to give out precise figures for this but we have over one thousand active guerrillas. Eighty percent of which are inside Iranian territory.

    JT: How are the values and teachings of Abdullah Ocalan carried out by PJAK?

    AR: Of course it is a matter of evaluating the philosophy of Abdullah Ocalan according to our specific needs. The PKK and PJAK are two different organizations and the situation in Turkish Kurdistan is different than in Iranian Kurdistan. We implement his teachings according to the needs of Kurds in Iran. Do we put everything exactly as Ocalan says into practice? Not necessarily. You cannot say exactly that whatever Ocalan says we put into practice…

    JT: What can you tell us about how PJAK was founded?

    AR: For about five or six years before 2004 when our organization was officially announced, we were having some meetings to decide about how to organize ourselves politically and improve the situation for Kurds in Iran.

    JT: Can you answer the allegations that PJAK has received support in any form from the Central Intelligence Agency? Journalist Seymour Hersh and former CIA officer Robert Baer have stated the United States government is very likely aiding PJAK in its proxy struggle with the Iranian regime. Is there any truth to these assertions?

    AR: It is not right that the CIA is helping PJAK. That is not the reality or right at all. Once we had a meeting with Americans in Kirkuk to discuss possible cooperation. Our friend Akif Zagros [a former member of PJAK’s seven person leadership council who the author was informed was killed in a flash flood] talked with them but the Americans said PJAK should abandon the ideology of Abdullah Ocalan and our brotherhood with the PKK if we want help from them. Akif Zagros told the Americans PJAK would not abandon the teachings of Ocalan or our friendly relations with the PKK. Because of the way the Americans approached the issue, shaheed Zagros left the meeting. Since the meeting in 2004, no other such meetings occurred.

    JT: If the United States were to approach you again asking to work with your organization against the Iranian regime, but this time without such preconditions, what would be the reaction of PJAK’s leadership?

    AR: We have nothing against the United States of America. We are not closing our doors to anyone. We are open to dialogue with everyone. We are open to America, Europe and still Iran for talks. We decide what is best for our people based on our own will. We decide democratically when, where and with whom we will engage in such dialogue. We do not want to be simply used against others…

    JT: So PJAK does not want to be used in a proxy war even if its interests temporarily converge with an outside power?

    AR: Until now, both the U.S. and the European Union approach Iran for their own benefit. Within these dialogues, the Kurds are always used and then thrown aside after we have served their purposes. Because of these failed policies, we do not accept these kinds of approaches.

    JT: Why do you believe that the Americans put PJAK on the Treasury Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations?

    AR:  Last year, there was a small bit of rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran and the nuclear issue and then suddenly PJAK gets put on this terrorist-financing list. We know there are some political parties [in Iran] that get some support from the U.S. but we are a totally different kind of party. We have our own will and objectives.

    JT: Out here in Qandil, I do not see any visible economy with which your organization can sustain itself. How is PJAK funded? Do you benefit from the Afghan opium trade? Do you receive donations from sponsors?

    AR: Our economy is based purely on the Kurdish people living in Iran. We collect voluntary donations from the Kurdish people according to how much they are able to give within their relative means. To explain to you the level of support that we receive, the Kurdish people even bring their children to us to join our organization.

    JT: Children of what age?

    AR: Normally eighteen. You must understand that Kurdish society is very different than the West. Because there are so many operations to suppress us, Kurdish society has turned inward. This stress from the outside strengthens our communities. We have some recruits that are under eighteen, maybe sixteen, but they are not participating in our military operations. Where we are from in Iran, there is a very large youth population and our party sees a lot of potential in them as we consider ourselves a young party. The Islamic Republic of Iran has three elements it uses in the destruction of our youth. Firstly it encourages and facilitates drug use among them. Secondly, it employs the Basij [militia] system and tries to brainwash our young people to be against the U.S. and Europe, saying, “We [Iran] stand for Islam and therefore the U.S. and E.U. are our enemy.” Thirdly, the regime systematically imprisons and tortures them in order to annihilate us and discourage them from joining PJAK or supporting the Kurdish freedom movement.

    JT: Can you be more specific about how the guerrilla movement is financed?

    AR: For example, certain Kurdish people that have relations with PJAK come and visit us. They pledge to sponsor maybe fifty or one hundred guerrillas from top to bottom for an entire year. They buy everything for them and it is their way of supporting their own freedom struggle. All of this is done through voluntary sponsorship.

    About the drug question you brought up, Iran has very special policies in regard to this matter. They encourage Kurdish youth in Iranian Kurdistan to use drugs and the percentage of addiction among our youth has been increasing. The Iranian state wants our young people to remain outside the political framework of the country. Let me give you an example of how this policy affects our people. Recently, a mother came here from Iran asking us to help her deal with her son who was badly addicted to drugs and she felt powerless to do anything about it. She said she could not turn to the Iranian state for help and came to us because she felt that by joining PJAK, [her son] could shake his addiction. We told her “bring your son to us. We can help him.”

    JT: PJAK does not profit from the transit of Afghan narcotics through its territory?

    AR: There have been clashes with police in Iran with Sunni groups who are fighting the Islamic regime in Baluchistan and Khorosan. Sometimes these police die. From time to time, we also have clashes between our armed wing and regime elements. When some pasdaran [Revolutionary Guards] die, the regime says it is because of bandits involved in the drugs trade. They describe clashes with PJAK as banditry and try to link us to the drugs. Iranian authorities do not like to mention the name PJAK after some pasdarans die, just referring to us as bandits. These Iranians are not dying because of the drugs trade. They are being killed because they are oppressing Sunnis and Sunnis in these provinces are fighting the regime. If you come back to me on another visit, I can provide you with names of those in the regime that are involved in the drugs trade.

    When the Iranian regime prepares its annual budget, it does not have enough money to sustain itself and so it supplements governmental coffers with money from the transshipment of Afghan narcotics. The drugs are shipped across Iranian territory under the supervision of Ettela’at (Iranian Intelligence: Vezarat-e Ettela’at Jomhuri-e Eslami – VEVAK) to Orumieh (provincial capital of West Azarbaijan Province). From Orumieh they are sent to Hakkari Province in Turkey where they are shipped under the supervision of the MIT (Milli Istihbarat Teskilati – Turkish intelligence) and from Turkey these drugs reach Europe. Both Iran and Turkey may employ some Kurds as part of their trafficking apparatus but the trafficking is state organized by both countries’ intelligence services.

    Can you imagine this high volume of drugs coming into Turkey from Iran without the Turks’ knowledge? It would be impossible. Turkey has many checkpoints. How could they not know about all of these drugs passing through their territory?

    JT: Is PJAK a 100% independent organization that exists without the support of international actors?

    AR: Yes that is completely right. I will stress that we have not so far [received] any international aid or weapons from anyone. We are an independent organization.

    JT: There has been a lot of speculation [surrounding] your leader Abdul Rahman Haji Ahmadi’s visit to Washington in the summer 0f 2007. Can you comment on it?

    AR: As you can see Haji Ahmadi is not here for comment. Whatever I say is on the record as a PJAK official. As the president of PJAK, he is available to have dialogue with anyone. He can visit different countries and meet with different people. Yes, he did visit Washington, as it was within his power to do so.  He has the power to do such things. But I want to reiterate that until now we have not received support from any outside powers…

    JT: What is PJAK’s attitude toward the Turkish-Iranian military alliance?

    AR: Iran and Turkey have an alliance against us and [have worked] on joint military operations together for the past few years. Despite their differences, they are unified on the Kurdish issue. The alliance between Iran and Turkey is not purely a military one though, it is also now political…

    Turkey is taking intelligence that it is receiving from the U.S. in regard to PKK positions here in Iraq and passing it on to Iran so they can attack PJAK. So Iran is now acquiring U.S. intelligence meant for Ankara in this Turkish-Iranian bilateral military strategy against the Kurds. Through this cooperation, we are attacked here in Iraq by Turkish warplanes while Iran fires Katyushas from the other side of these mountain ridges. We believe there are even Turks training members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps to fight Kurds inside Iran.

    Additionally, I want to let you know that besides Iran’s increased alliance with Turkey, it is also greatly expanding its bases along the Iran-Iraq border. It says it is doing this to defend the Islamic Republic against a possible invasion by the United States. But what this effort is really meant to do in our view is to separate the Kurds and stop the flow of our movement across the border. From our observations, some of these expanded military bases look to be modeled on Israeli bases.

    JT: What can you tell of your organization’s military strategy against Iranian forces?

    AR: Iran and Turkey insist that the PKK and the PJAK are the same and this works very well for their own propaganda efforts. We are being shelled here. If you look beyond you, you can see the entire mountainside is burned from Katuysha fire.  Our strategy is one of pure self-defense. We do not make offensive operations against the Revolutionary Guards. We defend Iranian Kurds and ourselves. We have a right to retaliate against the Iranian state as part of our self-defense policy. If Iran attacks our people, we will respond. Iran uses the death penalty and likes to hang people. If they will hang more of our friends, we have plans to retaliate directly… Our main work is political but we have to have an armed wing because Iran is not a truly democratic state and it does not allow people to organize themselves politically.

    JT: What can you tell our readers about PJAK’s philosophy and ideological outlook?

    AR: Our aim is a free Kurdistan and a democratic Iran.

    JT: Are you speaking of creating an independent Kurdish state?

    AR: What we are talking about now is not the changing of borders or the replacing of flags but creating an all-inclusive Iran.

    JT: Does PJAK seek to overthrow the religious government of Iran?

    AR: We do not oppose religion and we are in no way against the Islamic religion, nor do we have any animosity toward any other ethnic groups living in Iran today. Our goals are not limited to the freedom of Kurds. We wish for all the ethnic groups living in Iran to have their democratic rights.

    JT: Do you seek a structure of parallel government for Kurds in Iran comparable to the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq that has its own parliament and issues its own visas?

    AR: Not at all. We would prefer to have much more participation in a democratized central government. To achieve this, we are trying to permeate Iranian Kurdistan with democratic values so that our people can improve themselves and organize themselves politically. We never want to impose cultural hegemony on others and would like to see Baluchis and Azeris organize themselves similarly as well.  

    JT: Do you believe that Iran is a Shia chauvinist regime that uses Khomenism and evangelical Mahdism similar to the way Turkey uses the notion of Turkism at the expense of its minorities?

    AR: Yes, that’s right. Iran gives Kurds a degree of recognition but with other groups like Azeris, they practice a forced assimilation policy. Iran also practices a divide and rule policy to pit different groups against one another. There is discrimination against Sunnis as well…

    JT: Does PJAK have a relationship with the Jundullah insurgency in Sistan-Baluchistan Province?

    AR: For us, yes, we have some relations with Baluchi people. However, we do not have a specific relationship with Jundullah. Baluchis have a special meaning for us because of their oppression by the Islamic Republic. Iran’s policy has been to make the Baluchis depend on the income from the transit of Afghan narcotics as well as depend on the Iranian state.

    JT: Do you have any connections with Ahwazi Arabs in Khuzestan Province? There has been some unexplained political violence there.

    AR: We do not have guerrillas there but we do have some indirect political relations.

    JT: In closing, can you tell our readers what core principles drive PJAK’s internal dynamics?
     
    AR: Our movement operates under three core principles: democracy, women’s rights, and ecology. We believe these three principles must be integrated into our everyday activities. Did you know that every year, it is required that every member of PJAK must plant two trees? PJAK strongly believes that understanding ecology improves people’s lives in the region where we are active. We have programs to help surrounding villages to acquire fresh water and PJAK also believes in helping to educate the people in our surroundings.

    https://jamestown.org/program/between-the-hammer-and-the-anvil-an-exclusive-interview-with-pjaks-agiri-rojhilat/

  • ‘Iran is our friend,’ says Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan

    ‘Iran is our friend,’ says Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan

    • We have no difficulty with Ahmadinejad – Erdogan
    • Warning to Europe not to ignore Turkey’s strengths

    A13With its stunning vistas and former Ottoman palaces, the banks of the Bosphorus – the strategic waterway that cuts Istanbul in half and divides Europe from Asia – may be the perfect place to distinguish friend from foe and establish where your country’s interests lie.

    And sitting in his grandiose headquarters beside the strait, long the symbol of Turkey‘s supposed role as bridge between east and west, Recep Tayyip Erdogan had little doubt about who was a friend and who wasn’t.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran‘s radical president whose fiery rhetoric has made him a bête noire of the west? “There is no doubt he is our friend,” said Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister for the last six years. “As a friend so far we have very good relations and have had no difficulty at all.”

    What about Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, who has led European opposition to Turkey’s bid to join the EU and, coincidentally, adopted a belligerent tone towards Iran’s nuclear programme? Not a friend?

    “Among leaders in Europe there are those who have prejudices against Turkey, like France and Germany. Previously under Mr Chirac, we had excellent relations [with France] and he was very positive towards Turkey. But during the time of Mr Sarkozy, this is not the case. It is an unfair attitude. The European Union is violating its own rules.

    “Being in the European Union we would be building bridges between the 1.5bn people of Muslim world to the non-Muslim world. They have to see this. If they ignore it, it brings weakness to the EU.”

    Friendly towards a religious theocratic Iran, covetous and increasingly resentful of a secular but maddeningly dismissive Europe: it seems the perfect summary of Turkey’s east-west dichotomy.

    Erdogan’s partiality towards Ahmadinejad may surprise some in the west who see Turkey as a western-oriented democracy firmly grounded inside Nato. It has been a member of the alliance since 1952. It will be less surprising to Erdogan’s secular domestic critics, who believe the prime minister’s heart lies in the east and have long suspected his Islamist-rooted Justice and Development party (AKP) government of plotting to transform Turkey into a religious state resembling Iran.

    Erdogan vigorously denies the latter charge, but to his critics he and Ahmadinejad are birds of a feather: devout religious conservatives from humble backgrounds who court popular support by talking the language of the street. After Ahmadinejad’s disputed presidential election in June, Erdogan and his ally, the Turkish president, Abdullah Gul, were among the first foreign leaders to make congratulatory phone calls, ignoring the mass demonstrations and concerns of western leaders over the result’s legitimacy.

    Talking to the Guardian, Erdogan called the move a “necessity of bilateral relations”. “Mr Ahmadinejad was declared to be the winner, not officially, but with a large vote difference, and since he is someone we have met before, we called to congratulate him,” he said.

    “Later it was officially declared that he was elected, he got a vote of confidence and we pay special attention to something like this. It is a basic principle of our foreign policy.”

    The gesture will be remembered when Erdogan arrives in Tehran this week for talks with Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, that will focus on commercial ties, including Turkey’s need for Iranian natural gas. Ahmadinejad has voiced his admiration for Erdogan, praising Turkey’s recent decision to ban Israel from a planned Nato manoeuvre in protest at last winter’s bombardment of Gaza.

    Since the election, Iran has witnessed a fierce crackdown on opposition figures that has resulted in activists, students and journalists being imprisoned and publicly tried. Detainees have died in prison, and there have been allegations of torture and rape. Some of those alleging mistreatment have sought refuge in Turkey.

    But Erdogan said he would not raise the post-election crackdown with his hosts, saying it would represent “interference” in Iranian domestic affairs.

    He poured cold water on western accusations that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, saying: “Iran does not accept it is building a weapon. They are working on nuclear power for the purposes of energy only.”

    Erdogan has overseen a dramatic improvement in the previously frigid relations between Turkey and Iran, which was viewed with suspicion by the pro-secularist high command of the powerful Turkish military. Trade between the two countries last year was worth an estimated £5.5bn as Iran has developed into a major market for Turkish exports.

    Erdogan’s views will interest US foreign policy makers, who have long seen his AKP government as a model of a pro-western “moderate Islam” that could be adopted in other Muslim countries. They will also find an audience with President Barack Obama, who signalled Turkey’s strategic importance in a visit last April and has invited the prime minister to visit Washington. They are unlikely to impress Israel, which has warned that Erdogan’s criticisms risk harming Turkey’s relations with the US.

    Erdogan dismissed the notion, saying: “I don’t think there is any possibility of that. America’s policy in this region is not dictated by Israel.”

    He insisted that the Turkey-Israel strategic alliance – which some AKP insiders have said privately is over – remains alive but chided the Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who he said had threatened to use nuclear weapons against Gaza.

    The Guardian

  • Israel ‘met Iran’ at atomic talks

    Israel ‘met Iran’ at atomic talks

    Israel is believed to be nuclear armed, though it does not confirm it
    Israel is believed to be nuclear armed, though it does not confirm it

    Senior Israeli and Iranian officials have met face-to-face and discussed the threat of nuclear arms, Israel says.

    Israeli officials told the BBC each side attended panel sessions of a disarmament and non-proliferation conference in Cairo in September.

    Iran had denied the Israeli accounts, but if confirmed it would be the first official exchange between the bitter foes since Iran’s 1979 revolution.

    Israel is believed to have nuclear arms and accuses Iran of seeking them too.

    Representing Israel at the closed-door event at the Four Seasons hotel in the Egyptian capital was the head of arms control at the Israeli Atomic Agency, Meirav Zafary-Odiz, Israeli media reported.

    Iran’s ambassador to the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, was also reportedly at the conference.

    Reacting to the reports, Iran’s atomic energy organisation spokesmen denied any meetings had taken place with Israeli officials.

    “This lie is a kind of psychological operation designed to affect the constant success of Iran’s dynamic diplomacy in the Geneva and Vienna meetings,” said Ali Shirzadian in quotes broadcast on Iranian state TV.

    A senior Israeli government official, meanwhile, described it as “preposterous” that the Cairo panel sessions implied any kind of diplomatic contact between Iran and Israel.

    “For years Iran and Israel have participated at the same time in multilateral forums like this,” he said, giving the examples of UN agencies, and the IAEA.

    Contacts avoided

    Iran does not recognise Israel and the two sides are frequently involved in exchanging hostile threats and denunciations.

    At international conferences and sporting events, representatives of the Islamic Republic invariably avoid any contact with their Israeli counterparts.

    Israel’s Haaretz newspaper says three panel sessions of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament conference involved exchanges between the Iranian and Israeli delegates.

    The sessions dealt with efforts to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone, non-proliferation in the region and developing peaceful nuclear energy.

    In one of the discussions, Haaretz quotes Mr Soltanieh directly asking Ms Zafary-Odiz: “Do you or do you not have nuclear weapons?”

    Ms Zafary-Odiz reportedly smiled, but did not respond.

    The newspaper says the two representatives did not meet separately outside the session or shake hands.

    Israel is widely believed to have a stockpile of atomic warheads with delivery systems, but it refuses to confirm or deny their existence and has not signed the international Nuclear Non-Profileration Treaty.

    The US leads accusations that Iran is engaged in a covert attempt to develop nuclear weapons, although Iran says its nuclear activities are purely for peaceful ends.

    Source:  news.bbc.co.uk, 22 October 2009

  • Turkey Exposed:

    Turkey Exposed:

    Cannot Pretend to be

    Both Pro-Israeli and Pro-Palestinian

    SASSUN-2

    Publisher, The California Courier

    Playing the skillful political games of their Ottoman predecessors, Turkey’s current masters present their country under various guises — as European and Middle Eastern, Islamic and secular, pro-Arab and pro-Israeli.

    It now appears that the end is near for at least one of these Turkish charades. Israeli officials have finally awakened from their prolonged coma to discover that their erstwhile “strategic partner” is far more hostile than their Arab enemies.

    For a long time, Turkish leaders have been calling the Israelis all sorts of unsavory names and accusing Israel of committing barbaric acts, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Strangely, Israel has shown little indignation, even in the face of persistent racist and anti-Semitic outbursts by large segments of the Turkish public.

    The latest display of Turkish hostility was the exclusion of Israel from a multinational military exercise which was to start in Turkey on October 12. In protest, the United States, Italy and Holland pulled out of these maneuvers, causing their cancellation. In a move designed to further irritate the Israelis, Turkey announced that it would instead hold joint military exercises with Syria, Israel’s main adversary.

    Turkey’s Prime Minster Rejeb Erdogan told the Anatolia Press Agency last week that he had banned Israel from the military drill in response to the wishes of the Turkish public. “Turkey does not take orders from anyone in regards to its internal affairs,” Erdogan boasted. Some Turkish officials indicated that the ban was instituted because the Israeli jets assigned to the exercise had participated in the Gaza bombings earlier this year.

    This episode marks a major escalation of the long-standing Turkish bitterness towards Israel. For the first time, the Turkish military joined the civilian government in adopting an anti-Israeli position. Furthermore, Turkey went beyond mere verbal condemnation to taking concrete action. For years, the Israeli government was willing to swallow insults from Turkish officials, as long as its Air Force was permitted to make practice runs in the vast Turkish airspace, shared intelligence, and sold military hardware to Turkey.

    Making matters worse, Israelis were deeply offended by the broadcast of a Turkish show on state TV last week, depicting graphic scenes of Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian children and committing other atrocities.

    Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman reacted by summoning the Turkish ambassador and accused Turkey of inciting hatred against Israelis. Lieberman stated that not even Israel’s enemies would air such a hostile TV series. Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom urged Turkey “to come to its senses.” Another Israeli official stated: “We need to stop accepting the Turkish dictates and humiliations. It is inconceivable that they should insult us at every opportunity, and we should continue to hold our tongues.”

    Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically rejected any future mediating role for Turkey in talks with Syria. An unnamed “senior Israeli official” was quoted by Haaretz as stating that the strategic ties with Turkey may “have simply ended.” Meanwhile, the Jerusalem Post quoted some Israeli defense officials as stating that “advanced weapons sales to Turkey would now be reviewed.”

    There were also widespread calls last week for the Israeli public to boycott Turkish resorts. National Public Radio (NPR) reported that Israel’s largest labor union would no longer plan for thousands of its workers organized tours of Turkey, and would direct them to go instead to Greece and Bulgaria. Since January, there has been a 47% drop in the number of Israelis spending their vacations in Turkey, according to Time magazine. An Israeli coffee shop chain expressed its displeasure by announcing that it would no longer serve Turkish coffee to its customers. In an unprecedented move, several Israeli cabinet ministers declared that they would turn down the Turkish Embassy’s invitation to attend Turkey’s Independence Day celebrations later this month.

    Many outraged Israelis advocated that, in retaliation, Israel acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Dan Margalit of “Israel Hayom” newspaper accused the Turks of not only committing Genocide, but also the “ongoing crime, which is expressed in energetic Turkish activity to deny the atrocity and to incite against any country and government and artist who wish to express their horror.”

    Ephraim Inbar, head of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, reminded the Turks that they are still in need of “Israeli influence in Washington to prevent the passage in Congress of a resolution declaring the killing of Armenians during World War I a genocide.”

    In an unprecedented action, the “Im Tirtzu” Israeli student movement held a protest last week in front of the Turkish Embassy in Tel Aviv. The students displayed bloody pictures of victims of the Armenian Genocide, handed out books on the Genocide to passersby, and carried signs calling on Turkey to formally recognize the Genocide.

    To atone for its past sin of siding with Turkish denialists, Israel must officially affirm the Armenian Genocide as well as actively lobby for its recognition by other states. Israel should also permit the erection of a monument at a prominent location to commemorate the victims of the Armenian Genocide and reverse its long-standing ban on TV broadcast of documentaries on this subject. It is certainly in Israel’s own interest to side with the victims of genocide rather than with its perpetrators!

    Instead of maintaining at all cost its unholy alliance with Turkey, Israel should earnestly pursue a peace settlement with the Palestinians and live in peace with its Arab neighbors, thus obviating the need to curry favors with the Turkish denialist regime.

    ==================== SUBJECT RELATED E-MAIL’S RECEIVED=

    From: Ismet Takim [ismettakim@yahoo.com]

    Subject: {Pax Turcica} Our problems are just begining, l worned you all before, we play this game we will loose and guess who is happy???

    READ

    Turkey Exposed:

    and any of you still have any questions about this? some of our readers here is also responsiable for this and you have no idea what we will face, you just sit and watch, pro Palestenian Turkey is comitting suicide,

    Erdogan made the biggest mistake, and some of you who posts pro

    Filistin BS, tags and articles here should be ashame of themselves

    they have done a disservice and put our mainly my efforts back in

    time, and we have to fix this now, l have to go to work again and undo some of this,

    stupid stupid stupid bird brains bleeding hearts, stop your Anti Israel stands and get real, stop hurting Turkey,

    ======================================================

    From: Metin Mangir [mangir.metin@gmail.com]
    Subject: {Pax Turcica} Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?


    While we are all focussed on the Armenian issue (because of our

    proxomity to the diaspora) Obama invited (!) Erdogan to come to WDC on

    Oct 29 (with two weeks notice), following the cancellation of the joint

    military exercises with Israel, US, and the increasing row with Israel

    upon showing of a TV program on TRT.  (now that Turkey has good

    relations with Syria,  does it not need Israel to squeeze Syria?? which

    was what started the close military collaboration with Israel.)

    The choice of date and such short notice is VERY significant (and

    insulting)!  The big brother is calling the errant boy on the carpet?

    By the way, in general the news about the Armenian protocols are

    positive in Turkey (amazing!).  Very few voices are opposing it.  Also

    it has lost its luster as the “milli birlik acilimi” and the return of

    34 people from Irak upon Ocalan’s orders has taken the center stage.

    If the borders open the real big winner will be Russia, more than

    Armenia.  Since (rightly) Azerbeycan will be pissed off at Turkey and

    the West, and get closer to Russia (if it can dare to play with such

    danger) and the West, US will loose the Caucases.

    What I do not understand is

    1)  how come US is willing to let this happen?  What has Russia forced

    upon US following Georgia?

    2) Davutoglu, who has written in three different places in his book

    about the  crucial importance of Azerbeycan for Turkey, is going along

    with this protocols steps?

    Metin

    ==========================================

    From: Ergun [ergun@cox.net]
    Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

    Metin,

    I suspect one major thing behind Obama’s sudden invitation:  Afghanistan.

    He may ask for more troops from Turkey.  Secondarily, Iraq.  O. may discuss

    strategy with E. on the mechanics of US pull out, the vacuum in Iraq, etc.

    All have to do with US involvement in unpopular, unwanted wars that are

    draining the US economy and social life.

    Israel, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and others are little more than dressing for

    the salad.

    This is one man’s opinion.  🙂

    Ergun  KIRLIKOVALI

    ===================================================

    Statement released by National Security Council that met today is below. Afghanistan issue has been discussed. Turkey will resume Kabul Area Commandership for the second time.

    Afganistan‘da son dönemde meydana gelen gelişmeler, Cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimleri dahil, değerlendirilmiş, ülkemizin Afganistan‘ın istikrarına yönelik katkı ve girişimlerinin sürdürüleceği belirtilmiştir. Bu kapsamda; Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin Kabil Bölge Komutanlığı görevini Kasım 2009 başında ikinci defa alacağı, yine önceki görevlerde olduğu gibi, Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin terörle mücadele, uyuşturucu ile mücadele, mayın temizleme görevlerinde kullanılmayacağı teyit edilmiştir.

    Fariz Huseynov [huseynovfa@gmail.com]

    =======================================================================

    On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, <vaslay@aol.com> wrote:

    dear Ergun

    you are not alone for this opinion

    is isn’t funny while we are disgracing our man and women in uniform ( TSK)
    Obama needs our soldiers not government

    if you didn’t have one of the best army in the middle east

    O. wouldn’t care less for you

    regardas,

    vedat aslay

    ——————-

    Dear Metin

    Excellent observation and analysis

    I wonder what is going behind the close doors?

    Yes Russia it seems that  the big winner?

    how come for the US. Are we underestimating her.

    The is a big game going on over the middle east and Central Asia.

    The player are strong and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, TURKEY  and even Israel is foot soldiers in this game

    Obama will make sure that Erdogan is not out of step. If he is you know in military

    SOL, SAG, SOL SAG, SOL, SOL P……. SOL
    Don’t worry this game is a long game and  we are just watching part I

    Vedat Aslay vaslay@aol.com

    ========================================================

    From: Yusif [yusif@azeris.com]
    Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

    That’s correct. Russia will be a winner big time.

    First, they will close the discussion on Nabucco both restricting

    other countries’ willingness to diversify their exports and preventing

    anything that could possibly harm Russia economically and

    politically.

    Second, they will realize the South Stream project, always viewed as

    an alternative to Nabucco and through that project will still control

    southern Europe and Turkey itself.

    Third, under the pretext of protection of South Stream, Russia will

    completely militarize Black Sea with additional Russian fleet and will

    henceforth prevent another proposed rival energy project White Stream

    to go from Georgia to EU through Ukraine from realization.

    Fourth, Russia will get deeper into Turkish economy through Armenia

    and through Armenian element will be able to exert pressure on Turkey

    and possibly other Middle Eastern states in the future. It benefits

    Russia to see islamization of Turkey. The practice of moderate Islam

    in the form of Gulenist ideology actually may suit Russia’s interests.

    In regards to US interests in the deal there are several factors.

    First of all, US was hoping for Russia’s support on the issues of

    nuclear threat from Iran. In general, apart from everything else, it

    is not in Russia’s interest to see containment and any sort of

    democratization of Iran. There is 25 mln Azeri minority in Iran which

    if needed could be a decisive factor in the future partition of Iran

    or a tool to bring down the current mullah regime. That’s one of the

    reasons Stalin was willing to and finally withdrew from Iran in 1946

    because he did not want a more sizeable Azeri minority within Soviet

    borders.

    Secondly, in my opinion, it’s not the US that is exerting pressure on

    Turkey. I think it’s Turkey which is using its inadequate behavior

    with Israel to pressure the United States. If we go back to 2003 we

    would see that Turkey was bold enough to withstand pressure from US

    during proposed invasion of Iraq from Turkey. To me personally, it

    doesn’t make sense to see America give up Azerbaijan and Georgia and

    the existing energy projects therefore losing both economically and

    politically.

    As far as Turkey’s position about Azerbaijan is concerned, I think

    they might have striken a deal on withdrawal of Armenian troops from 5

    occupied regions and agreed with Russia and US on joint peacekeeping

    mission. In any case, allowing any peacekeeping missions in Karabakh

    would be disastrous for Azerbaijan. If Russia’s troops are allowed to

    be stationed on Azerbaijani soil in any form, this would be the end of

    Azerbaijani independence and goodbye to Karabakh. Experience with

    Georgia is a good example.

    Presence of US troops would mean almost the same. Experience with

    Kosovo is a good example. That’s why Kaidanow is all around (http://

    www.a1plus.am/en/official/2009/10/20/nalbandian-tina-kaidanow)

    Presence of Turkish troops, if any, would mean nothing at all,

    especially if the protocols are ratified and diplomatic relations

    established and ‘good will of friendly’ Turkish government is

    recognized in Armenia and separatist regime in Karabakh.

    Any peacekeeping mission whatsoever would mean protraction of this

    conflict and interim status of NK last forever, therefore ending in

    partitioning of Azerbaijan forever.

    I guess, the original plan of these regional players is:

    1. to strike a deal, have Armenian troops withdrawn from 5 regions;

    2. bring in the peacekeeping force into those regions;

    3. ensure return of Azerbaijani refugees to those regions;

    4. re-arrange routes of energy resources from Azerbaijan and Central

    Asia through Armenia and/or through occupied Karabakh, as many allege;

    5. build confidence between people of the region

    6. hold a referendum in NK. Holding a referendum in Karabakh would

    mean complete loss.

    Opening any borders means directly benefitting Armenia economically

    which will stimulate economy and therefore human reproduction of

    Armenians in Karabakh. That’s when the numbers will matter.

    Yusif

    ================================================

    Turkey’s The policy of “zero problems” creating “new problems”
    https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2009/10/20/turkeys-the-policy-of-zero-problems-creating-new-problems/

    From: Ergun [ergun@cox.net]

    The policy of “zero problems” with neighbors seems to be creating “new problems” with neighbors

    Case one:  Azerbaijan.

    The U.S.-Russia-mandated protocols with murky gains but sure losses for Turkey are already costing Turkey dearly.  Check out these recent developments:

    1- Azerbaijan Looks For Gas Routes To Europe Bypassing Turkey

    2- Azerbaijan warns Turkey, West on gas exports

    3- Azeri leader slams Turkey as gas route to Europe

    https://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLG44450320091016

    4-  Azerbaijan stops flying the Turkish flags over the Turkish martyrs’ cemetary in Baku.

    When the U.S. and Russia (an EU) forced these protocols on Turkey, they probably expected the estrangement of Azerbaijan.  If the oil and gas lines from Azerbaijan to Turkey run dry, the biggest beneficary would be, you guessed it, Russia.  Risk all you got for something in return that may or may not pan out.  We are sold this deal as “dialog, normalization, peace, and democracy” package.  Sometimes I wish an engineer was the leader in Turkey so that he would know simple math, as in addition and subtraction.

    April 24 is not far away.  We will all see if the protocols bring “normalization and peace” or ” more chaos, polarization, and stalemate”, with the net result of poorer Turkey due to weakened/lost energy lines.  (Prediction:  the latter.  Why?  Because the deal incredibly left Azerbaijan out.  Huge mistake!)

    Case two: Israel

    This one has to do with Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, although the tensions came to a head over other things like a cancelled joint military exercises and an aired TV-show:

    TV Show Deepens Split Between Israel and Turkey

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125573461255590957

    Turkey points to Israel to deflect from itself

    Netanyahu declares in Madrid that due to recent developments, Turkey is no longer an impartial mediator for peace talks between Syria ad Israel.

    My take on all this:

    I am not against dialog or peace.  I am against poor business deals, especially if they are conducted under pressure of partisans with vested interests clashing with yours.

    The foreign policy of Turkey should be updated from “zero problems with neighbors” to “zero old and new problems with neighbors”.

    Ergun KIRLIKOVALI


  • Iran’s nuclear threat is a lie

    Iran’s nuclear threat is a lie

    John Pilger

    01 October 2009

    Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. The media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war

    Statesman

    In 2001, the Observer published a series of reports that claimed an “Iraqi connection” to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths.

    Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media “revelations”, the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. “Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant”, declared the Guardian on 26 September. “Showdown” is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has “put paid to the Bush years”. An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: “Iran’s secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq”. Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian “plan” to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year – a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction.

    The official jargon for this kind of propaganda is “psy-ops”, the military term for psychological operations. In the Pentagon and Whitehall, it has become a critical component of a diplomatic and military campaign to blockade, isolate and weaken Iran by hyping its “nuclear threat”: a phrase now used incessantly by Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and parroted by the BBC and other broadcasters as objective news. And it is fake.

    The threat is one-way

    On 16 September, Newsweek disclosed that the major US intelligence agencies had reported to the White House that Iran’s “nuclear status” had not changed since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007, which stated with “high confidence” that Iran had halted in 2003 the programme it was alleged to have developed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed this, time and again.

    The current propaganda derives from Obama’s announcement that the US is scrapping missiles stationed on Russia’s border. This serves to cover the fact that the number of US missile sites is actually expanding in Europe and the “redundant” missiles are being redeployed on ships. The game is to mollify Russia into joining, or not obstructing, the US campaign against Iran. “President Bush was right,” said Obama, “that Iran’s ballistic missile programme poses a significant threat [to Europe and the US].” That Iran would contemplate a suicidal attack on the US is preposterous. The threat, as ever, is one-way, with the world’s superpower virtually ensconced on Iran’s borders.

    Iran’s crime is its independence. Having thrown out America’s favourite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a “right to exist” in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the Middle East on Washington’s behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbour. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear “deterrence”, it is Iran.

    As one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been a consistent advocate of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In contrast, Israel has never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant at Dimona remains an open secret. Armed with as many as 200 active nuclear warheads, Israel “deplores” UN resolutions calling on it to sign the NPT, just as it deplored the recent UN report charging it with crimes against humanity in Gaza, just as it maintains a world record for violations of international law. It gets away with this because great power grants it immunity.

    Preparing for endless war

    Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic the media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war. The US/Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal says 500,000 troops will be required in Afghanistan over five years, according to America’s NBC. The goal is control of the “strategic prize” of the gas and oilfields of the Caspian Sea, central Asia, the Gulf and Iran – in other words, Eurasia. But the war is opposed by 69 per cent of the British public, 57 per cent of the US public and almost every other human being. Convincing “us” that Iran is the new demon will not be easy. McChrystal’s spurious claim that Iran “is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups” is as desperate as Brown’s pathetic echo of “a line in the sand”.

    During the Bush years, according to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a military coup took place in the US, and the Pentagon is now ascendant in every area of American foreign policy. A measure of its control is the number of wars of aggression being waged simultaneously and the adoption of a “first-strike” doctrine that has lowered the threshold on nuclear weapons, together with the blurring of the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.

    All this mocks Obama’s media rhetoric about “a world without nuclear weapons”. In fact, he is the Pentagon’s most important acquisition. His acquiescence with its demand that he keep on Bush’s secretary of “defence” and arch war-maker, Robert Gates, is unique in US history. He has proved his worth with stepped-up wars from south Asia to the Horn of Africa. Like Bush’s America, Obama’s America is run by some very dangerous people. We have a right to be warned. When will those paid to keep the record straight do their job?

    New Statesman